Bill C-63

An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts

Part 1 of this enactment enacts the Online Harms Act , whose purpose is to, among other things, promote the online safety of persons in Canada, reduce harms caused to persons in Canada as a result of harmful content online and ensure that the operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies are transparent and accountable with respect to their duties under that Act.
That Act, among other things,
(a) establishes the Digital Safety Commission of Canada, whose mandate is to administer and enforce that Act, ensure that operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies are transparent and accountable with respect to their duties under that Act and contribute to the development of standards with respect to online safety;
(b) creates the position of Digital Safety Ombudsperson of Canada, whose mandate is to provide support to users of social media services in respect of which that Act applies and advocate for the public interest in relation to online safety;
(c) establishes the Digital Safety Office of Canada, whose mandate is to support the Digital Safety Commission of Canada and the Digital Safety Ombudsperson of Canada in the fulfillment of their mandates;
(d) imposes on the operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies
(i) a duty to act responsibly in respect of the services that they operate, including by implementing measures that are adequate to mitigate the risk that users will be exposed to harmful content on the services and submitting digital safety plans to the Digital Safety Commission of Canada,
(ii) a duty to protect children in respect of the services that they operate by integrating into the services design features that are provided for by regulations,
(iii) a duty to make content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and intimate content communicated without consent inaccessible to persons in Canada in certain circumstances, and
(iv) a duty to keep all records that are necessary to determine whether they are complying with their duties under that Act;
(e) authorizes the Digital Safety Commission of Canada to accredit certain persons that conduct research or engage in education, advocacy or awareness activities that are related to that Act for the purposes of enabling those persons to have access to inventories of electronic data and to electronic data of the operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies;
(f) provides that persons in Canada may make a complaint to the Digital Safety Commission of Canada that content on a social media service in respect of which that Act applies is content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor or intimate content communicated without consent and authorizes the Commission to make orders requiring the operators of those services to make that content inaccessible to persons in Canada;
(g) authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the payment of charges by the operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies, for the purpose of recovering costs incurred in relation to that Act.
Part 1 also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 2 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create a hate crime offence of committing an offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors;
(b) create a recognizance to keep the peace relating to hate propaganda and hate crime offences;
(c) define “hatred” for the purposes of the new offence and the hate propaganda offences; and
(d) increase the maximum sentences for the hate propaganda offences.
It also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Part 3 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to provide that it is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. It authorizes the Canadian Human Rights Commission to deal with complaints alleging that discriminatory practice and authorizes the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to inquire into such complaints and order remedies.
Part 4 amends An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service to, among other things,
(a) clarify the types of Internet services covered by that Act;
(b) simplify the mandatory notification process set out in section 3 by providing that all notifications be sent to a law enforcement body designated in the regulations;
(c) require that transmission data be provided with the mandatory notice in cases where the content is manifestly child pornography;
(d) extend the period of preservation of data related to an offence;
(e) extend the limitation period for the prosecution of an offence under that Act; and
(f) add certain regulation-making powers.
Part 5 contains a coordinating amendment.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Understood.

I'm happy that you have some familiarity with Bill C-412. In your opinion, could Bill C-412 and Bill C-63 be studied at the same time?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Well, thank you so much.

Ms. McNicoll, I have a question for you. This is a study of Bill C-63, and I know, from your testimony and from what I read about what your organization has said, that you're very well versed on the topic. Before I ask you a question on it, I want your opinion of Bill C-412, which I just mentioned in this motion. It's a private member's bill by a Conservative member of Parliament, our colleague Michelle Rempel Garner, that deals with some of the same issues and subject matter as Bill C-63.

I'll just give a very high-level overview of it. Bill C-412 will modernize the existing crime of sexual harassment to deal with online harassment. It will require social media platforms to increase safeguards for children around bullying, sexual violence, self-harm, and sexual abuse material—as witness Jane mentioned—and it will update Canada's existing laws around distribution of non-consensual, artificially produced images—deepfakes, in other words. Bill C-63 does not address any of those topics, so there's a big gap there that we think C-412 will fill. Here's my question: Would you agree that these are important subject matters that should be discussed on a priority basis, an opportunity that is presented by Bill C-412?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to all the witnesses.

Jane, thank you for your very courageous statement.

Before I get into questions for the witnesses, I would like to read a motion into the record, a notice of motion, which reads:

Given that: a need exists to quickly pass provisions to keep Canadians safe while protecting free speech; members of several political parties have expressed a need to split Bill C-63 in part due to reservations about the bill's provisions involving restrictions on speech; the committee is currently doing a pre-study on Bill C-63; Bill C-63 proposes giving full responsibility to develop regulations for online platforms to a regulator that hasn't been formed yet, and does so with too much ambiguity on what regulations this body will propose or administer; based on witness testimony, a better approach to keep Canadians safe online while protecting their civil liberties would be to legislate a defined list of responsibilities that online platforms have to undertake to keep Canadians safe; That the committee proceed to concurrently pre-study Bill C-412, promotion of safety in the digital age act, along with its pre-study of Bill C-63, so as to examine other legislative options to protect Canadians online, which could be quickly advanced by consensus without the controversial elements of C-63.

That's the motion, Mr. Chair.

[Catherine Claveau, Bâtonnière du Québec, Barreau du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

My name is Catherine Claveau, and I am the president of the Barreau du Québec. Joining me from the Barreau du Québec are Michel Marchand, member of the criminal law expert group; and Nicolas Le Grand Alary, lawyer, secretariat of the order and legal affairs. Thank you for giving the Quebec bar association the opportunity to comment on Bill C‑63.

Given our experience in criminal law and human rights, our remarks will focus solely on parts 2 and 3 of the bill, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Let's start with part 2, the Criminal Code amendments. With the significant rise in hate crimes, most of which are based on race and ethnic origin, it is paramount that the bill provide the courts with the tools to respond effectively, while ensuring they adhere to the principles of fundamental justice and Canada's constitutional requirements. That is why the Barreau du Québec supports the Quebec justice minister's call for lawmakers to remove the religious exemption in the Criminal Code for hate propaganda.

The Quebec bar association considers it essential to codify a definition of hate. On one hand, this would encourage people to report incidents while helping communities clearly understand what is prohibited. On the other, it would give all actors in the justice system, police, in particular, a clear framework within which to operate.

However, we have concerns about the definition being proposed in the bill for the term “hatred”, which is based on the decision in Whatcott. In the case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the constitutionality of a human rights provision prohibiting hate publications. The Quebec bar association considers the key decision in criminal matters to be the 1990 decision in Keegstra. The Supreme Court relied on the analysis in Keegstra in Mugesera in 2005.

In both decisions, the Supreme Court interpreted hatred in view of the Criminal Code provisions and found that “‘hatred’ connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.” The provision could be subject to a constitutional challenge, and since the burden of proof in criminal law is not the same as it is in civil law and since individuals accused of a crime are guaranteed certain rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we recommend that the bill apply the definition relied on in those decisions.

In addition, the bill makes it a hate crime to commit an offence under the Criminal Code or any other act of Parliament if the commission of the offence is motivated by hatred based on certain factors. Someone guilty of the new offence would be liable to imprisonment for life. The new provision refers to any act of Parliament, so it has a broad scope and is likely to capture a wide array of offences, without differentiating at all between the objective seriousness of each offence.

This new provision is contrary to the fundamental principle set out in section 718.1 of the Criminal Code, proportionality in sentencing. We therefore recommend enhancing the existing provisions in the Criminal Code so as not to create a new system of prosecution for hate crimes, alongside the current system.

Now, let's turn to part 3 of the bill, the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. We welcome the fact that the bill restores section 13 of the act to address the communication of hate speech. The proposed new wording is more specific and better circumscribed, helping to balance the rights and freedoms protected by the charter. The Quebec bar association also agrees with the “hate speech” definition laid out in the bill, given that it respects the teachings of the Supreme Court in Whatcott, a case that centred on human rights.

Lastly, we question the punitive quality being introduced into the Canadian Human Rights Act under the bill. The Supreme Court wrote in Taylor and Blencoe that the purpose of the act is not to punish wrongdoing, but to prevent discrimination, and that the aim of a human rights system must be conciliation, not punishment. Under the bill in its current form, the act is being amended to include a punitive measure, something that would distort the purpose of a human rights system.

We recommend that the penalty instead be paid to the victim. Alternatively, if there is no identified or identifiable victim, we recommend that the penalty be paid to a human rights organization or a group targeted by the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice.

Like subsection 53(3) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the bill could include the possibility of ordering the person responsible for the discriminatory practice to pay special compensation to the victim if the person was engaging or engaged in the discriminatory practice willfully or recklessly. We have provided additional comments in our brief.

We would now be glad to answer the committee's questions.

Thank you.

[Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, Director, Fundamental Freedoms Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association]

Honourable members of the committee, good afternoon.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, or CCLA, appreciates the opportunity to share its view on Bill C‑63.

The CCLA is an independent, national non-governmental organization founded in 1964 with a mandate to defend and foster the civil liberties, human rights and democratic freedoms of all people across Canada. We work to achieve strong protections for freedom of expression, privacy and principles of fundamental justice. That work is central to our mandate.

The CCLA recognizes the importance of legislative measures to protect some of the most vulnerable members of society from especially harmful forms of online speech. In that sense, the CCLA recognizes that some of the duties established under part 1 of the bill for operators of a regulated service are welcome. However, the current iteration of the online harms act also sets out broader duties that need to be clarified and limited appropriately. Otherwise, they will give rise to problems in relation to freedom of expression.

For example, the general duty set out in subsection 55(1) of the proposed act requires operators to implement measures that are adequate to mitigate the risk that users of the service will be exposed to harmful content on the service. The scope of the provision is too vague. In the absence of proper parameters, operators will likely try to fulfill the unspecific duty as efficiently and economically as possible, potentially at the expense of users' freedom of expression. For instance, operators could proactively monitor content, which at this point is not prohibited under the new act, or they could take down content as determined by non-transparent algorithms.

The general duty imposed on operators to implement tools and processes to flag harmful content, as per section 59 of the proposed act, has similar flaws, which would likely jeopardize freedom of expression as well. As it is written, the online harms act would allow operators to remove various types of flagged content, without giving the user who posted the content an opportunity to present their view. In fact, as written, the proposed act would even implicitly allow operators to remove various types of flagged content without first having to determine whether the content was indeed harmful.

The first three recommendations in our written submission to the committee address these concerns. We recommend that operators, in their efforts to fulfill their statutory duties, be prohibited from engaging in mass surveillance and unduly limiting users' freedom of expression. We also recommend that the newly created body in the bill, the digital safety commission of Canada, be required to check annually that operators are fulfilling their duties as they relate to users' rights.

The CCLA applauds the justice minister's recently announced plan to remove parts 2 and 3 from this bill. This addresses a joint request made months ago by the CCLA and a number of civil society groups to ensure that the committee's study of part 1 was not overshadowed by controversial changes to the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act. The CCLA is of the view that Parliament should not pass parts 2 and 3 of the bill.

With respect to the proposed Criminal Code amendments, the new hate-motivated offence would irrationally increase the maximum sentence associated with any offence in Canada to life imprisonment. This excessive judicial discretion paves the way for disproportionate sentencing and an increase in plea bargaining by innocent and vulnerable defendants. It would also hinder free speech in Canada.

The CCLA also objects to the new “fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime” provision. Criminal law should be a means of holding individuals accountable for what they have done, not for what others fear they might do. Allowing a judge to limit the freedom and expression of an individual who is not even suspected or accused of having committed a crime, let alone convicted of one, unreasonably and unjustifiably infringes on several rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lastly, I will turn to part 3 of the bill, the amendments being proposed to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The CCLA is of the view that the proposed amendments are neither an appropriate nor effective way to address the problem of hate speech in our modern society. The amendments would result in an onslaught of complaints to human rights organizations, which are already chronically under-resourced.

Thank you.

I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Larry Brock]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 126 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

At this point in the meeting, I'd like to propose the adoption of the Bill C-63 prestudy budget in the amount of $23,250. I understand that budget was previously distributed to all members.

Can I see a show of hands in support?

(Motion agreed to)

That's unanimous. It's adopted.

Thank you.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on December 2, 2024, the committee is meeting in public to begin its study on the subject matter of Bill C-63, an act to enact the online harms act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and an act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

At this juncture, I'd like to welcome our witnesses for the first hour.

Appearing by video conference, on behalf of the Quebec Bar, we have Catherine Claveau, president; Nicolas Le Grand Alary, secretariat of the order and legal affairs; and Michel Marchand, member, criminal law expert group.

Appearing in person is Madame Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, director, fundamental freedoms program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Witnesses and members, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, please ensure that you have selected the language of your choice for simultaneous interpretation, which is on the bottom left of your screen, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

I remind all members to take the floor only after being recognized by the chair.

Without any further delay, the floor is yours. Each witness has five minutes.

Who would like to start?

Perhaps Madame Bussières McNicoll can start.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

That is totally fair.

What I would say is that if you would review those two, I would love to hear back from you. I think you will find far more effective implementation in Bill C-412 than in Bill C-63.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

It's that simple.

I want to go back to something.

Thank you for bringing up the homelessness issue because I know that in my shelter.... I did want to talk about that.

However, I want to get to this first. I think it can be very valuable in recommendations for this study. We have a Conservative member right now who has Bill C-412. It's in juxtaposition to Bill C-63.

In Bill C-63, the big push-back is that it's a regulator. It's another body—another government bureaucracy—that would then have to enforce what happens with the social media platforms. Bill C-412 removes that regulator and puts the duty of care or the responsibility directly on the social media platforms. It could be implemented immediately.

The big thing that I really value about Bill C-412 is that if there is an anonymous person online spreading hate or threatening somebody, the judge would then have to release that name, based on the algorithms and the social media's responsibility or duty of care.

The specific difference is that Bill C-63 would create a regulator, which to me is another arm's-length organization or another task force. We're going to have a meeting about a meeting, whereas in the Conservative Bill C-412, it is immediate. It gives the duty of care directly to the social media platforms.

Could we have you on record supporting a bill like that today in this committee to ensure that we can have stronger legislation, so that judges have more power to ensure that we know who's hiding behind these screens and hurting people?

Go ahead, Mr. Jensen.

Carbon Pricing

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, a lot of questions have been about what the NDP is doing in terms of supporting parliamentary process. Let me talk about one thing that is very salient for today.

Today is December 6, the anniversary of 35 women being shot down in cold blood at École Polytechnique. What the NDP is doing is supporting a bill on the floor of the chamber that would help tackle the root causes of violence against women. What am I talking about? I am talking about radical misogyny that starts online.

Bill C-63, the online harms act, would help us target misogyny at its core. That is something that every member of Parliament needs to get behind, and we need to do it now because time is wasting on keeping women safe.

Justice

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, we have a plan to combat hate in our country. That includes a national strategy to combat hate, as well as Bill C‑63, which is on the radicalization that happens online. We know that radicalization starts with feelings and ends with acts of violence in the real world. That is what we are targeting with Bill C‑63.

Bill C‑63 targets the very same sections of the Criminal Code that the Bloc Québécois bill seeks to address. We are perfectly happy to co-operate with the Bloc Québécois to combat hate.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Bloc Québécois member's question.

We are well aware of what was suggested in the Bloc Québécois's bill. On this side of the House, we are in favour of any effort to combat hatred, particularly the anti-Semitism that we are seeing in Quebec and across Canada.

We could work together to improve or amend our own bill on online harm, Bill C‑63, which is already before the House. We are perfectly willing to work with the Bloc Québécois in that regard.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House to talk about SDTC and the green slush fund, because this gives us an opportunity to look at what is happening here in Canada. My friend from York—Simcoe talked about the way the government is working, or not working, I should say, or is working in a bad direction. My speech focuses on where the loss of trust is, how we have this loss of trust and why we have this loss of trust.

Over the last nine years, we see there have been so many things that have made Canadians, who voted for Liberals in 2015, say that they cannot trust the government anymore. The green slush fund is just another example of why Canadians have lost trust and hope.

What is the green slush fund and why was it created in the first place? When we look at Sustainable Development Technology Canada, we have to look at its mandate. Its mandate was to help Canadian companies develop and deploy sustainable technologies by delivering critical funding support at every stage of the journey. This sounds great. It is something we need, and for decades we did have it.

In the last six years, there was $836 million spent on green start-ups. I am not against any of that, but the issue I have here is there were also 186 projects that had conflicts of interest. When I talk about loss of trust in the government, that is where I really want to focus. We, as a party and as opposition, have been asking for these documents for months.

Last December, in 2023, when the whistle-blowers came forward and talked about what was happening and how this money was being distributed, things started happening. We saw a freezing of the slush fund. The money is not available, which, in turn, is causing a lot of problems for people who are actually running legitimate businesses, who are not able to get the payments they expected and are not able to get the assistance from the government that would help them. However, because the government was allowing people to be eligible for truly ineligible reasons, those payments did not move forward.

We can talk about the conflicts of interest. We can talk about whether it was the CEO or board chair, but we can look at the conflicts of interest that were occurring in SDTC as well. This all goes back to looking at accountability and transparency, which is something we have seen very little of over the last nine years. For a Prime Minister who was going to have sunshine and said that everything was going to be fine and that they were going to be clear, accountable and transparent, which is what he was running on in 2015, that is exactly the opposite of what we see here in 2024.

The loss of hope is one of the biggest challenges we are having here in Canada. When I had this opportunity to speak on this motion, I spoke to my friend from Oshawa. He was talking about what we can talk about, because he was looking at the censorship issues here in Canada. There are Bill C-63 and some of the other things the government has come out with, like with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, which are just a whole bunch of bills that come together that continue to impact Canadians negatively.

My friend from Oshawa was talking about censorship. I thought I would talk about trust and hope and how this is just another example of how Canadians have lost trust in the government and have lost hope for the future. When we look at the data, it is very clear. We see the data between 2014 and 2024. People ask where the hope is and what can they see for their futures. As a mom of five, and I am very proud of being a mom of five, I am now watching my children, who are between the ages of 21 and 30, asking what the world is going to look like for them. How are they going to get ahead? I will add more to that.

I think it comes down to something very simple. If we look as of 11 a.m. today, we had $1.356 trillion in debt here in Canada. This number makes me very queasy, knowing that just 10 years ago, under the Harper government in 2014, our debt was $648 million. That is $648 million compared to $1.3 billion in nine years, which is just absolutely ludicrous. We know that is just wasteful spending and unaccountable spending as well.

Things like the current number of people working in Canada and the GDP are all data points we need to look at when we are talking about the economy and why we are talking about things not working. If we do not have a strong economy, everything starts falling apart. We have to look at the economy as a piece of this puzzle that has created so many drastic problems for people. On employment specifically, we have seen a decrease in employment. In Canada, as of October 2024, we currently have 33,977,000 people working, which is 60.6% of the population.

Just 10 years ago, we had 61.6% of the population working, which was over 28,930,000. This matters because at the end of the day, it is those people who are employed and paying taxes on their employment or pensions or whatever it may be, who are putting back into the system. It is really important that we have people out there working because it also adds to our GDP.

I had a great conversation about this with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We were talking about what the GDP looks like and why it is important to understand the GDP-to-population ratio. When I talk about the number of people working being down to 60.6% from 61.6% just a decade ago, we then have to look at where our GDP is, and that is where these numbers become astounding. I compared the numbers for Canada, looking at 2014 to 2024, but also looked at GDP in the United States. I am not looking at total GDP, but looking at the increase because that is giving us the hope for prosperity. When people see an increase in our GDP that looks healthy, they know that there is hope for their businesses, for their future, for their employment and for their children's future as well.

In 2014, we saw a 2.87% GDP growth rate. In the United States, it was very similar at 2.52%. Today, when we are looking at the data, it is not a full year, but in 2024, our GDP growth rate right now is 1.34%, compared to the U.S. at 2.77%.

If we want to look at entire years, in 2023, we can look at Canada at 1.25% compared to the U.S. at 2.89% in 2023. When GDP growth rate is down, that is when people start losing great hope. What are they going to do when it comes to employment? How are their businesses going to survive? In the last few weeks, we have had many discussions with the people in my riding talking about how they are going to survive if we cannot have good public policy and legislation and the United States is talking about putting a 25% tariff on items coming from Canada. For people within my constituency, the moment that was announced, the phone started ringing. In my riding and in many areas of Canada, we are exporting 80% of our goods.

I spoke earlier to a gentleman who builds scoreboards, so we can watch some of those great NCAA scoreboards and know that they were built in London, Ontario. Eighty per cent of his markets are U.S. high schools and universities. If there is a 25% tariff, his business will close, so we have to make sure that the government is doing the right thing. That is what we have seen over the last week and a half.

Down in the United States, they talked about our leader, but, honestly, looking at the current government on its last leg, or actually on its last toe, it is really hard to know that it is doing the negotiating for the future of Canada when we do not feel confident in our own economy and our own strength. Therefore, when we are sending team Canada down to the United States, we need to make sure team Canada has some very strong representatives from the Conservative Party. When we become the government, we need to make sure that we have a very strong relationship so people like Jeff in my riding do not lose their entire business because of bad policies and relationships with the United States. It really comes down to the importance of making sure we have those trade relationships, making sure we have good policy, and making sure that our economy will continue to have drive.

Going from those GDP numbers, we have to look at other issues. Here in Canada, we are currently at a birth rate of 1%, which does not replace our Canadian population. We need 2.1% for replacement. For me, I step back and say that I have done my job; I have five kids and I am doing really well. I step back and think, why are other people not having children? For me, it is pretty darn simple. I can sit there and look at my own children. My son, who is 28 years old, is running his own business and I absolutely love what he is doing, but it is difficult starting. As a starter-business owner, he can do a great job, but then he also has to pay for his rent and his food and everything else. For him, it would probably be better right now to get a part-time job and have his actual career on the side so that he can pay for the groceries and pay for rent.

The way that this economy is right now, when people are paying almost $2,000 a month for rent and utilities, it is darn hard to get ahead. I feel bad when I say to my kids that I paid $220 a month in 1991 when I was in university to live in the worst place ever in a London residence when I was at Western University.

I have friends whose children are paying $1,600 a month just to live in a four-bedroom house or apartment. Mine was $220 a month. We have to look at the debt load being applied to our children.

We are seeing a rate of 1% increase. We know that the cost of student debt has increased. In 2014, when people were graduating, it was about $12,800 for student debt. Now in 2024, it is way over $30,000. We are not using the data on the rent increases that we have seen on many of our students who are using the food banks.

Why are we having these issues? It is because we have a government that does not spend wisely and continues to increase our debt for future generations to try to dig out of.

When I am looking at the cost to our students, 10 years ago student debt was a little over $12,000. Now I look at students in 2024 with a $30,000 debt load trying to rent an apartment starting at $2,000. Can members imagine trying to pay off student debt, get food in the cupboards and actually pay the rent. If they want a car and insurance, well, holy cow, they would need to be lucky.

I look at the people who live in my riding, which is very rural. People need a car to drive from home to work. There is no public transportation, nor is there really a business plan for that at this time because of the population and how few people would be using that.

We have to look at our children today, who have these exorbitant costs, whether they are paying taxes, and we have this great debt of $1.3 trillion, or whether they are paying for food, and the cost of inflation. It is very difficult for our children to move forward.

I am going to talk about my son who is hopefully going to be a plumber soon. He had taken a few years off school and then decided to go into plumbing. The opportunities for him in plumbing are endless. People say, “Hey, you're an apprentice? Great, we'd love to take you on.” We are looking, all the time, for people to have these opportunities.

I think of my son and the fact is that he will probably have a job in about six months. Fantastic, but I bet it will take a long time for him to actually get out of my basement. After becoming a plumber, how would he pay to get into a house or to rent something, when he still has to buy his food and all of those things? He will be very fortunate because he is not going to have student debt.

That is very unlikely for the majority of the population in this country. He will still have the extraordinary costs of buying tools and supplies. Plumbing is not a cheap job to start off with, so starting his own business will be very very difficult.

Once again, the idea of being able to say, “I have got a job. I have graduated from school. I am going to go forward. I am going to get married. I am going to have children. I am going to have that white picket fence,” those dreams that we talked about in the 1980s, they are so gone for this group of people that are part of Generation Z.

It is going to be difficult because when we look at productivity, it is one of our greatest challenges. We are going through a mental health crisis. I urge everybody to read this book that I have read called, The Anxious Generation. It is talking about Gen Z and what they are going through. I love to read it and ask myself, what am I doing, and how am I screwing up my kids?

I was listening to one colleague last night who talked about Dallas and Dynasty. He was talking about the government being very much like that, and having amnesia. Those were good years.

I think of the stress that my own children and all of their friends are looking at in 2024. When I graduated from university, my debt load was probably about $6,000 or $7,000, very minimal compared to what people are going out with now. I was also able to buy a house when I was 25 years old for $122,000. I was also able to get a job and, this is the best part, that paid $12 an hour, but that was okay because it actually paid the bills. That $12 an hour, back in 1993, after graduating, paid the bills. It paid for my house.

Now we have lost hope. We have lost hope for this future. I look at my five kids and I love them to pieces. I do not know how many of them will be moving home when it comes to trying to find affordable living.

That is very difficult for me as a parent, thinking about what I did or did not do to set them up properly. It is not that I do not think I have set them up properly. They have been in great school systems. They have had amazing teachers over the years and amazing opportunities, but when it comes to them actually stepping outside the house, going and buying their own things, trying to create their own credit limit and trying to rent a place, mom and dad are very necessary. That is what we are seeing with this generation: Those in generation Z are really having to depend on their families, their parents. We have a generation of people, my generation, who are not only paying for their own bills but also helping their children out. The children cannot afford to pay for bills right now, with the cost of living and with their own student debts. This is something that we did not see 20 and 30 years ago. We now see that hope lost.

Those are the things that I think of when we are looking at the green slush fund and we are looking at where the government is and asking about what has gone wrong. We can say that it is poor direction, poor administration and poor ideas. There are ideas where we are throwing out money, but we should ask what we are actually sometimes getting in return. We have talked about very many social programs. Some have had a positive impact, and some have had a negative impact. I would really love to see what the cost rationale is for some of these things. For every dollar spent, are we actually leveraging a better Canada, or are we just throwing our money away? Those are the concerns I have.

We look at the birth rate of 1%; we are trying to get a new workforce in this country and not being able to do that. We look at our extravagant student debt load. We look at the rate of people being employed in Canada, which is less than 60% right now; many of those are people paying bills so that other people can have benefits. We are looking at our GDP being at less than 1.25% right now. These things do not give us a lot of hope. They do not give the businesses that are trying to get into business more hope either.

That is why I wanted to talk at the last minute on the green slush fund and what it has done to start-ups. We have seen start-ups that have had to drop 30% of their labour force because what they were doing with the government stopped working. Because of the failure of the government on this technology program, which had been existing for over 20 years, we are now seeing technology companies having to decrease. It has actually taken away the competitive nature that was in place for so many years when it comes to technology in Canada. We have taken that away.

Those are some of the greatest concerns that I have moving forward. In the last 20 minutes, I have spoken about how we have seen nine years of the government creating greater debt and less hope for the next generation. We have seen a lot of stress. I do not see it getting better under the government.

We have talked about there needing to be an election. As everybody knows, I plan on retiring. If there is an election tomorrow, I am praying that we win with a Conservative majority. At the end of the day, we need to ensure that we have good programs and fiscal responsibility to get on track. These are things that I have great concerns about. I do not know whether that will be the case if we continue under the government for the next year that we are scheduled for. I can see that our GDP will only continue to decline, our debt will only increase and our hope will only decrease as well.

Justice

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the numbers are astounding. Hate has risen by 130% in the past few years. It is a problem for all Canadians, including Quebeckers. We are perfectly willing to keep discussing the bill put forward by the Bloc Québécois. However, it is important to note that we already have a bill on the table, Bill C‑63, which addresses the same sections of the Criminal Code. It seeks tougher penalties for people who incite hatred.

All of us must do this work together.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of how much hate exists in our communities and the anti-Semitism that exists across Canada right now.

The Bloc Québécois's suggestion is quite welcome. It is a good suggestion, and we would like to study it thoroughly. I do want to emphasize, as I have already mentioned several times, that we have already introduced legislation that would help combat hate in Canada, namely Bill C-63.

If the Bloc Québécois would support us on that, it will help all Canadians.

Public Safety

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our track record on protecting women from violence, from violent firearms, speaks for itself, with respect to assault rifles and with respect to handguns. What I find actually quite appalling is that party's ability to stand up and talk about what women want in this chamber. Today, Barbie Lavers, at the justice committee, said, on Bill C-63, “We must work together as communities, families and governments to reduce the online abuse of our children.... Social media platforms must be held accountable. They must...keep our children safe. Children like our Harry are dying.”

Her son is dead because of online safety issues that party opposes. That is unconscionable.