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

Sponsor

Arif Virani  Liberal

Status

Second reading (House), as of Sept. 23, 2024

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-63.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Online Harms ActGovernment Orders

September 23rd, 2024 / 1:10 p.m.


See context

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed working with my colleague on so many different issues over the years. She talked about the protection of children. The U.S. Senate recently passed the kids online safety act with bipartisan support, and it would be great to be able to do something like that here on parts of the bill.

However, the U.S. bill contained provisions to restrict design features that contribute to compulsive use of social media by youth, like automatic playing of media, rewards for time spent on the platform, and notifications. By contrast, Bill C-63 primarily focuses on addressing harmful content and leaves the possibility of restricting addictive design features to future regulations.

Given the youth mental health crisis and increasing concerns about the role of social media, does my colleague believe that Bill C-63 could be improved by incorporating provisions like those seen in the U.S. bill to restrict addictive design features?

Online Harms ActGovernment Orders

September 23rd, 2024 / 1:15 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his tremendous work when it comes to mental health and the mental health of young people here in Canada. We did a study at the ethics committee, one of the few studies we actually were able to do some work on, about the influence of exactly the type of addictive behaviour that the hon. member has spoken about and its impact on young people. It will not be as easy as I initially thought it would be to regulate that.

The addictive nature of social media and the algorithms that are built into it are something important we do need to be looking at. I would be happy to work with the hon. member on that.

Online Harms ActGovernment Orders

September 23rd, 2024 / 1:15 p.m.


See context

Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Arif Virani LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the important concerns pointed out by the member from the NDP, I think they are really important suggestions to get to the floor of the committee. With respect to the ideas about dividing the bill, I think what is really important is that after four years of consultation, we understand online harms to be a continuum. They affect not just children; they also affect adolescents and adults.

I appreciate the member opposite's work tremendously as well. She has been an outspoken advocate for women, including women who are facing violence and things like coercive control. A very key measure in the bill deals with not just adult women but also younger women. It deals with the phenomenon of revenge porn, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. We know that has had tragic consequences for young Canadian women in this country, such as Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todd. Under Bill C‑63, that kind of material would have to come down within 24 hours.

Could the member comment as to whether that would help keep Canadian young women and adult women safe?

Online Harms ActGovernment Orders

September 23rd, 2024 / 1:15 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I heard testimony from the families of both Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons when I was on the status of women committee. Those young women continue to be victimized online because their images continue to circulate. It was many years ago that these young women were horrifically victimized online, forcing both of them to die by suicide. It is incredibly important these types of images get removed from the Internet immediately so the victims, and in some cases their families, do not continue to be victimized years after the images were posted.

Online Harms ActGovernment Orders

September 23rd, 2024 / 1:15 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry in our part of eastern Ontario. In this case it is to contribute to the debate going on today on Bill C-63, known to many Canadians, through the media or the debate on the bill, as the online harms bill.

I want to take the time I have today to lay out a case to Canadians that I think is getting clearer by the month and the year. After nine years of the NDP and the Liberals in office, crime is up significantly in this country. It is their record and it is their actions, or in some cases inactions, that have undone what was successful in keeping our streets safe.

When we looked at the metrics by Stats Canada before the Liberals came into office, we see that crime was decreasing across the country. After nine years of their legislation, their bills, their ideas and their policy proposals, here is what Stats Canada says is the record of the Prime Minister, the NDP and the Liberals working together: Violent crime has increased 50% in this country. Homicides are not down; they are up 28%. Sexual assaults are up by 75%, and gang murders have nearly doubled in this country over the course of the last nine years. A crime wave has been unleashed across this country.

I make the case. Sadly, now there is not one part of this country, a province or a region, that has not heard the stories in local media or by word of mouth in communities of crime going up: violent crime, robberies, theft and car theft. Auto theft is up 46%. The justice minister's own car in fact has been stolen three times. That is how bad crime has gotten under the Liberals' watch.

Extortion has exploded in this country under the Liberals' watch. It is up 357%. This side of the aisle, through our deputy leader from Edmonton, the member for Edmonton Mill Woods, proposed a private member's bill that would crack down and toughen up on Canadians who try to extort others. I would suggest that when there is a 357% increase, the status quo of whatever the Liberals are doing is not working. We proposed a common-sense private member's bill from this side of the aisle that was voted down, only to continue the status quo by the Liberals and NDP.

Recently, through our work in asking questions, we finally got some answers. The Liberal government was forced to admit that 256 people were killed in 2022 alone by criminals out on bail or another form of release. It is unacceptable and speaks to the many broken policies that the government has implemented in the last nine years. It is not by accident.

The province of Ontario paints a picture when it comes to the Liberals' public safety record. In Ontario, the total number of violent Criminal Code violations is up 51% to 164,723. Homicides in Ontario are up 50% to 262. Total violent firearms offences, for all the action the Liberals have claimed to have taken, and I will get to that in a bit, is up to 1,346. That is a 97% increase in violent firearms offences in Ontario alone. Extortion is up 383% in Ontario, at just under 4,000 cases.

Theft of a motor vehicle has gone up. When the Liberals came in, there were 16,600 vehicle thefts in Ontario. It has exploded 167%. Now, under their watch with their soft-on-crime approach, including Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and so forth, it is up to 44,459 thefts of a motor vehicle.

That is the Liberals' record. Bill C-75 was passed and implemented by the Liberals and the NDP, who implemented catch-and-release bail policies. Despite the legislation demanded by Conservatives and by every premier in this country, it did not go far enough, and Bill C-75 is still wreaking havoc on our law enforcement and on public safety in this country.

Bill C-5 passed, again by the Liberals and the NDP and supported by the Bloc in that case, I specifically remember as well. When it started to be implemented and Canadians saw the wacko examples of criminals of a violent, repeat nature being arrested and back out on the streets, the Bloc members tried to pretend they were not for it anymore, but they voted for Bill C-5. That bill removed mandatory minimum sentences for major crimes, ensuring again that violent criminals are out on the streets.

After all those numbers I took the time to lay out, that is the Liberals' record. They cannot go back and blame anybody else, but for the last nine years that the Liberals have been in office, it has been their government legislation that has allowed the crime wave to be unleashed across Canada, and here we have a justice minister who is touting how great the Liberals' latest solution is with Bill C-63.

Rightfully, Canadians have major distrust in the current government. Its record on public safety speaks for itself by the numbers and the examples that people are living and breathing. However, it was the current justice minister, on his first days on the job, who did a media interview and said he thought it was empirically unlikely Canada is becoming less safe. He said it is in people's minds; it is in their heads and is not really a problem. People are just envisioning that.

That just goes to show the mindset and perspective when it comes to public safety, to protecting our streets and getting the violent crime wave down in this country. That is the perspective: It is just all in our heads and there is nothing to think about.

I have mentioned Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. The debate today is actually timely because it was just last week that we got an updated answer. Four years ago, the Prime Minister did a big stunt of a photo op and an announcement that he was going to ban assault rifles; he was going to clamp down and resolve all of this by way of the Liberals' legislation and their will. Well, the numbers are out. Four years later, after saying that, zero firearms from criminals are off our streets, and the only winner in this is the bureaucracy.

Sixty-seven million dollars of taxpayer money has been spent on a program that is not even running, not even active and has taken precisely zero firearms from criminals and gang members off our streets in this country. That is the Liberals' record. Worst of all is that we know what the Liberals are proposing to do and the reason there are all the delays. They are rightfully being called out that it will not affect the gang members and those involved in criminal enterprises who are committing the car thefts, violent crimes and firearms offences in big cities, suburbs and rural communities alike. They are not going to be participating in this terrible program, this costly, useless program, frankly.

The Liberals are targeting law-abiding firearm owners, hunters, sport shooters and indigenous communities that follow the law and have never been a public safety issue. They are going to be the ones paying the price on this, and it is taxpayer money, $67 million alone, going out.

One of the things I have said to many folks in our part of eastern Ontario and in my travels across the country is that there are not too many prerequisites to becoming a member of Parliament and sitting in the chamber. Members are democratically elected, which is obviously the right way to go. However, I feel if there were a little asterisk of what every member of Parliament must do before debating or voting on public safety legislation such as this, it would be that the member should do a ride-along with the frontline law enforcement in this country.

We are very blessed in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry to have the OPP, the Cornwall community police, a force in Akwesasne and the RCMP. One of the most rewarding events or annual visits I make is to those detachments, getting in a vehicle with a frontline law enforcement member and seeing first-hand and on the front lines what they have to go through day in and day out.

Officers are extremely frustrated after nine years of a soft-on-crime approach, a broken justice system, a broken bail system and a Liberal government that continues to make life easier for those criminals of a repeat violent nature, which takes valuable police resources and time away from important things. Instead, they are repeatedly arresting and re-arresting many of the same folks despite being out on bail.

I raise that today because under the Liberals watch and the broken bail system, where repeat violent offenders are back out on the streets within about 24 hours, on average, police are being redirected and dealing with the same percentage. The Vancouver Police Department said that in one year there were 6,000 police interactions, many of them arrests of the same 40 or 50 people. This means that every other day there was an interaction, an arrest, a bail hearing and back out on the street. That is a waste of police resources.

How much longer will it take? How many more calls from the Conservatives, premiers and law enforcement agencies will it take to fix our broken bail system? Instead, today, when we talk about the broad terms of protecting folk online, protecting children, or cracking down on Internet child pornography as the bill states, the basis of this legislation is admitting failure on the part of the government.

Our court system and existing law enforcement resources are so overloaded with the increase in crime, the broken justice system and the broken bail system, that now the government is proposing a brand new federal bureaucracy, with hundreds and hundreds of federal bureaucrats, to administer what it says cannot be done through existing means.

If we were able to go back to common sense, the way it was before the Prime Minister and the government came into office, we could revert and allow law enforcement and, in many cases, our existing laws to be enforced and protect Canadians, protect children, families, victims of child pornography, victims of all ages, and clamp down on the rising hate crime numbers happening under the government's watch.

I correlate it again to the government's record. We had legislation a couple of years ago passed under its watch, Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, which I basically called a censorship act, where the government would hire hundreds of new bureaucrats at the CRTC to watch and regulate the algorithms of Internet searches in Canada. At that time, the Liberals said not to worry, that it was not that big of a deal, that it would not cost that much. It is getting very expensive, and they are just getting started in the cost of the bureaucracy.

I am proud of our common-sense Conservative team on this side. Very early on, when the government came forward with Bill C-63, we asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to look at what the cost of this proposal would be, an independent look to understand the true cost to administer the government's proposal. A little while ago the analysis came forward. Posted on the website, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that would cost a staggering $200 million to establish, the government's own data provided to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 330 new bureaucrats and a brand new bureaucracy to administer this. When does this madness stop?

The Liberals keep adding new bureaucracies, new commissions and new layers, but they do not tackle the problem we have in our existing justice system and law enforcement community. Whether it be the RCMP, a provincial force or local municipal force, they are stretched thin because of the broken policies that the government has implemented. Now its proposal is to separate all that into a new bureaucracy. Worst of all, when asked, there is no time frame. A lot of the regulations and details of what it is proposing will be dealt with later, of course, behind closed doors. A lack of transparency and details, that is what the Liberals are providing to Canadians.

We know how Ottawa works. We know how the Liberals work with the NDP. They make a great, big announcement of how wonderful the legislation would be and that it would solve every problem possible. They never follow through, it is never done cost-effectively and it is delay after delay, and more and more frustration and backlog. We will see the exact same thing when it comes to the new bureaucracy proposed under Bill C-63. For context, if we took the $200 million and invested in frontline law enforcement, if we hired more police officers, we could hire over 200 more per year to work the front lines each and every year.

I want to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who has been on the file of protecting women, children and all Canadians and victims of child pornography, of exposing intimate images and, in many cases, new emerging technologies of deepfakes and AI. We need to realize that this legislation is inadequate for many reasons. She, our shadow minister for justice and the Attorney General of Canada, and many other colleagues with a law enforcement background in the legal community have spoken up against the bill.

As Conservatives, we have said that, as always, the Liberals get it wrong again. They claim that we should pass this, get it to committee and just be fine with it, because for four years they have consulted experts in the field. They have tabled legislation before that they had to pull because they got it wrong. There are still many voices in the country speaking up against the bill in its current form and what it would do on the infringement of free speech. The Liberals are making decisions through regulation, through back-channel means and behind closed doors, putting the power in the hands of way too many people who do not deserve it, for example, Meta, Facebook, other tech companies that have these massive lobbying efforts they can use to pressure this new bureaucracy.

Instead, our common-sense Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-412, would enforce the existing laws in the country when it comes to hate crimes. The laws are there, but the government lacks the political will use those tools. If we are going to modernize legislation, which it does need at times, we could go after AI and deepfakes, which is not even addressed in Bill C-63.

The Liberals, like they have with Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and now with Bill C-63, talk a big game. We can look at other legislation such as their firearms confiscation program of law-abiding hunters and anglers who own firearms and so many other pieces of legislation. We can look at the Liberals' own numbers. The longer they are in office, the more they spend and the worse it gets from a financial situation, but, most important, from a public safety perspective.

Bill C-63 does not need to be as omnibus as it is. For the number of years the Liberals claim they consulted experts, they have gotten it wrong again. It is time to bring forward not this bill, but the common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-412.

Let us get to the root causes, protect children, women and all Canadians from the abuse and hate and violence seen online through child pornography and other means. Let us trust our law enforcement on the front lines, with the tools and resources, to get that job done. They do not need a new bureaucracy or to be thrown aside. Law enforcement needs to be empowered with good legislation and support from this federal government, not the record we have seen after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government.

Online Harms ActGovernment Orders

September 23rd, 2024 / 1:35 p.m.


See context

Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Arif Virani LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked extensively about crime, but we cannot cherry-pick which victims we would support in this place.

Second, he talked about listening to law enforcement, walking with law enforcement. I have done exactly that. What law enforcement officers have told me is that they need increased tools, including a tool to take down the images that are so harmful to adolescents and children.

Third, they have cited to me the statistics, that four out of 10 Canadians are exposed to online hate. That number doubles if a person is racialized, is a person with a disability or one who identifies as 2SLGBTQ+. We thankfully have not had an incident like this in Canada, but in Orlando, in 2016, 49 people were killed and 53 were wounded by a person who was radicalized online, who shot people at a queer bar.

For the member opposite, if we can prevent that kind of incident from happening in Canada, is this bill worth supporting?

Online Harms ActGovernment Orders

September 23rd, 2024 / 1:35 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear about the justice minister's record and the record of the Liberals and NDP. The number of victims have skyrocketed under their watch. When he is talking to law enforcement officers who say they are overwhelmed and need more tools, it is because of the decisions the Liberals have made to be soft on crime, to have a revolving catch-and-release bail system. Being soft on crime and not following through using our existing laws is why law enforcement is being overwhelmed.

Let us be clear about what law enforcement officers want. They want the tools to do what they have done for decades, generations and centuries, in many cases, which is to be the front line of law enforcement and have the resources to go after criminals themselves. They do not want a 330-person, $200-million a year bureaucracy that will backlog everything. They want the resources themselves. They want some common sense from the justice minister, so maybe he can realize, after his car was stolen three times, that the Liberals' existing policy, their existing framework and all the things they have done in nine years have made the problem worse for law enforcement. It needs the new tools. We are not cherry-picking victims. The number of victims in the country has skyrocketed directly because of the minister's policies, no one else's.

Online Harms ActGovernment Orders

September 23rd, 2024 / 1:40 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that the exemption for religious texts that promote hatred is maintained in the bill. What does he think of the religious exemption for incitement to hatred?

Online Harms ActGovernment Orders

September 23rd, 2024 / 1:40 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, on that specific provision, there is a right for freedom of religion in our country. With respect to exemptions on that, what is important here is enforcement if there is a problem. If hate is generated online, or cases or acts of that, it could be explicitly clear on our existing legislation.

We talk about modernizations and what we do. It is going after AI, deepfakes and many emerging technologies that have not been updated in this legislation. In the broader context of this, I am very curious to see where the Bloc Québécois will land on this legislation. We remember many times when its members propped up previous bad bills from the Liberal government, including Bill C-5. As soon as they voted for it, they immediately started regretting that they had and pretended they wanted changes, amendments and so forth. There are a lot of questions the Bloc Québécois needs to answer. It needs to stop propping up the Liberal government so Canadians can decide, frankly, on public safety or whether to have a carbon tax election. Canadians need to have their say.

Online Harms ActGovernment Orders

September 23rd, 2024 / 1:40 p.m.


See context

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that is very prevalent in the broader community, of course, is the issue of disinformation. It is happening more and more now, and it is more urgent than ever for us to tackle this issue. Taiwan has been very proactive in dealing with this. Of course, there is an intersection of this issue with foreign interference. What the government in Taiwan has done is create a portal whereby citizens can put forward information they are not sure is true or not. It is almost like a fact-checking portal, and then citizens would be able to know whether something is disinformation.

I am wondering whether the member would support an effort like this. One of the things I will say, because he is going to attack the NDP no matter what, is that we are going to support this going to second reading, because it warrants discussion at second reading and to hear from experts, as well as to entertain potential amendments.

Online Harms ActGovernment Orders

September 23rd, 2024 / 1:40 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, the issue of disinformation and misinformation is a major issue in this country.

It was on the floor of the House of Commons last week that the member for Kingston and the Islands was called out for spreading misinformation and disinformation. He was forced to apologize and has been quite quiet since then. The Liberals have a lot to own up to, right in their own caucus, on misinformation and disinformation.

To the member's point in all of this, it comes down to trust and the overarching themes or parts of this bill. There is, rightfully, a distrust in this country based on past behaviour, in examples and follow-through. The NDP continued to vote confidence and to vote as part of their coalition with the Liberals for many years. Bill C-11 was an example of all these things that it was going to solve. There is the firearms confiscation program that actually does not target violent criminals. The Liberals spent $67 million and got nothing done. It has been all talk, no action.

For the member for Vancouver East and members of the NDP particularly, there is an issue that the overarching parts of this are on the wrong track. We have a common-sense Conservative solution on this side. That is what we are advocating for. The trust to take this behind closed doors, to have the minister and big tech be the administrators and arbiters of this, is completely on the wrong track.

Online Harms ActGovernment Orders

September 23rd, 2024 / 1:45 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-412 does three things. It provides members of law enforcement and victims of criminal online harassment with more tools to stop the harassment immediately. Victims groups of all political stripe are crying out for this. Bill C-63 does not do this.

Bill C-412 also includes an immediate legislated duty of care for online operators. Bill C-63 proposes to allow big tech companies to manipulate what would be in that duty of care five years into the future when we need justice now. Bill C-412 would also close a loophole in the Criminal Code for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images created by deepfakes.

Would the member suggest that the government adopt Bill C-412, parse out the section in Bill C-63 on strengthening reporting requirements for child pornography, pass that on unanimous consent and then abandon the rest of the bill that has had people like Margaret Atwood calling the bill Orwellian, so that we can get justice for children, women who are experiencing intimate partner violence and children in high schools who are not getting justice when nudes of them are created online?

Online Harms ActGovernment Orders

September 23rd, 2024 / 1:45 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill just gave an eloquent example and summary.

Let us just think about this by context. The Minister of Justice and the Liberal government spent four years, using the bureaucracy of hundreds of folks here in Ottawa, to do consultations. The member for Calgary Nose Hill, a small but mighty common-sense Conservative caucus and her team have tabled more substantive legislation that gets to the core of the issue than what the Liberal minister and the Liberal government have for the last four years.

Kudos to her for her leadership on this file and, most importantly, not creating a bureaucracy that maybe five years down the road might start to get the ball rolling on helping victims, as has been outlined on this. We could make immediate, tangible changes and improve public safety, protect children and protect women now, not wait for a brand-new bureaucracy five years down the road.

Common sense means we can get common-sense changes now, not five years down the road.

Online Harms ActGovernment Orders

September 23rd, 2024 / 1:45 p.m.


See context

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, common sense for the Conservatives is a bunch of nonsense.

At the end of the day, we have organizations like the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, two outstanding organizations, in support of passing Bill C-63.

As Conservatives continue to rely on the maga right to influence public policy, Canadians who are following the debate need to be aware that the Conservative Party is not there for the people of Canada.

This legislation is about children. It is about individuals whose pictures are being exploited on the Internet without consent. The legislation is there, it is tangible and it has a wide spectrum of support. Why will the Conservative Party not allow it to pass to committee today at the very least?

Online Harms ActGovernment Orders

September 23rd, 2024 / 1:45 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, what is nonsense is the member opposite still having any sort of pride in his record after nine years. Nonsense is when Stats Canada says that after all the legislation, all the things the Liberals have done in nine years, violent crime is up 50%, homicides are up 28%, sexual assaults are up 75%, and the amount of hate and the number of threats in cases have absolutely skyrocketed. That is not from nonsense on this side, but nonsense, virtue signalling and a woke approach the Liberals have taken on that side.

The irony of all this is that the member for Winnipeg North has confidence and pride in the government's record. Members of law enforcement and the victims of crime, who have exploded in numbers, are tired of that broken approach in this country. Every time the Liberals propose something, every time they spend more money, it gets worse and crime rates go up.

It is time to have an election and let Canadians decide. I have a feeling the Liberal caucus might be in a very small corner of the back over there when things get done, based on the numbers.