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.

Online Harms Act

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

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-63, the online harms act. I speak today not only as a minister and as a fellow parliamentarian, but also as a father, as a South Asian and as a Muslim Canadian.

There are a few moments in this place when our work becomes very personal, and this is one such moment for me. Let me explain why. I ran for office for a number of reasons in 2015. Chief among them was to fight against discrimination and to fight for equality in what I viewed as an increasingly polarized world. In recent years, we have seen that polarization deepen and that hatred fester, including at home here in Canada.

I would never have fathomed that in 2024, Canada would actually lead the G7 in the number of deaths attributable to Islamophobia. Among our allies, it is Canada that has experienced the most fatal attacks against Muslims in the G7. There have been 11. Those were 11 preventable deaths. I say “preventable” because in the trials of both the Quebec mosque shooter, who murdered six men on January 29, 2017, and the man who murdered four members of the Afzaal family in London, Ontario, the attackers admitted, in open court, to having been radicalized online. They admitted what so many of us have always known to be the case: Online hatred has real-world consequences.

Yesterday was the third anniversary of the attack on the Afzaal family, an attack described by the presiding judge as “a terrorist act”. In memory of Talat, Salman, Yumna and Madiha, who lost their lives to an act of hatred on June 6, 2021, we are taking action.

Bill C-63, the online harms act, is a critical piece of that action. This bill is the product of years of work.

We held consultations for over four years. We talked to victims' groups, advocacy groups, international partners, people from the technology industry and the general public. We organized a nationwide consultation and held 19 national and regional round tables. We published a report about what we learned. We listened to the recommendations of our expert advisory group on online safety, a diverse think tank made up of experts who are respected across Canada. We were given valuable advice and gained a great deal of knowledge thanks to those consultations, and all of that informed the development of Bill C-63.

Many of our international partners, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, France and the European Union, have already done considerable legislative work to try to limit the risks of harmful content online. We learned from their experience and adapted the best parts of their most effective plans to the Canadian context.

We have also learned what did not work abroad, like the immediate takedown of all types of harmful content, originally done in Germany; or like the overbroad restriction on freedom of speech that was struck as unconstitutional in France. We are not repeating those errors here. Our approach is much more measured and reflects the critical importance of constitutionally protected free expression in Canada's democracy. What we learned from this extensive consultation was that the Internet and social media platforms can be a force for good in Canada and around the world. They have been a tool for activists to defend democracy. They are platforms for critical expression and for critical civic discourse. They make learning more accessible to everyone.

The Internet has made people across our vast world feel more connected to one another, but the internet also has a dark side. Last December, the RCMP warned of an alarming spike in online extremism among young people in Canada and the radicalization of youth online. We know that the online environment is especially dangerous for our most vulnerable. A recent study by Plan International found that 58% of girls have experienced harassment online.

Social media platforms are used to exploit and disseminate devastating messages with tragic consequences. This is because of one simple truth. For too long, the profits of platforms have come before the safety of users. Self-regulation has failed to keep our kids safe. Stories of tragedy have become far too common. There are tragic consequences, like the death of Amanda Todd, a 15-year-old Port Coquitlam student who died by suicide on October 10, 2012, after being exploited and extorted by more than 20 social media accounts. This relentless harassment started when Amanda was just 12 years old, in grade 7.

There was Carson Cleland last fall. He was the same age as my son at the time: 12 years old. Carson made a mistake. He shared an intimate image with someone whom he thought was a friend online, only to find himself caught up in a web of sextortion from which he could not extricate himself. Unable to turn to his parents, too ashamed to turn to his friends, Carson turned on himself. Carson is no longer with us, but he should be with us.

We need to do more to protect the Amanda Todds and the Carson Clelands of this country, and with this bill, we will. I met with the incredible people at the Canadian Centre for Child Protection earlier this year, and they told me that they receive 70 calls every single week from scared kids across Canada in situations like Amanda's and like Carson's.

As the father of two youngsters, this is very personal for me. As they grow up, my 10-year-old and 13-year-old boys spend more and more time on screens. I know that my wife and I are not alone in this parenting struggle. It is the same struggle that parents are facing around the country.

At this point, there is no turning back. Our children and teens are being exposed to literally everything online, and I feel a desperate need, Canadians feel a desperate need, to do a better job of protecting those kids online. That is precisely what we are going to do with this bill.

Bill C-63 is guided by four important objectives. It aims to reduce exposure to harmful content online, to empower and support users. Second, it would address and denounce the rise in hatred and hate crimes. Third, it would ensure that victims of hate have recourse to improved remedies, and fourth, it would strengthen the reporting of child sexual abuse material to enhance the criminal justice response to this heinous crime.

The online harms act will address seven types of harmful content based on categories established over more than four years of consultation.

Not all harms will be treated the same. Services will be required to quickly remove content that sexually victimizes a child or that revictimizes a survivor, as well as to remove what we call “revenge porn”, including sexual deepfakes. There is no place for this material on the Internet whatsoever.

For other types of content, like content that induces a child to self-harm or material that bullies a child, we are placing a duty on platforms to protect children. This means a new legislative and regulatory framework to ensure that social media platforms reduce exposure to harmful, exploitative content on their platforms. This means putting in place special protections for children. It also means that platforms will have to make sure that users have the tools and the resources they need to report harmful content.

To fulfill the duty to protect children, social media platforms will have to integrate age-appropriate design features to make their platforms safer for children to use. This could mean defaults for parental controls and warning labels for children. It could mean security settings for instant messaging for children, or it could mean safe-search settings.

Protecting our children is one of our most important duties that we undertake as lawmakers in this place. As a parent, it literally terrifies me that the most dangerous toys in my home, my children's screens, are not subject to any safety standards right now. This needs to change, and it would change with the passage of Bill C-63.

It is not only that children are subject to horrible sexual abuse and bullying online, but also that they are exposed to hate and hateful content, as are Internet users of all ages and all backgrounds, which is why Bill C-63 targets content that foments hatred and incitements to violence as well as incitements to terrorism. This bill would not require social media companies to take down this kind of harmful content; instead, the platforms would have to reduce exposure to it by creating a digital safety plan, disclosing to the digital safety commissioner what steps they are putting in place to reduce risk and reporting back on their progress.

The platforms would also be required to give users practical options for recourse, like tools to either flag or block certain harmful material from their own feeds. This is key to ensuring community safety, all the more so because they are backed by significant penalties for noncompliance. When I say “significant”, the penalties would be 6% of global revenue or $10 million, whichever is higher, and in the instance of a contravention of an order from the digital safety commission, those would rise to 8% of global revenue or $25 million, again, whichever is higher.

The online harms act is an important step towards a safer, more inclusive online environment, where social media platforms actively work to reduce the risk of user exposure to harmful content on their platforms and help to prevent its spread, and where, as a result, everyone in Canada can feel safer to express themselves openly. This is critical, because at the heart of this initiative, it is about promoting expression and participation in civic discourse that occurs online. We can think about Carla Beauvais and the sentiments she expressed when she stood right beside me when we tabled this legislation in February, and the amount of abuse she faced for voicing her concerns about the George Floyd incident in the United States, which cowered her and prevented her from participating online. We want her voice added to the civic discourse. Right now, it has been removed.

The online harms act will regulate social media services, the primary purpose of which is to enable users to share publicly accessible content, services that pose the greatest risk of exposing the greatest number of people to harmful content.

This means that the act would apply to social media platforms, such as Facebook, X and Instagram; user-uploaded adult content services, such as Pornhub; and livestreaming services, such as Twitch. However, it would not apply to any private communications, meaning private texts or direct private messaging on social media apps, such as Instagram or Facebook Messenger. It is critical to underscore, again, that this is a measured approach that does not follow the overreach seen in other countries we have studied, in terms of how they embarked upon this endeavour. The goal is to target the largest social media platforms, the places where the most people in Canada are spending their time online.

Some ask why Bill C-63 addresses both online harms and hate crimes, which can happen both on and off-line. I will explain this. Online dangers do not remain online. We are seeing a dramatic rise in hate crime across our country. According to Statistics Canada, the number of police-reported hate crimes increased by 83% between 2019 and 2022. B'nai Brith Canada reports an alarming 109% increase in anti-Semitic incidents from 2022 to 2023. In the wake of October 7, 2023, I have been hearing frequently from Jewish and Muslim groups, which are openly questioning whether it is safe to be openly Jewish or Muslim in Canada right now. This is not tenable. It should never be tolerated, yet hate-motivated violence keeps happening. People in Canada are telling us to act. It is up to us, as lawmakers, to do exactly that.

We must take concrete action to better protect all people in Canada from harms, both online and in our communities. We need better tools to deal with harmful content online that foments violence and destruction. Bill C-63 gives law enforcement these much-needed tools.

The Toronto Police Service has expressed their open support of Bill C-63 because they know it will make our communities safer. Members of the Afzaal family have expressed their open support for Bill C-63 because they know the Islamophobic hate that causes someone to kill starts somewhere, and it is often online.

However, we know there is no single solution to the spread of hatred on and off-line. That is why the bill proposes a number of different tools to help stop the hate. It starts with the Criminal Code of Canada. Bill C-63 would amend the Criminal Code to better target hate crime and hate propaganda. It would do this in four important ways.

First, it would create a new hate crime offence. Law enforcement has asked us for this tool, so they can call a hate crime a hate crime when laying a charge, rather than as an afterthought at sentencing. This new offence will also help law enforcement track the actual number of hate-motivated crimes in Canada. That is why they have appealed to me to create a free-standing hate crime offence in a manner that replicates what already exists in 47 of the 50 states south of the border. A hate-motivated assault is not just an assault. It is a hate crime and should be recognized as such on the front end of a prosecution.

Second, Bill C‑63 would increase sentences for the four existing hate speech offences. These are serious offences, and the sentences should reflect that.

Third, Bill C-63 would create a recognizance to keep the peace, which is specifically designed to prevent any of the four hate propaganda offences and the new hate crime offence from being committed.

This would be modelled on existing peace bonds, such as those used in domestic violence cases, and would require someone to have a reasonable fear that these offences would be committed. The threshold of “reasonable fear” is common to almost all peace bonds.

In addition, as some but not all peace bonds do, this would require the relevant attorney general to give consent before an application is made to a judge to impose a peace bond on a person. This ensures an extra layer of scrutiny in the process.

Finally, the bill would codify a definition of hatred for hate propaganda offences and for the new hate crime offence, based on the definition the Supreme Court of Canada created in its seminal decisions in R. v. Keegstra and in Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott. The definition sets out not only what hatred is but also what it is not, thereby helping Canadians and law enforcement to better understand the scope of these offences.

The court has defined hate speech as content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group on the basis of grounds such as race, national or ethnic origin, religion and sex. It only captures the most extreme and marginal type of expression, leaving the entirety of political and other discourse almost untouched. That is where one will find the category of content that some have called “awful but lawful”. This is the stuff that is offensive and ugly but is still permitted as constitutionally protected free expression under charter section 2(b). This category of content is not hate speech under the Supreme Court's definition.

I want to make clear what Bill C‑63 does not do. It does not undermine freedom of expression. It strengthens freedom of expression by allowing all people to participate safely in online discussions.

Bill C-63 would provide another tool as well. It would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to define a new discriminatory practice of communicating hate speech online. The legislation makes clear that hate does not encompass content that merely discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends, but where hate speech does occur, there would be a mechanism through which an individual could ask that those expressions of hate be removed. The CHRA amendments are not designed to punish anyone. They would simply give Canadians a tool to get hate speech removed.

Finally, Bill C-63 would modernize and close loopholes in the mandatory reporting act. This would help law enforcement more effectively investigate child sex abuse and exploitation and bring perpetrators to justice, retaining information longer and ensuring that social media companies report CSAM to the RCMP.

There is broad support for the online harms act. When I introduced the legislation in February, I was proud to have at my side the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the National Council of Canadian Muslims. Those two groups have had vast differences in recent months, but on the need to fight hatred online, they are united. The same unity has been expressed by both Deborah Lyons, the special envoy on preserving Holocaust remembrance and combatting anti-Semitism, and Amira Elghawaby, the special representative on combatting Islamophobia.

The time to combat all forms of online hate is now. Hatred that festers online can result in real-world violence. I am always open to good-faith suggestions on how to improve the bill. I look forward to following along with the study of the legislation at the committee stage. I have a fundamental duty to uphold the charter protection of free expression and to protect all Canadians from harm. I take both duties very seriously.

Some have urged me to split Bill C-63 in two, dealing only with the provisions that stop sexually exploitative material from spreading and throwing away measures that combat hate. To these people, I say that I would not be doing my job as minister if I failed to address the rampant hatred on online platforms. It is my job to protect all Canadians from harm. That means kids and adults. People are pleading for relief from the spread of hate. It is time we acted.

Bill C-63 is a comprehensive response to online harms and the dangerous hate we are seeing spreading in our communities. We have a duty to protect our children in the real world. We must take decisive action to protect them online as well, where the dangers can be just as pernicious, if not more so. Such action starts with passing Bill C-63.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill has received widespread condemnation from groups of all political stripes because it forces Canadians to make unnecessary trade-offs between their security and their charter rights. As well, the bill would force much-needed reforms into a long, onerous regulatory process with no clear end in sight. There are people watching this today who will fear deepfaked intimate images being used to harass and bully them in their high schools.

The government could have made a small amendment to the Criminal Code to update existing laws to protect Canadians in the digital age, but it has chosen this onerous, widely panned approach instead of protecting Canadians' rights. Why?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say categorically that this is a misconstruction of the legislation and what it would do. This legislation would uphold freedom of expression. Freedom of speech in this country, as of right now, does not include hateful speech. That is protected against in the physical world. We are transposing that protection into the online world to directly address the needs of the very people that she just mentioned in those schools in Alberta.

With respect to deepfakes, we are taking an additional step by entrenching that language in the legislation. That was done intentionally because deepfakes are being used against children, adolescents and adults to silence them. I know the member is a strong advocate for women's empowerment and women's voices in civic discourse. Deepfakes are being used right now against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Prime Minister Meloni in Italy.

Regardless of one's views of their political positions, etc., the point is that when the leader of a G7 country is being limited in terms of their ability to participate in civic and political discourse via deepfakes, we need to take action. We are taking that action in a comprehensive bill and a comprehensive measure that would address and empower freedom of expression rather than limiting it.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois believes that Bill C-63 tackles two major online scourges and that it is time for us, as legislators, to take action to stamp them out.

The Bloc Québécois strongly supports part 1 of the bill, in other words, all provisions related to addressing child pornography and the communication of pornographic content without consent. As we see it, this part is self-evident. It has garnered such strong consensus that we told the minister, through our critic, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, that we not only support it, but we were also prepared to accept and pass part 1 quickly and facilitate its passage.

As for part 2, however, we have some reservations. We consider it reasonable to debate this part in committee. The minister can accuse other political parties of playing politics with part 2, but not the Bloc Québécois. We sincerely believe that part 2 needs to be debated. We have questions. We have doubts. I think our role calls on us to to get to the bottom of things.

That is why we have asked the minister—and why we are asking him again today—to split Bill C‑63 in two, so that we can pass part 1 quickly and implement it, and set part 2 aside for legislative and debate-related purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for her question, and I appreciate the position of the Bloc Québécois

I want to emphasize three points.

First, the aspect that affects children also affects teens and adults. In other words, hatred is a problem for children, teenagers and adults. Hatred is not exclusive to any particular age. That is the first thing.

Second, the member is suggesting that a comprehensive study is needed, with witnesses and consultations, to see if we can improve the bill. I could not agree more, but it is not just part 2 that needs to be thoroughly studied. We need a comprehensive study of all aspects of this bill. We need to examine the bill in its entirety.

Third, as I mentioned at the outset, Canada is not the first country to move in this direction. Australia took its first steps in 2015, beginning with protecting children only. Nine years later, in 2024, Australia is addressing the issue more broadly. In 2024, Canada needs to address all aspects. Harmful content is by no means limited to content directed at children.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP finds that the government delayed introduction of this bill for far too long. We want it to be referred to committee for a comprehensive study.

There are some parts that we fully support. There are others that deal with the Criminal Code, for example, that will truly require a comprehensive study in committee. We have to make sure we take the time that is needed.

That being said, the bill is missing certain aspects, which is a bit surprising. I am talking about transparency with respect to algorithms. As the minister knows, hate and other such things are often amplified by algorithms that promote the kind of content that adversely affects people. This is not being addressed in the bill.

I would like the minister to tell us why this important aspect of algorithms and transparency is not being addressed so that we can determine precisely why some hateful content or harmful content is promoted on certain platforms.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that the time it took to promulgate this bill and bring it here before the House for debate was directly related to the consultations we held around the world. That is why it took four years to prepare this bill.

Also, with respect to the transparency of social media and platforms, I would like to note three specific points.

First, the bill specifically seeks to enable the digital safety commissioner to authorize academic researchers to access data anonymously to verify what is happening on platforms with their own algorithms. Second, the digital safety commissioner will be responsible for ensuring that the platforms actually follow the digital safety plan. Third, every user can run their own algorithm to inform platforms that some content is harmful and to prevent content from a specific author from appearing on their feed.

We are therefore broadening many aspects related to algorithm transparency. If other measures should be taken, I am quite willing to consider amendments that are presented in good faith in committee on how to improve transparency on this front.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Minister of Small Business]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to visit a school in my riding in response to letters that some nine-year-olds and 10-year-olds had written to me. In their classroom, I asked the kids whether they knew about cyber-bullying, and all of them raised their hands because all of them had experienced it or knew to some degree what cyber-bullying is like.

While I was talking about the topic of cyber-bullying, there was a young boy the age of my daughter, nine years old. He raised his hand and shared with me that on his birthday, he had received new VR glasses to use with his video game. He shared that while he was in his online space and was minding his own business, someone approached him online and did things to him repeatedly that were not nice. Needless to say, when I asked him what he did after this happened to him, the young man said he did not do anything and that he decided not to play video games ever again.

The reason I am sharing his testimony is that I would like to ask the hon. minister what the bill would do to help protect kids just like the one I spoke to at the elementary school.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that my heart breaks just listening to that. It is at the heart of the bill. The bill would entrench a duty to protect children, a duty to remove content that would target children. In terms of what the child who was mentioned experienced, one can rest assured that it is not an anomaly in Mississauga. Kids around Canada and around the world are facing this type of situation all the time.

We would never tolerate someone's lurking around a schoolyard or contacting our kids by telephone at midnight. That is what is occurring all the time. The fact that the bill takes a hard look at child sex predators and at those who would spread revenge porn, and that it would entrench a duty to protect children, is in fact the exact step we need to take. That is what Canadian parents are demanding. I hope every parliamentarian of the chamber will get behind the important bill before us.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we must protect Canadians in the digital age, but Bill C-63 is not the way to do it. It would force Canadians to make unnecessary trade-offs between the guarantee of their security and their charter rights. Today I will explain why Bill C-63 is deeply flawed and why it would not protect Canadians' rights sufficiently. More importantly, I will present a comprehensive alternative plan that is more respectful of Canadians' charter rights and would provide immediate protections for Canadians facing online harms.

The core problem with Bill C-63 is how the government has changed and chosen to frame the myriad harms that occur in the digital space as homogenous and as capable of being solved with one approach or piece of legislation. In reality, harms that occur online are an incredibly heterogenous set of problems requiring a multitude of tailored solutions. It may sound like the former might be more difficult to achieve than the latter, but this is not the case. It is relatively easy to inventory the multitudes of problems that occur online and cause Canadians harm. From there, it should be easy to sort out how existing laws and regulatory processes that exist for the physical world could be extended to the digital world.

There are few, if any, examples of harms that are being caused in digital spaces that do not already have existing relatable laws or regulatory structures that could be extended or modified to cover them. Conversely, what the government has done for nearly a decade is try to create new, catch-all regulatory, bureaucratic and extrajudicial processes that would adapt to the needs of actors in the digital space instead of requiring them to adapt to our existing laws. All of these attempts have failed to become law, which is likely going to be the fate of Bill C-63.

This is a backward way of looking at things. It has caused nearly a decade of inaction on much-needed modernization of existing systems and has translated into law enforcement's not having the tools it needs to prevent crime, which in turn causes harm to Canadians. It has also led to a balkanization of laws and regulations across Canadian jurisdictions, a loss of investment due to the uncertainty, and a lack of coordination with the international community. Again, ultimately, it all harms Canadians.

Bill C-63 takes the same approach by listing only a few of the harms that happen in online spaces and creates a new, onerous and opaque extrajudicial bureaucracy, while creating deep problems for Canadian charter rights. For example, Bill C-63 would create a new “offence motivated by a hatred” provision that could see a life sentence applied to minor infractions under any act of Parliament, a parasitic provision that would be unchecked in the scope of the legislation. This means that words alone could lead to life imprisonment.

While the government has attempted to argue that this is not the case, saying that a serious underlying act would have to occur for the provision to apply, that is simply not how the bill is written. I ask colleagues to look at it. The bill seeks to amend section 320 of the Criminal Code, and reads, “Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament...is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.”

At the justice committee earlier this year, the minister stated:

...the new hate crime offence captures any existing offence if it was hate-motivated. That can run the gamut from a hate-motivated theft all the way to a hate-motivated attempted murder. The sentencing range entrenched in Bill C-63 was designed to mirror the existing...options for all of these potential underlying offences, from the most minor to the most serious offences on the books....

The minister continued, saying, “this does not mean that minor offences will suddenly receive...harsh sentences. However, sentencing judges are required to follow legal principles, and “hate-motivated murder will result in a life sentence. A minor infraction will...not result in it.”

In this statement, the minister admitted both that the new provision could be applied to any act of Parliament, as the bill states, and that the government would be relying upon the judiciary to ensure that maximum penalties were not levelled against a minor infraction. Parliament cannot afford the government to be this lazy, and by that I mean not spelling out exactly what it intends a life sentence to apply to in law, as opposed to handing a highly imperfect judiciary an overbroad law that could have extreme, negative consequences.

Similarly, a massive amount of concern from across the political spectrum has been raised regarding Bill C-63's introduction of a so-called hate crime peace bond, calling it a pre-crime provision for speech. This is highly problematic because it would explicitly extend the power to issue peace bonds to crimes of speech, which the bill does not adequately define, nor does it provide any assurance that it would meet a criminal standard for hate.

Equally as concerning is that Bill C-63 would create a new process for individuals and groups to complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that online speech directed at them is discriminatory. This process would be extrajudicial, not subject to the same evidentiary standards of a criminal court, and could take years to resolve. Findings would be based on a mere balance of probabilities rather than on the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The subjectivity of defining hate speech would undoubtedly lead to punishments for protected speech. The mere threat of human rights complaints would chill large amounts of protected speech, and the system would undoubtedly be deluged with a landslide of vexatious complaints. There certainly are no provisions in the bill to prevent any of this from happening.

Nearly a decade ago, even the Toronto Star, hardly a bastion of Conservative thought, wrote a scathing opinion piece opposing these types of provisions. The same principle should apply today. When the highly problematic components of the bill are overlaid upon the fact that we are presently living under a government that unlawfully invoked the Emergencies Act and that routinely gaslights Canadians who legitimately question efficacy or the morality of its policies as spreading misinformation, as the Minister of Justice did in his response to my question, saying that I had mis-characterized the bill, it is not a far leap to surmise that the new provision has great potential for abuse. That could be true for any political stripe that is in government.

The government's charter compliance statement, which is long and vague and has only recently been issued, should raise concerns for parliamentarians in this regard, as it relies on this statement: “The effects of the Bill on freedom expression are outweighed by the benefits of protecting members of vulnerable groups”. The government has already been found to have violated the Charter in the case of Bill C-69 for false presumptions on which one benefit outweighs others. I suspect this would be the same case for Bill C-63 should it become law, which I hope it does not.

I believe in the capacity of Canadians to express themselves within the bounds of protected speech and to maintain the rule of law within our vibrant pluralism. Regardless of political stripe, we must value freedom of speech and due process, because they are what prevents violent conflict. Speech already has clearly defined limitations under Canadian law. The provisions in Bill C-63 that I have just described are anathema to these principles. To be clear, Canadians should not be expected to have their right to protected speech chilled or limited in order to be safe online, which is what Bill C-63 would ask of them.

Bill C-63 would also create a new three-headed, yet-to-exist bureaucracy. It would leave much of the actual rules the bill describes to be created and enforced under undefined regulations by said bureaucracy at some much later date in the future. We cannot wait to take action in many circumstances. As one expert described it to me, it is like vaguely creating an outline and expecting bureaucrats, not elected legislators, to colour in the picture behind closed doors without any accountability to the Canadian public.

The government should have learned from the costs associated with failing when it attempted the same approach with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, but alas, here we are. The new bureaucratic process would be slow, onerous and uncertain. If the government proceeds with it, it means Canadians would be left without protection, and innovators and investors would be left without the regulatory certainty needed to grow their businesses.

It would also be costly. I have asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to conduct an analysis of the costs associated with the creation of the bureaucracy, and he has agreed to undertake the task. No parliamentarian should even consider supporting the bill without understanding the resources the government intends to allocate to the creation of the new digital safety commission, digital safety ombudsman and digital safety office, particularly since the findings in this week's damning NSICOP report starkly outlined the opportunity cost of the government failing to allocate much needed resources to the RCMP.

Said differently, if the government cannot fund and maintain the critical operations of the RCMP, which already has the mandate to enforce laws related to public safety, then Parliament should have grave, serious doubts about the efficacy of its setting up three new bureaucracies to address issues that could likely be managed by existing regulatory bodies like the CRTC or in the enforcement of the Criminal Code. Also, Canadians should have major qualms about creating new bureaucracies which would give power to well-funded and extremely powerful big tech companies to lobby and manipulate regulations to their benefit behind the scenes and outside the purview of Parliament.

This approach would not necessarily protect Canadians and may create artificial barriers to entry for new innovative industry players. The far better approach would be to adapt and extend long-existing laws and regulatory systems, properly resource their enforcement arms, and require big tech companies and other actors in the digital space to comply with these laws, not the other way around. This approach would provide Canadians with real protections, not what amounts to a new, ineffectual complaints department with a high negative opportunity cost to Canadians.

In no scenario should Parliament allow the government to entrench in legislation a power for social media companies to be arbiters of speech, which Bill C-63 risks doing. If the government wishes to further impose restrictions on Canadians' rights to speech, that should be a debate for Parliament to consider, not for regulators and tech giants to decide behind closed doors and with limited accountability to the public.

In short, this bill is completely flawed and should be abandoned, particularly given the minister's announcement this morning that he is unwilling to proceed with any sort of change to it in scope.

However, there is a better way. There is an alternative, which would be a more effective and more quickly implementable plan to protect Canadians' safety in the digital age. It would modernize existing laws and processes to align with digital advancements. It would protect speech not already limited in the Criminal Code, and would foster an environment for innovation and investment in digital technologies. It would propose adequately resourcing agencies with existing responsibilities for enforcing the law, not creating extrajudicial bureaucracies that would amount to a complaints department.

To begin, the RCMP and many law enforcement agencies across the country are under-resourced after certain flavours of politicians have given much more than a wink and a nod to the “defund the police” movement for over a decade. This trend must immediately be reversed. Well-resourced and well-respected law enforcement is critical to a free and just society.

Second, the government must also reform its watered-down bail policies, which allow repeat offenders to commit crimes over and over again. Criminals in the digital space will never face justice, no matter what laws are passed, if the Liberal government's catch-and-release policies are not reversed. I think of a woman in my city of Calgary who was murdered in broad daylight in front of an elementary school because her spouse was subject to the catch-and-release Liberal bail policy, in spite of his online harassment of her for a very long time.

Third, the government must actually enforce—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Drummond is rising on a point of order.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleague. I hate to interrupt her in the middle of a speech like this, but we can hear a telephone or device vibrating near a microphone and it must be very irritating for the interpreters.

Could you ask members to be mindful of that and to keep their devices away from the microphones, please?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would ask the hon. member to move the cellphone away from the microphone so that it does not vibrate.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, third, the government must actually enforce laws that are already on the books but have not been recently enforced due to a extreme lack of political will and disingenuous politics and leadership, particularly as they relate to hate speech. This is particularly in light of the rise of dangers currently faced by vulnerable Canadian religious communities such as, as the minister mentioned, Canada's Jewish community.

This could be done via actions such as ensuring the RCMP, including specialized integrated national security enforcement teams and national security enforcement sections, is providing resources and working directly with appropriate provincial and municipal police forces to share appropriate information intelligence to provide protection to these communities, as well as making sure the secure security infrastructure program funding is accessible in an expedited manner so community institutions and centres can enhance security measures at their gathering places.

Fourth, for areas where modernization of existing regulations and the Criminal Code need immediate updating to reflect the digital age, and where there could be cross-partisan consensus, the government should undertake these changes in a manner that would allow for swift and non-partisan passage through Parliament.

These items could include some of the provisions discussed in Bill C-63. These include the duty of making content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor, or of intimate content communicated without consent, inaccessible to persons in Canada in certain circumstances; imposing certain duties to keep all records related to sexual victimization to online providers; making provisions for persons in Canada to make a complaint to existing enforcement bodies, such as the CRTC or the police, not a new bureaucracy that would take years to potentially materialize and be costly and/or ineffective; ensuring that content on a social media service that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor, or is intimate content communicated without consent, by authorization of a court making orders to the operators of those services, is inaccessible to persons in Canada; and enforcing the proposed amendment to an act respecting the mandatory reporting of internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service.

Other provisions the government has chosen not to include in Bill C-63, but that should have been and that Parliament should be considering in the context of harms that are being conducted online, must include updating Canada's existing laws on the non-consensual distribution of intimate images to ensure the distribution of intimate deepfakes is also criminalized, likely through a simple update to the Criminal Code. We could have done this by unanimous consent today had the government taken the initiative to do so. This is already a major problem in Canada with girls in high schools in Winnipeg seeing intimate images of themselves, sometimes, as reports are saying, being sexually violated without any ability for the law to intervene.

The government also needs to create a new criminal offence of online criminal harassment that would update the existing crime of criminal harassment to address the ease and anonymity of online criminal harassment. Specifically, this would apply to those who repeatedly send threatening and/or explicit messages or content to people across the Internet and social media when they know, or should know, it is not welcome. This could include aggravating factors for repeatedly sending such material anonymously and be accompanied by a so-called digital restraining order that would allow victims of online criminal harassment to apply to a judge, under strict circumstances, to identify the harassment and end the harassment.

This would protect privacy, remove the onus on social media platforms from guessing when they should be giving identity to the police and prevent the escalation of online harassment into physical violence. This would give police and victims clear and easy-to-understand tools to prevent online harassment and associated escalation. This would address a major issue of intimate partner violence and make it easier to stop coercive control.

As well, I will note to the minister that members of the governing Liberal Party agreed to the need for these exact measures at a recent meeting of PROC related to online harassment of elected officials this past week.

Fifth, the government should consider a more effective and better way to regulate online platforms, likely under the authority of the CRTC and the Minister of Industry, to better protect children online while protecting charter rights.

This path could include improved measures to do this. This could include, through legislation, not backroom regulation, but precisely through law, defining the duty of care required by online platforms. Some of these duties of care have already been mentioned in questions to the ministers today. This is what Parliament should be seized with, not allowing some unnamed future regulatory body to decide this for us while we have big tech companies and their lobbying arms defining that behind closed doors. That is our job, not theirs.

We could provide parents with safeguards, controls and transparency to prevent harm to their kids when they are online, which could be part of the duty of care. We could also require that online platforms put the interests of children first with appropriate safeguards, again, in a legislative duty of care.

There could also be measures to prevent and mitigate self-harm, mental health disorders, addictive behaviours, bullying and harassment, sexual violence and exploitation, and the promotion of marketing and products that are unlawful for minors. All of these things are instances of duty of care.

We could improve measures to implement privacy-preserving and trustworthy age verification methods, which many platforms always have the capacity to do, while prohibiting the use of a digital ID in any of these mechanisms.

This path could also include measure to ensure that the enforcement of these mechanisms, including a system of administrative penalties and consequences, is done through agencies that already exist. Additionally, we could ensure that there are perhaps other remedies, such as the ability to seek remedy for civil injury, when that duty of care is violated.

This is a non-comprehensive list of online harms, but the point is, we could come to consensus in this place on simple modernization issues that would update the laws now. I hope that the government will accept this plan.

A send out a shout-out to Sean Phelan and David Murray, two strong and mighty workers. We did not have an army of bureaucrats, but we came up with this. I hope that Parliament considers this alternative plan, instead of Bill C-63, because the safety of Canadians is at risk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely thank the member opposite for her contributions to today's debate because it is really important.

I will point out four things and then ask her a question.

The first is that, with respect to my position on amendments, what I said, and I want to make sure it is crystal clear to Canadians watching, is that I am open to amendments that would strengthen the bill that are made in good faith.

The second point is with respect to free-standing hate crime, which is a provision that exists in 47 out of 50 states in the United States. The nature of the penalty that would be applied in a given context of a hate crime would depend on the underlying offence. Uttering a threat that was motivated by hate would constitute less of a penalty than committing a murder that was motivated by hate. For the member's benefit, paragraph 718.1 of the Criminal Code, which I do trust judges to interpret, specifically says that the penalty “must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.”

With respect to the peace bond, what I would say to the member's point, quite simply, is that I do believe it is necessary to take a tool that is well known to criminal law and apply it to the context of a synagogue, which has already been targeted with vandalism and may be targeted again, where there would be proof needed to be put before a judge and where the safeguard would exist for the attorney general of jurisdiction to give consent before such a peace bond was pursued.

The member talked about the fact that Criminal Code tools should be used in the context of ensuring that we can tackle this pernicious information. What I would say to her is that law enforcement has asked us for the same tool that Amanda Todd's mother has asked us for. The victimization of people, even after death, continues when the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have outlined in detail why the bill is irremediable. It is not fixable, and members do not have to take my word for it. The Atlantic magazine, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, has a huge expose this morning on why the bill is so flawed. I suspect it is why the government has only allowed it to come up for debate now. I do not expect to see it in the fall.

Given that the bill is so flawed, it is incumbent upon the Minister of Justice to take the suggestions of the opposition seriously. I have outlined several, and they are very easy to pick out of my speech, suggestions on how the minister could proceed. He could proceed, likely on an expedited process, under those situations.

It sounds like my colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP have similar concerns. The bill cannot proceed in its current state. Frankly, Canadians should not be expected to trade their rights for safety online, and they should not have to expect a government, which has dragged its heels for nearly a decade, to continue with the facade that it actually cares about this issue or has a plan to address it. We have given it one, and the Liberals should take it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this parliamentary term, I am pleased to see that more and more school groups are coming to watch the business of the House. I think this is a strategy used by teachers to show that they are not as boring as they seem and that students should pay attention in class. Quite often, what happens here is a lot more interesting than sitting in class.

That said, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. I noted several interesting points, particularly the fact that she made proposals. We do not often hear proposals about regulating online content from the Conservatives. I heard proposals and I also detected some desire for consensus. There may well be certain points on which we could agree.

Does my colleague agree with the Bloc Québécois, which is proposing that we split the bill, that we should fast-track the study of part 1, given that we generally agree on its principles at least, and that we should take the time to study part 2 in the House and in committee? Part 2 contains aspects that require much more in-depth discussion, in our opinion.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate thing is that the government is close to the end of its mandate and does not have a lot of public support across the country. The reality is that even if the government members said that they were going to split the bill, which they just said that they were not going to do, the bill would not likely become law. Certainly, the regulatory process is not going to happen prior to the next election, even if the bill is rammed through.

The problem that is facing Canadians is that the solutions that are required have problems that need to be addressed today. I would suggest that what is actually needed is a separate, completely different piece of legislation, which outlines the suggestions I have in there. It is unfortunate that the government, with its army of bureaucrats, was not able to do it and that it is the opposition that has to do it. I am certainly willing to work with my opposition colleagues on another piece of legislation that could address these issues and find areas of commonality so that we can protect Canadians from online harms.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's hard work in terms of tackling issues like harassment and the distribution of non-consensual images; she is very sincere in this regard.

The member has flagged the issue of resources; the bill is unclear as to what the government would actually provide in terms of resources. I do note this has been an ongoing problem over the last 20 years with cutbacks to law enforcement.

The member notes as well the impact of big tech. I wanted her to comment on a substantial missing piece in the legislation around algorithm transparency, which is currently before the U.S. Congress, and needs to be addressed absolutely. Big tech companies often promote non-consensual images through their algorithms and hate through their algorithms without any sort of oversight or responsibility. How does the member feel about that missing piece?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to resources, I asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to conduct an analysis of the resources that the government was anticipating for the creation of its bureaucracy, because I believe that those resources would likely be much better allocated to other places. My colleague can wait for that report and perhaps re-emphasize to the Parliamentary Budget Officer the need to speed that along.

The second thing is with regard to algorithmic transparency. This is why we need to have a legislated duty of care. If we proceeded on the principle of a legislated duty of care of social media operators, then we could discuss what needs to be in there. Certainly, algorithmic transparency and bias that are used in AI systems that could be potentially injurious in a variety of ways are something—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is time to go to Statements by Members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Shefford, who does essential work as the Bloc Québécois critic on issues having to do with seniors.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member needs the unanimous consent of the House to share her time.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been authorized to share my time with the hon. member for Shefford, who does essential work for the Bloc Québécois on issues having to do with seniors. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the government that Bill C‑319, which was introduced by my colleague, was unanimously adopted in committee with good reason. The Bloc Québécois is proposing to increase the amount of the full pension by 10% starting at age 65 and change the way to guaranteed income supplement is calculated to benefit seniors.

There is a lot of talk about that in my riding. This bill is coming back to the House and the government should make a commitment at some point. We are asking the government to give royal assent to Bill C‑319. In other words, if the bill is blocked again, seniors will understand that the Liberals are once again abandoning them. I am passionate about the cause of seniors, and so I wanted to use my speech on Bill C‑63 to make a heartfelt plea on behalf of seniors in Quebec and to commend my colleague from Shefford for her work.

Today we are debating Bill C‑63, which amends a number of laws to tackle two major digital scourges, specifically child pornography, including online child pornography, and hate speech. This legislation was eagerly awaited. We were surprised that it took the government so long to introduce it.

We have been waiting a long time for this bill, especially part 1. The Bloc Québécois has been waiting a long time for such a bill to protect our children and people who are abused and bullied and whose reputations are jeopardized because of all the issues related to pornography. We agree with part 1 of the bill. We even made an offer to the minister. We agree with it so completely, and I believe there is a consensus about that across the House, that I think we should split the bill and pass the first part before the House rises. That way, we could implement everything needed to protect our children, teens and young adults who are currently going through difficult experiences that can change their lives and have a significant negative impact on them.

We agree that parts 2, 3 and 4 need to be discussed and debated, because the whole hate speech component of the bill is important. We agree with the minister on that. It is very important. What is currently happening on the Internet and online is unacceptable. We need to take action, but reaching an agreement on how to deal with this issue is not that easy. We need time and we need to debate it amongst ourselves.

The Bloc Québécois has a list of witnesses who could enlighten us on how we can improve the situation. We would like to hear from experts who could help us pass the best bill possible in order to protect the public, citizens and groups when it comes to the whole issue of hate speech. We also wonder why the minister, in part 2 of his bill, which deals with hate speech, omitted to include the two clauses of the bill introduced by the member for Beloeil—Chambly. I am talking about Bill C-367, which proposed removing the protection afforded under the Criminal Code to people who engage in hate speech on a religious basis.

We are wondering why the minister did not take the opportunity to add these clauses to his bill. These are questions that we have because to us, offering this protection is out of the question. It is out of the question to let someone use religion as an excuse to make gestures, accusations or even very threatening comments on the Internet under these sections of the Criminal Code. We are asking the minister to listen. The debates in the House and in committee are very polarized right now.

It would be extremely sad and very disappointing if we passed this bill so quickly that there was no time to debate it in order to improve it and make it the best bill it can be.

I can say that the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of the bill at second reading. As I said, it is a complex bill. We made a proposal to the Prime Minister. We wrote to him and the leader. We also talked to the Minister of Justice to tell him to split the bill as soon as possible. That way, we could quickly protect the survivors who testified at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the other Parliament. These people said that their life is unbearable, and they talked about the consequences they are suffering from being victims of sites such as Pornhub. They were used without their consent. Intimate images of them were posted without their consent. We are saying that we need to protect the people currently going through this by quickly adopting part 1. The committee could then study part 2 and hear witnesses.

I know that the member for Drummond and the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia raised this idea during committee of the whole on May 23. They tried to convince the minister, but he is still refusing to split the bill. We think that is a very bad idea. We want to repeat our offer. We do not really understand why he is so reluctant to do so. There is nothing partisan about what the Bloc Québécois is proposing. Our focus is on protecting victims on various platforms.

In closing, I know that the leaders are having discussions to finalize when the House will rise for the summer. Maybe fast-tracking a bill like this one could be part of the negotiations. However, I repeat that we are appealing to the Minister of Justice's sense of responsibility. I know he cares a lot about victims and their cause. We are sincerely asking him to postpone the passage of parts 2, 3 and 4, so that we can have more time to debate them in committee. Most importantly, we want to pass part 1 before the House rises for the summer so that we can protect people who are going through a really hard time right now because their private lives have been exposed online and they cannot get web platforms to taken down their image, their photo or photos of their private parts.

We are appealing to the minister's sense of responsibility.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech.

This a very important issue in our region. We have already seen cases of abuse. It is very concerning.

According to what we are hearing today, some people oppose the bill because they say that freedom of expression needs to be protected at all costs. I think my colleague understands that there should be limits. Protecting our young people is one of those limits.

I would like to hear more about that from her.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is from the neighbouring constituency.

She is right. I totally agree that we need to take action to eliminate or reduce all types of hate speech on platforms and on the Internet. It feels like the wild west. She is totally right.

Where do we draw the line? After all, there are sections of the Criminal Code that protect people and offer them some protection. How do we strike a balance between protecting freedom of expression and taking action to eliminate or reduce hate speech on the various platforms or on the Internet? That is the question.

That is why we are inviting her government to acknowledge that this requires a lot of work and discussion. We should split off Part 1 and pass it, then debate the other parts to make it a better law.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, I listened to my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît's speech with great interest. There is one aspect of the bill that I see as a major flaw, specifically the fact that children are often profoundly harmed by hateful content promoted by secret algorithms, yet there is nothing in this bill about algorithm transparency.

Does my colleague agree that the big digital platforms, the web giants, should be responsible for disclosing the algorithms they use? These algorithms amplify hate speech, which is often extremely harmful to children.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the issue raised by my colleague is just one example of something that could be studied and debated in committee. For instance, experts could share their expertise on algorithm management. As legislators, our goal is to improve the bill. What my colleague is proposing is one of the things that will probably be discussed in committee. Depending on the nature of the deliberations, we might be able to amend the bill.

Quebec began exploring how we could reduce radicalization and hate speech on the Internet in 2015. This was even the subject of a bill studied in the Quebec National Assembly. However, it was not easy. We realized that what we were doing would not necessarily help the situation and could even do more damage.

I urge my colleagues to study parts 2, 3 and 4 of the bill in committee and to pass part 1 now.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I have very little time, I would just like to say something and perhaps ask my colleague a question. Not very long ago, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and member for Beloeil—Chambly introduced a bill to prevent people from using the religious exemption to engage in hate speech. I would like to know whether this bill addresses that very important matter.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope we are going to discuss this and be able to amend the bill, because we do not understand why this aspect was not included.

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the schoolchildren from École Edgar-Hébert, who are here with us today to observe our work in the House and see what a good job the Speaker is doing.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to speak in front of the member for Salaberry—Suroît, who does outstanding work and who just gave a wonderful speech. I will see what I can add to it. I may get a little more technical than she did. She spoke from the heart, as usual, and I commend her for that. I also want to thank her for her shout-out to Bill C-319. People are still talking to me about Bill C‑319, because seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 feel forgotten. We will continue this debate over the summer. In anticipation of this bill's eventual return before the House, we will continue to try to raise public awareness of the important issue of increasing old age security by 10% for all seniors.

I have gotten a bit off today's topic. I am the critic for seniors, but I am also the critic for status of women, and it is more in that capacity that I am rising today to speak to Bill C-63. This is an issue that I hear a lot about. Many groups reach out to me about hate speech. They are saying that women are disproportionately affected. That was the theme that my colleague from Drummond and I chose on March 8 of last year. We are calling for better control over hate speech out of respect for women who are the victims of serious violence online. It is important that we have a bill on this subject. It took a while, but I will come back to that.

Today we are discussing the famous Bill C‑63, 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”. This bill was introduced by the Minister of Justice. I will provide a bit of context. I will then talk a bit more about the bill. I will close with a few of the Bloc Québécois's proposals.

To begin, I would like to say that Bill C‑63 should have been introduced much sooner. The Liberals promised to legislate against online hate. As members know, in June 2021, during the second session of the 43rd Parliament, the Liberals tabled Bill C-36, which was a first draft that laid out their intentions. This bill faced criticism, so they chose to let it die on the Order Paper. In July 2021, the government launched consultations on a new regulatory framework for online safety. It then set up an expert advisory group to help it draft a new bill. We saw that things were dragging on, so in 2022 we again asked about bringing back the bill. We wanted the government to keep its promises. This bill comes at a time when tensions are high and discourse is strained, particularly because of the war between Israel and Hamas. Some activists fear that hate speech will be used to silence critics. The Minister of Justice defended himself by saying that the highest level of proof would have to be produced before a conviction could be handed down.

Second, I would like to go back over a few aspects of the bill. Under this bill, operators who refuse to comply with the law, or who refuse to comply with the commission's decision, could face fines of up to 8% of their overall gross revenues, or $25 million, the highest fine, depending on the nature of the offence. Bill C‑63 increases the maximum penalties for hate crimes. It even includes a definition of hate as the “emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”. The bill addresses that. This legislation includes tough new provisions stipulating that a person who commits a hate-motivated crime, under any federal law, can be sentenced to life in prison. Even more surprising, people can file a complaint before a provincial court judge if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that someone is going to commit one of these offences.

Bill C-63 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to allow the Canadian Human Rights Commission to receive complaints regarding the communication of hate speech. Individuals found guilty could be subject to an order. Private conversations are excluded from the communication of hate speech. There are all kinds of things like that to examine more closely. As my colleague explained, this bill contains several parts, each with its own elements. Certain aspects will need a closer look in committee.

Bill C-63 also updates the definition of “Internet service”. The law requires Internet service providers to “notify the law enforcement body designated by the regulations...as soon as feasible and in accordance with the regulations” if they have “reasonable grounds to believe that their Internet service is being or has been used to commit a child pornography offence”.

Bill C-63 tackles two major scourges of the digital world, which I have already discussed. The first is non-consensual pornographic material or child pornography, and the second is hate speech.

The provisions to combat child pornography and the distribution of non-consensual pornographic material are generally positive. The Bloc Québécois supports them. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports part 1 of the bill.

On the other hand, some provisions of Bill C‑63 to fight against hate are problematic. The Bloc Québécois fears, as my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît explained, that the provisions of Bill C‑63 might unnecessarily restrict freedom of expression. We want to remind the House that Quebec already debated the subject in 2015. Bill 59, which sought to counter radicalization, was intended to sanction hate speech. Ultimately, Quebec legislators concluded that giving powers to the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, as Bill C‑63 would have us do with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, would do more harm than good. The Bloc Québécois is going with the consensus in Quebec on this. It believes that the Criminal Code provisions are more than sufficient to fight against hate speech. Yes, the Bloc Québécois is representing the consensus in Quebec and reiterating it here in the House.

Third, the Bloc Québécois is proposing that Bill C‑63 be divided so that we can debate part 1 separately, as I explained. This is a critical issue. Internet pornography has a disproportionate effect on children, minors and women, and we need to protect them. This part targets sexual content. Online platforms are also targeted in the other parts.

We believe that the digital safety commission must be established as quickly as possible to provide support and recourse for those who are trying to have content about them removed from platforms. We have to help them. By dividing Bill C‑63, we would be able to debate and reach a consensus on part 1 more quickly.

Parts 2, 3 and 4 also contain provisions about hate speech. That is a bit more complex. Part 1 of the bill is well structured. It forces social media operators, including platforms that distribute pornographic material, such as Pornhub, to take measures to increase the security of digital environments. In order to do so, the bill requires social media operators to act responsibly. All of that is very positive.

Part 1 also talks about allowing users to report harmful content to operators based on seven categories defined by the law, so that it can be removed. We want Bill C-63 to be tougher on harmful content, meaning content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and intimate content communicated without consent. As we have already seen, this has serious consequences for victims with related PTSD. We need to take action.

However, part 2 of the bill is more problematic, because it amends the Criminal Code to increase the maximum sentences for hate crimes. The Bloc Québécois finds it hard to see how increasing maximum sentences for this type of crime will have any effect and how it is justified. Introducing a provision that allows life imprisonment for any hate-motivated federal offence is puzzling.

Furthermore, part 2 provides that a complaint can be made against someone when there is a fear they may commit a hate crime, and orders can be made against that person. However, as explained earlier, there are already sections of the Criminal Code that deal with these situations. This part is therefore problematic.

Part 3 allows an individual to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for speech that foments hate, including online speech. As mentioned, the Bloc Québécois has concerns that these provisions may be used to silence ideological opponents.

Part 4 states that Internet service providers must notify the appropriate authority if they suspect that their services are being used for child pornography purposes. In short, this part should also be studied.

In conclusion, the numbers are alarming. According to Statistics Canada, violent hate crimes have increased each year since 2015. Between 2015 and 2021, the total number of victims of violent hate crimes increased by 158%. The Internet is contributing to the surge in hate. However, if we want to take serious action, I think it is important to split Bill C‑63. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for this for a long time. Part 1 is important, but parts 2, 3 and 4 need to be studied separately in committee.

I would like to acknowledge all the work accomplished on this issue by my colleagues. Specifically, I am referring to the member for Drummond, the member for Rivière-du-Nord and the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. We really must take action.

This is an important issue that the Bloc Québécois has been working on for a very long time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the minister, in introducing the legislation, made it very clear that amendments are something he is open to, as long as they give more strength to the legislation.

In recognition of the fine work that standing committees can do in giving strength to legislation, would it be fair to say that the Bloc's position would be that it is in favour of this legislation, as it currently is, at least at this stage, going to committee? In other words, will the member be voting in favour of the legislation going to committee?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the Bloc Québécois would have preferred to split the bill in two.

Right now, it is far too problematic to get a proper perspective. We certainly want to study this bill in committee, including parts two, three and four. The leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, introduced a bill to deal with hate speech. There are two clauses that we would have liked to include in this bill, for example. We would have liked to work on the bill.

The Bloc Québécois made a perfectly reasonable proposal, specifically to split the bill in two in order to work on part 1, which has a much greater consensus. Urgent action is needed on part 1, which deals with sexual crimes involving children online. We have been calling for this for quite some time. We must act.

Some elements of the Criminal Code already apply to parts 2, 3 and 4 of the bill. The Bloc Québécois has also made other proposals. We would like to rework these parts in committee.

Above all, we reiterate the need to split the bill in two, because these are two completely separate issues.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on the part of the bill that addresses hate. In the past few weeks, we have seen horrific attacks on synagogues and Jewish schools, and I have met with community members and leaders from the Jewish community who are scared. They are scared about the rise in anti-Semitism, and a number of them have brought up how online platforms are fuelling this kind of hate. We must address the issues of civil liberties and free speech that are problematic in this bill.

New Democrats want to hold social media giants accountable for their algorithms. Can the member talk a bit about how we also need to strengthen accountability and transparency measures to hold social media platforms accountable?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain: When we talk about algorithms, it is not so simple.

In my presentation, I explained the issue of hate speech. When it comes to parts 2, 3 and 4 of the bill, we have questions that we want to work on.

It was in fact to deal with anti-Semitism and hate speech against the Jewish community that the Bloc Québécois introduced the member for Beloeil—Chambly's bill.

Then there is the whole issue of freedom of expression, which is critical but certainly not simple. There is a fine line between wanting to take action and knowing how to deal with algorithms without attacking freedom of expression. That is why I think that we need to hear from experts in committee. We need to hear suggestions from experts on these very serious issues. That is such a fine line that we truly need help to walk that line and strike a delicate balance between the two. It is critically important.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to commend my colleague for her speech and for her work on this issue. I know that she really puts her heart into it. This is something that really concerns her. Like me, she was really looking forward to finally seeing some legislation put forward on this issue.

In her speech, my colleague mentioned an aspect of this bill that is of personal concern to me. I am talking about the increase in maximum sentences for crimes set out in the bill. However, Canada's corrections system is more focused on rehabilitation than on punishment.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on how effective it will be to increase these maximum sentences.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is why we want to divide the bill in two. This is yet another example, in addition to the matter of algorithms that my colleague from Victoria raised. My esteemed colleague from Drummond, with whom I worked on this file, is right. Increasing minimum sentences is an issue of major concern. In fact, that is why we want to examine it in committee. Is that the best solution, or should we focus instead on restorative justice?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, as we mentioned earlier, the NDP believes that certain aspects of Bill C‑63 are important and will help address a situation that calls for measures to counter online harm. However, other elements of this bill are not as clear and raise important questions.

We feel it is really necessary to pass the bill, send it to committee and give that committee the opportunity to do a thorough review. Parts of this bill are well done, but other parts need clarification and still others raise concerns. We therefore have some reservations.

This bill has been needed for years. The Liberal government promised it within 100 days of the last election, but it took almost three years, as members know. Finally, it has been introduced and is being examined. As parliamentarians, we need to do the work necessary to get answers to the questions people are asking, improve the parts of the bill that need improving and pass those parts that are sorely needed.

If parts of the bill cannot be passed or seem not to be in the public interest after a thorough examination in committee, it is our responsibility to withdraw them. However, there is no question that we need this legislation.

The harm being done to children is definitely rising. The idea that people can approach children, without restriction, to encourage them to self-harm or commit suicide should be something that our society will not tolerate. The fact that we have these web giants or platforms that promote child pornography is unacceptable. It should not be happening in our society. We have to acknowledge the importance of implementing laws to prevent this from happening. Hate speech is another issue. We are seeing a disturbing rise in violence in society, which is often fomented online.

For all of these reasons, we are going to pass this bill at second reading. We are going to send it to committee. This part of the process is very important to us. All answers must be obtained and all necessary improvements to the bill must be made in committee.

I do not think that anyone in the Parliament of Canada would like to vote against the principle of having such legislation in place. In practice, the important role of parliamentarians is to do everything in their power to produce a bill that achieves consensus, with questions answered and the necessary improvements put in place.

There is no doubt about the need for the bill. The NDP has been calling for the bill for years. The government promised it after 100 days. Canadians had to wait over 800 days before we saw the bill actually being presented.

In the meantime, the reality is that we have seen more and more cases of children being induced to harm themselves. This is profoundly disturbing to us, as parents, parliamentarians and Canadians, to see how predators have been going after children in our society. When we are talking about child pornography or inducing children to harm themselves, it is something that should be a profound concern to all of us.

Issues around the sharing of intimate content online without permission, in a way that it attacks victims, is also something that we have been calling for action on. It is important for parliamentarians to take action.

We have seen a steady and disturbing rise in hate crimes. We have seen it in all aspects of racism and misogyny, homophobia and transphobia, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. All of these toxic sources of hate are rising.

I would note two things. First, the rise in anti-Semitism is mirrored by the rise in Islamophobia. Something we have seen from the far right is that they are attacking all groups.

Second, as the ADL has pointed out, in 2022 and 2023, all the violent acts of mass murder that were ideologically motivated came from the far right in North America. These are profoundly disturbing acts. We have a responsibility to take action.

The fact that the government has delayed the bill for so long is something we are very critical of. The fact that it is before us now means that, as parliamentarians, we have the responsibility to take both the sections of the bill where there is consensus and parts of the bill where there are questions and concerns being raised that are legitimate, and we must ensure that the committee has all the resources necessary, once it is referred to the committee in principle.

That second reading vote is a vote in principle, supporting the idea of legislation in this area. However, it is at the committee stage that we will see all the witnesses who need to come forward to dissect the bill and make sure that it is the best possible legislation. From there, we determine which parts of the bill can be improved, which parts are adequate and which parts, if they raise legitimate concerns and simply do not do the job, need to be taken out.

Over the course of the next few minutes, let us go through where there is consensus and where there are legitimate questions being raised. I want to flag that the issue of resources, which has been raised by every speaker so far today, is something that the NDP takes very seriously as well.

In the Conservative government that preceded the current Liberal government, we saw the slashing of crime prevention funding. This basically meant the elimination of resources that play a valuable role in preventing crimes. In the current Liberal government, we have not seen the resources that need to go into countering online harms.

There are legitimate questions being raised about whether resources are going to be adequate for the bill to do the job that it needs to do. Those questions absolutely need to be answered in committee. If the resources are not adequate, the best bill in the world is not going to do the job to stop online harms. Therefore, the issue of resources is key for the NDP as we move forward.

With previous pieces of legislation, we have seen that the intent was good but that the resources were inadequate. The NDP, as the adults in the House, the worker bees of Parliament, as many people have attested, would then push the Liberal government hard to actually ensure adequate resources to meet the needs of the legislation.

Legislation should never be symbolic. It should accomplish a goal. If we are concerned about online harms, and so many Canadians are, then we need to ensure that the resources are adequate to do the job.

Part 1 of the bill responds to the long-delayed need to combat online harms, and a number of speakers have indicated a consensus on this approach. It is important to note the definitions, which we certainly support, in the intent of part 1 of the bill, which is also integrated into other parts of the bill. The definitions include raising concerns about “content that foments hatred”, “content that incites violence”, “content that incites violent extremism or terrorism”, “content that induces a child to harm themselves”, “content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor”, “content used to bully a child” and “intimate content communicated without consent”.

All of these are, I think it is fair to say, definitions that are detailed in how they address each of those categories. This is, I think, a goal all parliamentarians would share. No one wants to see the continued increase in sexual victimization of children and content that induces a child to harm themselves.

I have raised before in the House the sad and tragic story of Molly Russell. I met with her father and have spoken with the family. The tragic result of her having content forced upon her that led to her ending her own life is a tragedy that we have seen repeated many times, where the wild west of online platforms is promoting, often through secret algorithms, material that is profoundly damaging to children. This is something that is simply unacceptable in any society, yet that content proliferates online. It is often reinforced by secret algorithms.

I would suggest that, while the definitions in the bill are strong concerning the content we do not want to see, whether it is violent extremism or the victimization of children, the reality is that it is not tackling a key element of why this harmful online content expands so rapidly, and with such disturbing strength, and that is the secretive algorithms online platforms use. There is no obligation for these companies to come clean about their algorithms, yet these algorithms inflict profound damage on Canadians, victimize children and, often, encourage violence.

One of the pieces I believe needs to be addressed through the committee process of the bill is why these online platforms have no obligation at all to reveal the algorithms that produce, in such disturbing strength, this profoundly toxic content. The fact is that a child, Molly Russell, was, through the algorithms, constantly fed material that encouraged her to ultimately end her own life, and these companies, these massive corporations, are often making unbelievable profits.

I will flag one more time that Canada continues to indirectly subsidize both Meta and Google, to the tune of a billion dollars a year, with indirect subsidies when there is no responsibility from these online platforms at all, which is something I find extremely disturbing. These are massive amounts of money, and they meet with massive profits. We have, as well, these significant subsidies, which we need to absolutely get a handle on. We see the fact that these algorithms are present, and not being dealt with in the legislation, as a major problem.

Second, when we look at other aspects of the bill and the detail that I have just run through in terms of the actual content itself, the definitions in part 1 are not mirrored by the same level of detail in part 2 of the bill, which is the aspects of the Criminal Code that are present. The Criminal Code provisions have raised concerns because of their lack of definition. The concerns around part 2, on the Criminal Code, are something that firmly needs to be dealt with at the committee stage. Answers need to be obtained, and amendments need to be brought to that section. I understand that as part of the committee process there will be rigorous questions asked on part 2. It is a concern that a number of people and a number of organizations have raised. The committee step in this legislation is going to be crucial to improving and potentially deleting parts of the bill, subject to the rigorous questioning that would occur at the committee stage.

The third part of the bill addresses issues around the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We were opposed to the former Harper government's gutting of the ability of the Human Rights Commission to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution that governs our country, Canadians have a right to be free from discrimination. The reality of the Harper government's cuts to that portion of the Canadian Human Rights Commission is something that we found disturbing at the time. The reality is that part 3, the question of resources and whether the Canadian Human Rights Commission has the ability to actually respond to the responsibilities that would come from part 3 of the bill, is something that we want to rigorously question witnesses on. Whether we are talking about government witnesses or the Canadian Human Rights Commission, it is absolutely important that we get those answers before we think of the next steps for part 3.

Finally, there is part 4, an act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service. That section of the bill as well is something that, I think it is fair to say, should receive some level of consensus from parliamentarians.

In short, at second reading, as members well know, the intent of the debate and discussion is whether or not we are in agreement with the principle of the bill. New Democrats are in agreement with the principle of the bill. We have broad concerns about certain parts of the bill. The intent around part 1, though, the idea that we would be tackling and forcing a greater level of responsibility on the web giants that have profited for so long with such a degree of irresponsibility to tackle issues of content that incites violence or violent extremism, content that induces a child to harm themselves or that sexually victimizes a child, content used to bully a child, and intimate content communicated without consent, all of those elements of the bill, we support in principle.

We look forward to a very rigorous examination at committee with the witnesses we need to bring forward. There is no doubt that there is a need for this bill and we need to proceed as quickly as possible, but only by hearing from the appropriate witnesses and making sure that we have gotten all the answers and made all the improvements necessary to this bill.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was very good to hear the word “quickly” in the hon. member's comments. When something gets posted, it gets propagated at the speed of light. We heard earlier today in the debate that there were questions about using existing mechanisms to deal with this, but existing mechanisms are notoriously slow.

What factors would need to be considered in this bill to, in essence, use the precautionary principle? If it looks awful, there should be a way of dealing with it very quickly and not just leaving it up there while some process works its way through.

Can the hon. member comment on that?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, but what I am saying is with regard to the rigorous examination of this at the committee stage. When I say “quickly”, I am not talking about, in any way, short-circuiting the important work of committee. That needs to happen.

One of the major concerns I have seen, as the member points out, is that we have identified content that harms a child but the problem is that, because algorithms are not touched by this, and algorithm transparency is not touched by the bill, it could well mean closing the barn door after the horse has already left, and that the despicable content that harms a child has been promoted widely by algorithms. It is then ultimately taken out of circulation.

However, with the algorithms, it is amplified so quickly and to such a huge extent that this is, I would suggest, a major shortfall in the bill. The U.S. Congress is considering legislation around algorithm transparency. I have a bill in front of the House on algorithm transparency. The reality is we cannot act quickly to save a child if the algorithms have already promoted that harmful content everywhere. That is a major concern and a major shortfall, I believe, in this legislation.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the Human Rights Tribunal. Would calling for the elimination of the State of Israel online land someone before the Human Rights Tribunal or would calling for “from the river to the sea”, which refers to the dismantling of Israel or the removal or extermination of its Jewish population, either of those, online, end up landing somebody before the Human Rights Tribunal?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is why we need to have the rigorous committee process. I know Conservatives will try to throw out lines and ask, “Does this matter? Does this matter?”

With regard to the important aspect of definition, if we just look through part 1 of the bill, it is very clear. As for the definitions that apply, the member knows, as I am sure she read the bill, what definitions apply. In terms of what happens around the Criminal Code, we have concerns about the definitions and we need to be very clear about that.

Conservatives will take that issue of clarity and try to exploit it. I think it is important, as adults in the room, as legislators, as parliamentarians, that we go through that rigorous committee process and that we ensure that questions are answered. I do not believe that the kind of speculation that Conservatives do is helpful at all. Let us get the work done around the bill. It is definitely needed to combat online harms. Let us make sure the definitions are clear and concise.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby also cares about regulating what happens on the web. We had the opportunity to work together at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on various topics that have to do with this issue.

We have been waiting for Bill C‑63 for a long time. I think that there is consensus on part 1. As the Bloc Québécois has been saying all day, it is proposing that we split the bill in order to quickly pass part 1, which is one part we all agree on.

The trouble is with part 2 and the subsequent parts. There are a lot of things that deserve to be discussed. There is one in particular that raises a major red flag, as far as I am concerned. It is the idea that a person could file a complaint because they fear that at some point, someone might utter hate speech or commit a crime as described in the clauses of the bill. A complaint could be filed simply on the presumption that a person might commit this type of crime.

To me, that seems to promote a sort of climate of accusation that could lead to paranoia. It makes me think of the movie Minority Report. I am sure my colleague has heard of it. I would like his impressions of this type of thing that we find in Bill C‑63.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is why we would like the bill to go to committee for a thorough study, because it is important in the context of this bill.

That said, we know that hate crimes are on the rise. We are seeing more and more anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and so on. That is why it is important to have clear definitions in the bill.

At this stage of the bill's consideration, we are being asked to vote on the principle of the bill. The bill seeks to reduce online harm, and we agree with that principle. However, there are still many questions and details to be studied. We will have the opportunity to amend the bill in committee to remove certain parts or add others. There is still a lot of work to be done. The NDP wants to refer the bill to committee so that we can begin that work.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his speech and his involvement in this serious issue.

Unfortunately, we have more proof that the Liberals are dragging their feet and waiting to take action. Online hate is a real problem. Many children and teenagers are experiencing social media in harmful, aggressive and damaging ways. These young people are often the victims of cyberbullying and cyber-attacks, which create very tense situations. The Liberals have not done anything about that.

My colleague is right in saying the Liberals missed something in this bill. The Minister of Justice does not see it. The algorithms are creating echo chambers where people with far-right perspectives, who are racist, homophobic, transphobic and sexist, feed off each other. For example, the phenomenon of fake news is on the rise. The Liberals do not dare touch the issue of secret algorithms.

Why does my colleague think that the Liberals do not dare take that fundamental step in the fight against online hate?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a really great question from my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I know that he has done a lot of work to protect children. As a father, it is important for my colleague to ensure that children are not inundated with toxic content that encourages them to self-harm or to commit suicide. It is appalling to see what is out there.

My colleague is right to talk about the Liberals' abject failure. Everyone heard the Prime Minister say in 2021 that he was going to introduce a bill within 100 days to counter all the attacks, the hate crimes and the attacks on children that we are seeing. It took another two years.

Furthermore, the Liberals did not touch on the real profit maker for the web giants: the algorithms. Algorithms rake in incredible profits for these companies. They did not seem to want to look at this key element, and we can speculate as to why. However, we want to get answers to this question, and that is something we are going to do in committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to Bill C-63.

We often talk about the communities and neighbourhoods in which we live. We do this not only as parliamentarians but also as politicians in general, whether at the municipal, provincial, or federal level. We talk about how we want people to feel safe. People need to feel safe in their homes, in their communities and in the places where they live. That has always been a priority for the current government and, I would like to think, for all parliamentarians of all political stripes. However, sometimes we need to look at finding a better definition of what we mean when we talk about keeping people safe in our communities.

The Internet is a wonderful thing, and it plays a critical and important role in society today. In fact, I would argue that, nowadays, it is an essential service that is virtually required in all communities. We see provincial and national governments investing greatly to ensure that there is more access to the Internet. We have become more and more dependent on it in so many different ways. It is, for all intents and purposes, a part of the community.

I could go back to the days when I was a child, and my parents would tell me to go outside and play. Yes, I would include my children as having been encouraged to go outside and play. Then things such as Nintendo came out, and people started gravitating toward the TV and playing computer games. I have grandchildren now, and I get the opportunity to see my two grandsons quite a bit. I can tell members that, when I do, I am totally amazed at what they are participating in on the Internet and with respect to technology. There are incredible programs associated with it, from gaming to YouTube, that I would suggest are a part of the community. Therefore, when we say that we want to protect our children in our communities when they are outside, we also need to protect them when they are inside.

It is easy for mega platforms to say it is not their responsibility but that of the parent or guardian. From my perspective, that is a cop-out. We have a responsibility here, and we need to recognize that responsibility. That is what Bill C-63 is all about.

Some people will talk about freedom of speech and so forth. I am all for freedom of speech. In fact, I just got an email from a constituent who is quite upset about how the profanity and flags being displayed by a particular vehicle that is driving around is promoting all sorts of nastiness in the community. I indicated to them that freedom of speech entitles that individual to do that.

I care deeply about the fact that we, as a political party, brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. At the end of the day, I will always advocate for freedom of speech, but there are limitations. I believe that, if we look at Bill C-63, we can get a better sense of the types of limitations the government is talking about. Not only that, but I believe they are a reflection of a lot of the work that has been put together in order to bring the legislation before us today.

I understand some of the comments that have been brought forward, depending on which political parties addressed the bill so far. However, the minister himself has reinforced that this is not something that was done on a napkin; it is something that has taken a great deal of time, effort and resources to make sure that we got it right. The minister was very clear about the consultations that were done, the research that took a look at what has been done in other countries, and what is being said here in our communities. There are a great number of people who have been engaged in the legislation. I suspect that once it gets to committee we will continue to hear a wide spectrum of opinions and thoughts on it.

I do not believe that as legislators we should be put off to such a degree that we do not take action. I am inclined to agree with the minister in saying that this is a holistic approach at dealing with an important issue. We should not be looking at ways to divide the legislation. Rather, we should be looking at ways it can be improved. The minister himself, earlier today, said that if members have ideas or amendments they believe will give more strength to the legislation, then let us hear them. Bring them forward.

Often there is a great deal of debate on something at second reading and not as much at third reading. I suggest that the legislation before us might be the type of legislation that it would be beneficial to pass relatively quickly out of second reading, after some members have had the opportunity to provide some thoughts, in favour of having more reading or debate time at third reading but more specifically to allow for time at the committee stage. That would allow, for example, members the opportunity to have discussions with constituents over the summer, knowing full well that the bill is at committee. I think there is a great deal of merit to that.

There was something that spoke volumes, in terms of keeping the community safe, and the impact today that the Internet has on our children in particular. Platforms have a responsibility, and we have to ensure that they are living up to that responsibility.

I want to speak about Carol Todd, the mother of Amanda Todd, to whom reference has been made already. Ultimately, I believe, she is one of the primary reasons why the legislation is so critically important. Amanda Michelle Todd was born November 27, 1996, and passed away October 10, 2012. Colleagues can do the math. She was a 15-year-old Canadian student and a victim of cyber-bullying who hanged herself at her home in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. There is a great deal of information on the Internet about to Amanda. I thank her mother, Carol, for having the courage to share the story of her daughter, because it is quite tragic.

I think there is a lot of blame that can be passed around, whether it is to the government, the private sector or society, including individuals. Carol Todd made reference to the thought that her daughter Amanda might still actually be alive if, in fact, Bill C-63 had been law at the time. She said, “As a mom, and having gone through the story that I've gone through with Amanda, this needs to be bipartisan. All parties in the House of Commons need to look in their hearts and look at young Canadians. Our job is to protect them. And parents, we can't do it alone. The government has to step in and that's what we are calling for.”

That is a personal appeal, and it is not that often I will bring up a personal appeal of this nature. I thought it was warranted because I believe it really amplifies and humanizes why this legislation is so important. Some members, as we have seen in the debate already, have indicated that they disagree with certain aspects of the legislation, and that is fine. I can appreciate that there will be diverse opinions on this legislation. However, let us not use that as a way to ultimately prevent the legislation from moving forward.

Years of consultation and work have been put into the legislation to get it to where it is today. I would suggest, given we all have had discussions related to these types of issues, during private members' bills or with constituents, we understand the importance of freedom of speech. We know why we have the Charter of Rights. We understand the basics of hate crime and we all, I believe, acknowledge that freedom of speech does have some limitations to it.

I would like to talk about some of the things we should think about, in terms of responsibilities, when we think about platforms. I want to focus on platforms in my last three minutes. Platforms have a responsibility to be responsible. It is not all about profit. There is a societal responsibility that platforms have, and if they are not prepared to take it upon themselves to be responsible, then the government does need to take more actions.

Platforms need to understand and appreciate that there are certain aspects of society, and here we are talking about children, that need to be protected. Platforms cannot pass the buck on to parents and guardians. Yes, parents and guardians have the primary responsibility, but the Internet never shuts down. Even parents and guardians have limitations. Platforms need to recognize that they also have a responsibility to protect children.

Sexually victimized children, and intimate content that is shared without consent, are the types of things platforms have to do due diligence on. When the issue is raised to platforms, there is a moral and, with the passage of this legislation, a legal obligation for them to take action. I am surprised it has taken this type of legislation to hit that point home. At the end of the day, whether a life is lost, people being bullied, or depression and mental issues are caused because of things of that nature, platforms have to take responsibility.

There are other aspects that we need to be very much aware of. Inciting violent extremism or terrorism needs to be flagged. Content that induces a child to harm themselves also needs to be flagged. As it has been pointed out, this legislation would have a real, positive, profound impact, and it would not have to take away one's freedom of speech. It does not apply to private conversations or communications.

I will leave it at that and continue at a later date.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what I believe to be very positive legislation. I suspect that, if we were to canvass a vast majority of Canadians, they would recognize that what the online harms act deals with is a very positive thing.

I am a bit surprised at the Conservative Party's approach to the legislation. It is important to look at the essence of what the online harms bill attempts to recognize as issues. There are two categories, if I can put it that way, of what one would classify as the harmful contact specifically being dealt with in Bill C-63. The first is intimate images communicated without consent, including sexually explicit deepfakes, and the second is content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor.

I would have thought that all members of the House would support those initiatives. I have heard Conservatives across the way talk about concerns related to them, how offended they are about the issue and the government needing to do something. Now that we have a piece of legislation before the House with which, instead of just talking about it, the Conservatives can actually do something about it.

I was very surprised to read an editorial back in July in the Winnipeg Free Press that the Conservatives not only oppose the legislation, but also, if the legislation were to pass in the House, a Conservative government would repeal it. It would repeal the law. I do not quite understand the logic behind that, and I hope that during questions and comments, a member of the Conservative Party will have the courage to explain to Canadians why Conservatives would oppose this legislation.

I will read from the Winnipeg Free Press article, an editorial that was written July 10. I want to quote the article because the Winnipeg Free Press is very much apolitical and sticks to the facts. I know the facts can be confusing to the Conservatives, but here is what it had to say:

In the current era of partisan politics, [the Conservative leader] and others should recognize it is important to recognize a good idea when it comes along, whoever might pitch it.

And this is still just an idea — the act has not passed and the regulators have not been established. Given its unrealized state, [the Conservative leader's] dismissal is premature.

A spokesperson for [the Conservative leader] said a ‘common sense Conservative government’ would repeal the act. Well, let's take a look at the situation, and determine the good sense of a such a pledge.

According to Statistics Canada, between 2014 and 2022 there were 15,630 incidents of police-reported online sexual offences against children, and 45,816 online incidents of child pornography. The overall rate of police-reported online child sexual exploitation incidents in Canada has risen to 160 incidents per 100,000 children between 2014 and 2022 — a 217 per cent increase.

There were 219 reported online hate crime incidents in 2022, up from 92 four years prior. Of those cyber-related hate crimes, 82 per cent were violent.

This legislation deals with issues that are important to Canadians, and the Conservative Party is saying no. Not only are the Conservatives going to vote against it, but if it were to pass, a future “common-sense”, or I would suggest nonsense, Conservative government would repeal the law. I question why.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite was trying to pose a question to the opposition about what he wants us to explain. He will get his chance to ask questions of the government when he is sitting in opposition.

The reason we do not have any confidence in Bill C-63 is that the government would be choosing the censors, and the government has failed at everything it has attempted to do. The people have lost confidence in any boards that the government has appointed, the latest being what we are hearing on SDTC.

We do have a bill, Bill C-412, that would protect children. It actually zeros in on the protection of children and proposes specific measures to take to protect them from viewing material they should not be seeing online.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess there are now two reasons the Conservatives are opposing the legislation. They have that far-right element, and I am going to a bit kind here, which has a tinfoil impact, where they believe in here and there, and in the stars, and that Canadian rights are being overridden. There is nothing to it.

I can assure the member opposite that she does not need to be fearful. This is not an attack on the far right. This is legislation that a vast majority of Canadians would support. Does she not realize that, by voting against the legislation, she would be voting against protecting a child? She would be voting against prohibiting sexual exploitation through the uploading of intimate pictures on the Internet.

This is legislation that would protect people in many different ways. It would protect people who have been exploited and our children. How can the Conservatives not vote for it? I hope it is not to deal with censorship, as the member opposite tries to say to justify her voting action.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member has heard about an app called Telegram. It has about a billion users, and its CEO was recently arrested in Paris. It is basically an Internet platform for the exchange of people, drugs, guns and pretty well every illicit substance we can possibly think of. I wonder whether the hon. member could address whether this particular legislation may have some effect on gaining Canadian control over those people within our jurisdiction who are on an app such as Telegram.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is a good, solid first step in addressing, in good part, many of the issues the member has just raised. When I gave some of the statistics I gave about incidents being registered with the police or police reports being filed, those numbers did not reflect the actual numbers as they did not include the incidents that go unreported.

There are so many mischievous players, not only here in Canada but also, even more so, outside of Canada. I look at this legislation as one that ultimately has nothing to do with a person's, or a Canadian's, freedoms or rights. We also have responsibilities, and as legislators, I believe we have to stand up strong to support actions, such as those Bill C-63 is proposing to do, to protect the interests of our children and victims of different forms of sexual exploitation.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think Bill C‑63 is important. Online hate is a major problem for us politicians on a daily basis. There is also the issue of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, child pornography, hate speech and so on. It is a major issue and it needs to be tackled.

I would like to hear my colleague talk about the safeguards that are included in Bill C‑63 to ensure that no one is infringing on freedom of expression. That is always the challenge. Of course, people are spewing nonsense everywhere, and it would be nice if people would stop saying whatever comes to mind on social media. That said, we do not want to limit freedom of expression.

What kind of safeguards are included in Bill C‑63?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that that is why I focused on the two categories in which the legislation would place its attention. I believe that the two categories I referenced as examples, the circulation of non-consensual sexual pictures and child pornography, are fairly clear-cut. I believe that Canadians as a whole, in all regions of the country, would support this particular legislation.

We must have a solid starting point to move forward. Through the creation of the commission and the opportunity for us to review the legislation once it becomes law, I am sure that there would be a number of things put in place to ensure, to say the least, that rights and freedoms would be being protected. We have the Constitution and the Charter of Rights, which, I must say, was brought in by Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I do not see an infringement in any fashion with respect to this legislation on a person's rights and freedoms.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that it is not just the content online that can be harmful to our youth but also the addictive design features incorporated into social media platforms? Does he also believe that those design features need to be regulated to protect our youth?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that, when we look today and compare it to yesterday, we will see that the Internet, whether it is through the growth of AI, consumer consumption of airtime, if I can put it that way, or watching material online, seems to be ever-increasing. As a national government, there is a role for us, as legislators, to play in protecting the interests of children and victims of crimes. These are things that would be within the legislation and are areas that a vast majority of Canadians would, in fact, support.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite wants to know why Conservatives are voting against the legislation. There are many reasons, but one that really came to light over the summer is that the Liberals appointed an anti-Semite to lead the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This is a man who had said that terrorism, in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, is not an irrational strategy.

Why should Canadians trust the Liberals to run the Canadian Human Rights Commission when they are making these horrible appointments of biased people?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there are two reasons the so-called common-sense nonsense Conservatives are actually voting against the legislation. One is the censorship issue or the conspiracy theory, which is that far-right, MAGA component within the Conservative Party. The other is that they have concerns of cost, which is estimated at somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 million a year. Even though those numbers have not been confirmed, at least from what I understand, the Conservative Party in its common-sense nonsense approach to politics has made the determination that it is just not worth bringing forward the legislation, and that, even if it passes, a Conservative government would repeal it. I believe, if the legislation passes, the Conservatives will hear very clearly from Canadians that this is good legislation, and we hope to build upon it in the years to come.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today in opposition to Bill C-63.

Canadians take pride in living in a nation where justice prevails. Freedoms are upheld and our most vulnerable, especially our children, are protected. However, after nine years of this failed government, crime is rising, leaving families across the country concerned for the safety of their loved ones, both on the streets and online.

Online criminal activity continues to surge, but the Liberals' response has been to push censorship bills that would force Canadians into a false choice between their safety and free expression. Instead of addressing the real issues, this Liberal legislation silences Canadians under the guise of security, creating bloated bureaucracies led by the Prime Minister's hand-picked allies. Canadians are bearing the brunt of this government's failures.

Bill C-63 introduces a dangerous new provision for an offence “motivated by hatred”, which could impose a life sentence for even minor infractions under any act of Parliament. This broad, unchecked provision opens the door to the possibility that mere words alone could lead to life imprisonment.

While the government claims that a serious underlying act must occur for this punishment to apply, that is simply not reflected in the text of the bill. Section 320 of the Criminal Code would be amended to state, “Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament...is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.”

Laws to address the issues we are witnessing have been in place for decades, and the Supreme Court has ruled on them multiple times. We do not need new laws to govern hate speech. This government needs to grow a backbone and enforce the laws as they stand.

Earlier this year at the justice committee, the justice minister openly admitted that Bill C-63's new hate crime offence could apply to any offence as long as it is hate-motivated. He said the bill's sentencing range covers everything from minor to serious crimes, but judges, hand-picked by this government, will make sure minor offences do not receive harsh sentences. However, by leaving this to the courts, the government is being reckless. We cannot rely on vague promises that the judiciary will fix a poorly drafted bill. Parliament needs to clearly define when a life sentence should apply, not hand over broad and unchecked power.

The bill risks extreme punishments for minor infractions. As stated by a political commentator, “[The] Liberals are using the guillotine for speech violations and [on the other hand] house arrest for career criminals roaming the streets exploiting a broken bail system.” Only in Canada would that bizarre statement have application.

Widespread concern from all sides of the political spectrum had been raised about Bill C-63's introduction of a so-called hate crime peace bond, with many labelling it as a pre-crime measure for speech. The problem lies in the fact that this provision would extend the power to issue peace bonds based solely on speech-related offences without clearly defining what constitutes such crimes or ensuring that they meet the criminal standard for hate.

While the Liberals focus on banning opinions that challenge the Prime Minister's ideology, Conservatives are dedicated to keeping Canadians safe, both online and off-line and, also at the same point, upholding and defending their civil liberties, a concept that is completely unknown to this government.

This is why my colleague the member for Calgary Nose Hill introduced Bill C-412. Bill C-412 is designed to protect Canadians online through three key areas: protection from online criminal harassment, safeguarding our children and ensuring user privacy. Bill C-412 aims to empower victims of online criminal harassment who currently have limited options for quickly and permanently ending their harassment.

This legislation would allow victims to apply to a judge to identify their harasser, end the harassment and then impose conditions to stop it, as deemed appropriate by a court. It also provides legal clarity regarding when online operators such as social media platforms must disclose the identity of an alleged abuser. Additionally, the legislation introduces an aggravating factor for perpetrators who repeatedly harass anonymously using multiple burner accounts.

These measures are designed to streamline the process for victims to interact with law enforcement and receive effective protections, ultimately enabling law enforcement to de-escalate violence in a timely manner. In contrast, the Liberals' Bill C-63 contains no such provisions, representing a significant flaw for a bill that purports to protect Canadians from online harm.

Online harassment is widespread and often anonymous, yet our current laws are outdated and Bill C-63 fails to provide on this front. In addition, Bill C-63 fails our children by delaying protections and relying on an unclear regulatory process. In contrast, Bill C-412 takes proactive measures by imposing a clear duty of care on online operators. The bill seeks to establish a novel set of checks and balances between the government, operators and parents to keep children safe online.

Under Bill C-412, existing government regulators, law enforcement and the judiciary would ensure operators follow their duty of care to keep kids safe online. Operators would be formally required to ensure they keep kids safe under a clear set of guidelines. Parents, then, would have all the tools needed to understand what their kids are doing online and then make informed decisions about what types of permissions to give them for their online use.

It would provide parents with tools to protect their children online through non-invasive age verification methods and would enforce these protections with steep penalties for non-compliance. Bill C-412 would specifically safeguard children against physical harm, bullying, sexual violence and harmful online content.

Bill C-412 offers a balanced solution that emphasizes privacy, preserving age verification methods, while explicitly prohibiting the use of digital IDs. Many Canadians are concerned about privacy and the misuse of digital IDs. Bill C-412 would ensure that digital identifiers could not be used for age verification. Meanwhile, Bill C-63 leaves privacy concerns unaddressed and lacks clear prohibitions against the misuse of digital IDs.

Bill C-63's vague regulatory framework allows for excessive bureaucratic oversight, creating opportunities for tech lobbyists to manipulate the process behind closed doors. Instead of providing immediate protections, it pushes key decisions into an opaque regulatory future, prioritizing the interests of big tech over the safety and well-being of Canadian families.

By failing to effectively tackle online harassment and leaving significant gaps in protections, Bill C-63 reflects a government more concerned about creating a facade of action than genuinely, actively safeguarding Canadians' rights and safety.

Bill C-63 seeks to reinstate section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a provision that was removed by the Harper government and that even the Toronto Star, hardly a cheerleader for the Conservative Party of Canada, has deemed unnecessary for protecting Canadians from hate speech. Section 13, which was previously repealed for its overly broad and subjective application, allowed the government to censor speech without the need for criminal proceedings. Reintroducing this section would open the door to an extrajudicial system where vague definitions of hate speech could lead to a chilling effect on free speech.

The new section 13 would make communication of hate speech by anyone on the Internet, or other means of telecommunication, subject to the jurisdiction of the Canadian human rights complaints mechanism with the standard of proof being not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is an extremely high standard, but merely a balance of probability, 50.01%. This is not only dangerous but deeply flawed. We have already seen the consequences when the Liberals attempted to appoint an arbiter under Bill C-63, who had previously argued that "terror is not an irrational" approach. This highlights the inherent risks in giving unchecked power to unelected individuals who may interpret free speech in ways that suppress legitimate voices.

Section 13 would also pave the way for dangerous precedents, like life sentences for hate crimes without proper legal thresholds. The Liberals have failed to provide evidence that such extreme measures would be effective in preventing hate when the laws we already have are not being enforced. We need to hear from legal experts and civil liberty groups to understand the unintended consequences this could bring. What we really need is action. Action today, not years from now, and not censorship, which is exactly what Bill C-63 does.

The government should focus on enforcing existing laws and protecting ethnic minority groups by empowering the RCMP, INSET and NSES to work collaboratively and quickly with local police forces and share intelligence to protect vulnerable communities; directing CSIS to implement threat reduction measures and communicate threats to ethnic minority groups; and ensuring the security infrastructure program provides real, timely funding to help community centres improve security. Rather than reintroducing section 13 and limiting free speech, the government should enforce current laws and take meaningful action to protect Canadians.

It is no surprise that the justice minister is proud of the only piece of legislation he has managed to introduce since his appointment. Meanwhile, that is in contrast to the Conservative Party of Canada, which has put forward 10 bills that offer real solutions to the issues Canadians face today. Even the justice minister himself, the bill's biggest advocate and cheerleader to the failed Liberal government, admitted it would take years for this bureaucracy to create and enforce regulations. Members should let that sink in.

This widely hailed, very important piece of legislation is not going to protect families for years to come. That is the impact of the government. There are announcements with no effective follow-through. According to the justice minister's own logic, millions of taxpayer dollars would be wasted long before any meaningful protection or enforcement is put in place.

Canadians deserve better than half-hearted reforms. They need a government committed to real accountability and actionable solutions. It is time for the minister to stop hiding behind buzzwords and start delivering results that protect Canadians day in and day out.

As shadow minister for justice, I stand firm in criminalizing and enforcing laws that protect our most vulnerable: our children. We must criminalize and enforce penalties against those who victimize children online or bully them digitally. We must punish those who induce self-harm or incite violence in minors. We must ensure strict bans on distributing intimate content without consent, including the rise of deepfakes.

My Conservative colleagues and I believe these serious crimes must be investigated by police, be tried in court and result in a jail sentence. We will not support the creation of bureaucratic offices that do nothing to prevent crime or bring justice to victims. A Conservative government would protect our children and punish those who prey on them, not create more red tape.

This past summer, the PBO revealed the cost of the Liberal government's online harms act. It would cost $200 million to create a new 330-person bureaucracy to enforce rules that are still undefined. That is $200 million up front with no protection to create more work for a bloated bureaucracy.

[An hon. member]

Over five years, but that's a minor point, I guess.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot wait five years.

This raises serious concerns about transparency, efficiency and the potential impact on free speech. Even worse, the $200 million does not cover the additional workload for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which would have to manage a surge of complaints about social media posts in today's cancel culture. The government has no estimate of how many complaints the commission might receive, so it is very likely the $200 million is just the beginning.

To put that in perspective, the PBO's numbers reveal that the bureaucracy created solely by Bill C-63 would be about one-third larger than that of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, the agency responsible for ensuring the safety of Canadians in the air and on the roads. Additionally, the PBO's analysis shows that on a per capita basis, the new bureaucracy would be vastly larger than that of any comparable agency in other peer countries.

Bill C-63 should be scrapped just on the basis of its wasteful cost. It is absurd that while Liberals underfund the RCMP, leaving almost one-third of cybercrime positions vacant, they are proposing to dump $200 million and hire 300 staff for a vague new bureaucracy.

Canadians are rightly concerned. In this digital age, we must strike a balance between protecting individuals from harmful content and safeguarding their rights. That is why the Conservative Party is committed to delivering common-sense solutions that would protect our children and ensure their safety online without compromising the freedoms we hold dear.

The bottom line is that Canadians are living in fear due to online harassment and it is costing lives. They need real protection, not more Liberal delays and incompetence. The Liberals should adopt the common-sense solutions in Bill C-412 or call an immediate election and let Canadians choose real, immediate protections or another costly Liberal censorship scheme.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a former Crown prosecutor, the member opposite would know full well that what is contemplated in this law is taking the current jurisprudence that applies in the physical world and applying it in the online world. Some of that jurisprudence is the Keegstra and Whatcott definition of hatred that my colleague would be familiar with.

He talked about the potential for disproportionate penalties. I would point him to the very Criminal Code that he used to apply as a Crown prosecutor, which talks about all sentences needing to be fit to the gravity of the person's responsibility and to the nature of the offence. That is section 718.1.

We have heard tremendous support for this legislation from all sectors of society, including CIJA, which has called for more strict penalties for hate propaganda, prompting it to get behind this bill. When law enforcement and victims' families are talking to me and our government about the fact that they cannot get a handle on this issue, because even when their children take their own lives, the victimization of the family continues after death, they ask for one thing and one thing only, which is that the images be taken down. That is what this bill would do. It would take down the images and reduce those who abuse children from circulating that online.

Does the member opposite agree that simple proposition is answering the calls from Carol Todd, Amanda Todd's mother?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was much to that particular question. The minister asked very forcefully why the Conservatives would be opposed to removing that material. Of course, we are not. However, Bill C-63 talks about that being taken down not immediately, but after a complaint, after it is reviewed and within 24 hours. That is insufficient.

The minister also talked about all the various groups that have applauded the government's Bill C-63. I could literally spend another 20 minutes talking about the public interest groups, and very key individuals in the legal field who have spoken against the bill as another form of censorship by the current government. Therefore, there is zero balance protecting the rights of Canadian families, their children and our civil liberties. Bill C-412 does exactly that.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I appreciated the thoroughness of most of his comments.

Obviously, we all share the same concerns about public protection, the removal of non-consensual images, the protection of children and privacy. I understand all that quite well. If I am not mistaken, he referred a few times in his speech to Bill C‑412.

I have a question for my colleague, who seems to have a good grasp of the topic. Would he not be able to work in committee on Bill C‑63? He could suggest improvements to the bill and include parts of the other bill he was talking about to make Bill C‑63 more effective. If I understand correctly, the member has specific criticisms related to certain aspects. Could we find a way to work on that? Will he commit to doing so?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing a collaborative approach between Bill C-63 and Bill C-412. The only difficulty I have with that is this. I am not opposed to that in principle, but I think there are very few measures in Bill C-63 that Conservatives could actually support, that we could actually parse out of the bill and perhaps pass with unanimous consent here in the House.

Clearly, Bill C-63 will be studied at committee. I would encourage all members on the committee to be open to the possibility of looking at significant amendments to replace some of the dangerous language and the unintended consequences in the bill with the clear, precise and immediate protections offered to Canadian families and kids in Bill C-412.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-63 is an act that is basically split into two parts, and the first part of it is aimed at reducing exposure to harmful content. It would put in place special protection provisions for children as well as make online service providers accountable. It is particularly aimed at addressing online child sexual exploitation, which has increased 290% over the last 10 years.

The second part is intended to address and denounce hate crimes on the Internet, and I note that groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which my hon. colleague sort of touched upon, does raise concerns about vast authority bestowed upon a newly established body, granting it sweeping powers that include new search powers of electronic data with no warrant requirement, and they pose significant threats to privacy rights.

I think everybody in this House wants to see action, for sure, on protecting our nation's children from online pornography, hate and other very harmful mechanisms. At the same time, I think it is fair to say that there are serious concerns about how we address free speech on the Internet. Would my hon. colleague be willing to look at splitting this bill in two so that we can come up with legislation that protects our children, while also making sure that we preserve freedom of speech in this country?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I want to say. I agree with my colleague in principle that the bill is not strictly to do with online harms. We do have the hate speech component. The problem is that we already have laws that clearly govern hate speech in this country, which have been the laws for several decades. Against the backdrop of what is happening on our streets from coast to coast, the demonstrations and the protests, there appears to be a lack of political will by law enforcement to actually enforce the existing laws, so I am not in favour of creating more laws when laws already exist.

As a member of the legal community for close to 30 years, I believe in clarity. I believe in succinctness. We already have that on the books. We need a direction from this government, a direction from the Department of Justice, to encourage police to do their job and to prosecute these individuals who demonstrate clearly on a week-to-week basis that they are crossing the line between protected speech and hate speech.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. As I listened to the Attorney General's question and reflected on my colleague's speech, I was struck, and I was struck for a few different reasons.

The Attorney General spoke about fitness of sentence. This is a government that has allowed people who abuse children, people who produce child sexual abuse and exploitation material, people who distribute it, people who possess it and people who lure children, to serve their sentences on house arrest. My concern is that Bill C-63 would create a parallel process, an administrative process, to deal with these pernicious and insidious crimes.

This government is not serious when it comes to protecting children. How can we trust Bill C-63 when they will not even address the deficiencies in the laws, particularly sentencing laws, around child sexual abuse and exploitation material and Internet luring?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. There is not much more I can add. It is a sad statement that my colleague had to make, but it is so apropos and is really reflective of this government's approach to protecting children and to ensuring that communities are safe.

For nine years, the government has yet to strike the appropriate balance with bills such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-48, which it proudly proclaims are going to keep Canadians safe. We have heard from numerous premiers and heads of police associations, asking what happened to the promise of Bill C-48. The Liberal government promised that we were going to see some changes. There is nothing but crickets from this government. It fails to act and it fails to protect Canadians. I would add that it is the number one responsibility of a federal government to keep Canadians safe.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think the Speaker should ring the bells because we only have a few Liberals here and do not even have 20 members in the whole chamber.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Let us count.

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We now have quorum.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington.

It is with a lot of mixed feelings that I stand here to talk about this bill. A number of years ago, when I was a member of the justice committee, we studied the impact of online harms and how they translate into the reality of the people on the ground. When we see people being shot down in mosques, when we see people in synagogues being victimized and when we see gurdwaras, temples and the LGBT community being targeted because of—

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, a bunch of Liberals ran in when I raised my last point of order, and I counted again and there are fewer than 20 members. Some may come in from behind the curtains, but right now we do not have 20.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not talk about there being only two Conservatives inside the chamber. They also have a role to play in quorum counts.

I do not think we are supposed to note that, so I extend my apologies for highlighting that there are barely any Conservatives participating in the debate on this important issue.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

If I could make a suggestion for next time, just come in and call quorum, and then we will do the count and make sure there are 20 people in the chamber. I am counting 20 people in the chamber at the moment.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue has the floor.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since I was interrupted twice during the beginning of my speech, I will start from the top.

I am here today to talk about this very important bill on online harms and how it conveys what the online world translates into real, lived experiences for so many people across Canada. I was part of the justice committee when it started a study on online harms and hate crimes and how they translate to lived realities. I have seen first-hand, in my nine years as a member of Parliament, people being shot down in mosques and victimized in synagogues because of significant hateful rhetoric being pushed online and right-wing organizations targeting LGBT communities, for example.

This bill would have a very significant role to play in how we conduct ourselves as a country. The hon. member before me talked about the role of enforcement. We are talking about federal policy. We are talking about how we at the federal level can improve our legislation to make sure that Canadians are kept safe. All we can do is encourage our premiers to pick up the mantle and ensure that our communities are being kept safe and that laws are being enforced.

I will speak about two specific things in the Criminal Code. It is an enormous shame that the measures proposed by Bill C‑63 have been subject to significant misinformation and disinformation. I am extremely disappointed in the reaction of the official opposition to this critical legislation, having seen what has transpired because of online hate.

When the bill was put on notice but before the actual text was publicly available, we saw the Conservatives reject it immediately. They had no regard for its substance, no regard for the years of consultation with victims and with survivors of abuse, and no regard for the countless organizations that are begging the government to do more about exploitation and hatred, online and in the real world. Canadians deserve a lot better than this.

I am proud to support Bill C‑63. I would like to go through some of the myths that have been circulated about the part of the bill that deals with hatred specifically. I will be explaining why I think these are unfounded.

Let us start with the proposed hate crime offence. It would make it an indictable offence to commit an offence in the Criminal Code or any other act of Parliament where the offence is motivated by hatred. It would have a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. This is a maximum punishment, not a minimum.

There are two important reasons for creating this specific hate crime offence. First, it would appropriately denounce the harm caused by hate crimes. Second, it would assist with data collection on hate crimes in Canada. Currently, a judge can apply the provision on hate as an aggravating factor in the Criminal Code to help determine a sentence, but the underlying offence is not categorized, for statistical purposes, as a hate crime. If this proposed hate crime offence is enacted, statistics on hate crimes would allow governments, law enforcement and victims to better understand how hate crimes are being charged, how they are being prosecuted and how they are being addressed by the courts.

Some have expressed concerns that the availability of life imprisonment as a penalty could result in unjust and misappropriate sentencing outcomes. I would like to explain why those concerns are misplaced.

First, the law in Canada requires judges to impose a just sentence that is proportional to the seriousness of the offence and the offender's blameworthiness. Second, a maximum sentence represents just that: the highest possible sentence, to be imposed only in the most serious of cases. It acts as a ceiling for a range of sentences, with judges being required to impose an appropriate one depending on the seriousness of the crime and the responsibility of the offender.

Maximum penalties of any kind are, by their very nature, imposed very rarely, taking into account principles of sentencing as applied on a case-by-case basis. As a result, life imprisonment would only be appropriate in the most serious of cases, notably for Criminal Code offences that are already punishable by maximum life imprisonment, such as aggravated assault and sexual assault.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, do we have quorum?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We'll count for quorum once again.

And the count having been taken:

We are good. We have over 20 members.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems like people do not really want to hear what I have to say, but we can count apparently. However, I am quite honoured to stand here to speak about this bill, because it is so important to communities like mine and to people like me.

As I was saying, another criticism that is made against the proposed hate crime offence is that it is too broad and would potentially apply to every offence in the Criminal Code and any other act of Parliament. However, this is not a novel approach for offences in the Criminal Code. For example, section 83.2 makes it an offence to commit an indictable offence in that act or any other act of Parliament “for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group”.

While the proposed hate crime offence is not restricted to indictable offences, which are considered to be more serious, there is a good reason for the difference. It is to ensure that the offence can apply to all hate crime offences, many of which can be prosecuted as summary conviction offences rather than indictable offences. Specifically, the 2022 statistics for police-reported hate crime in Canada show that the largest number, which is 54%, were non-violent crimes, and of these, the majority were general mischief offences. However, 46% of crimes were violent offences, including the offence of uttering threats and common assault. Mischief, uttering threats and common assault can all be prosecuted as indictable or summary offences.

Just as indictable and hybrid offences in the Criminal Code should be potentially caught by the proposed hate crime offence, so too should offences where they are found in other acts of Parliament. Some have expressed concern that this would result in trivial offences being included. However, that would not happen. First, it would likely be a rare case where a trivial crime in another act of Parliament would be hate-motivated. Second, what might seem to be a trivial offence on its own could be significant when coupled with the disproportionate harm caused by hate crimes.

I will also emphasize that other acts of Parliament are not limited to trivial offences. For example, subsection 112(1) of the Firearms Act prohibits advertising a firearm in a manner that promotes violence against a person. It is a hybrid offence that, if prosecuted by way of indictment, carries a maximum punishment of two years for the first offence or five years for the second offence or subsequent offences. The new hate crime offence would capture this offence if motivated by hatred, whether it is prosecuted as a summary or an indictable offence.

I can carry on with the technicalities of this bill, but I realize that I am running out of time. I do want to say that it is up to us to ensure that the legislative framework exists and that we partner with our provincial counterparts to ensure that it is being enforced. At the same time, we as parliamentarians have an obligation in this House to ensure that we ourselves are not inciting hatred and that we are conducting ourselves in a manner that is becoming of the multicultural society that Canada is. Recently, I have not seen that happen. I have seen some tropes, whether they are about incels, against women or against trans, gay, Muslim or Jewish communities. This bill would go a really long way to ensuring that we are setting the framework for what is a strong, united Canada.

When I first moved to Canada, back when I was 11 years old, I wondered how Canada was such a peaceful country. It is not just because we have rules and regulations, but also because we have an ability to work together to ensure that we take care of one another. It is a constant battle. It is a constant piece of work for which we need to continue to build bridges, and this bill is one of them.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was very clear.

Does she think that Imam Charkaoui should have faced criminal charges after calling for hatred and violence last October?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, it is not up to us to decide individual cases. That is up to our law enforcement because that is how our Constitution and our democracy work. However, it is up to us to set the standard of what free speech is versus what hate speech is, as well as to ensure that we are creating a balance so that Canadians are protected regardless of their gender, religion, creed or ethnicity.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. surgeon general recently called for a warning on social media platforms because they contribute to the youth mental health crisis. The Minister of Health dismissed that idea and suggested that parents just need to talk to their kids about social media. That is clearly not working, and it ignores the fact that platforms have been intentionally designed to be addictive.

Does my colleague believe that the Canadian government needs to do more to protect kids from damaging impacts of social media, such as requiring warning labels or restricting the use of addictive design features on accounts used by minors?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government created a ministry for mental health, which put in millions of dollars to ensure that youth have access to mental health facilities and resources, to make sure that they are being safe and that they are protected. At the same time, the online harms bill would make sure that youth are not victimized, that they are not sexually victimized. Yes, there is a lot more work to do, and we are willing to do it, as long as we do it together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just simply point out that freedom of expression is everyone's concern in the chamber. Hate speech is not constitutionally protected. It is not protected in the physical world, and it should not be in the online world. It is that simple. What I point out for her is that people, including members of the official opposition, have raised a lot of concerns about the free-standing hate crimes offence. There are 47 jurisdictions out of 50 in the United States that have a free-standing hate crimes offence. The last time I checked, the United States and their protections on freedom of expression were not being eroded.

Would the member care to comment on the importance of having a free-standing hate crimes offence in the code?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recall serving with the hon. minister on the justice committee and talking about this exact thing. One thing that came to light was how the previous government, the Harper government, got rid of section 13 of the human rights code. Basically, that section created a remedy for those who were being targeted and victimized online. I think that, yes, there is a balance between what is freedom of expression and what is hate speech. Hate speech should absolutely not be protected. We have seen how much it has impacted our communities and our ability to work together as a country.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I listened to part of my colleague's speech, and she was referencing protecting children. This is a government that has not addressed mandatory minimums when it comes to sexual offences. The Harper government addressed mandatory minimums on drugs, on guns and on sexual offences. The current government has legislated on guns and drugs, but it has not touched sexual offences.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from St. Catharines can complain all he wants about this. At the end of the day, the reality is that we have people who are committing sexual offences against children and serving sentences on house arrest. I will also note that he did not vote to have Paul Bernardo's transfer revisited. I wonder how the people of St. Catharines feel about that.

How can the member say they are there to protect children when the reality is that they are allowing predators to serve their sentences at home?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will take no lessons about the protection of Canadians from a party that continues—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I am hearing a lot of cross-conversation going on.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say it is disgusting that the hon. member across the way, with a smile on his face, would mention a serial killer's name in this place and attempt to use it for political gain—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I have the floor.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

The hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be the voice of reason in the House today.

Unfortunately, when we hear colleagues accusing each other in righteous indignation, we have to look at our track record. We have done a lot as a Liberal government to protect children while a lot of slogans have come from that side. There is a lot of politicization of the issue when we should be protecting children here in our country. We are not able to get to that because they continue to completely restrict and hold up legislation, instead of letting it go forward in the House so that it can protect Canadians and protect our children all across the country.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, today I am going to speak about one of the online harms act's core purposes, and that is the protection of children. Our government will stop at nothing to ensure that kids in this country are safe, and this includes their online safety.

Our children spend many hours of their day watching online videos, chatting with their friends and posting snippets of their lives. Being online is integral to their lives and offers many benefits. It is a way for them to connect, learn and find entertainment. However, the online space is not always safe for children. We have rigorous toy standards to ensure that Canadian kids do not get hurt while playing. The Internet is the most complex and riskiest toy ever invented. It must have its own safety standards to protect kids from the harms embedded within social media platforms.

For too long, we have tolerated a system where social media platforms have off-loaded their responsibilities onto parents, expecting them to protect their kids from harms that platforms create and amplify. Until now, there have been no safety regulations for online platforms. Parents and kids do not know where to turn to get help when things go wrong online.

The bill would create a baseline standard for online platforms to keep Canadians safe. It would hold platforms accountable for the content they host.

Over the last several years, we have conducted extensive public consultations. A common theme that was heard was the vulnerability of children online and the pressing need to take steps to protect them. At the same time, the consultations highlighted a desire for a flexible, risk-based approach to online regulation. Bill C-63 would balance these two objectives.

I am disappointed to see the Conservatives discredit the hard work of the organizers, victims and survivors across the country who were consulted on the legislation. By refusing to support the bill, they are rejecting this experience and the reality of today's world that children are not currently safe online. The bill was meticulously created to keep Canadians safe while ensuring that their rights are maintained.

The online harms act introduces a new duty to protect children. It requires platforms to integrate design features that protect children on their platforms and report on the measures they are taking to protect children. The specific design features will be identified following open regulatory processes where all interested parties have a chance to be heard. This would ensure that the measures are fit for purpose and consider the latest research and evidence, as well as that they are workable for the social media services that need to implement them. We believe this approach to protecting children respects the government's position of supporting a safe and inclusive digital space in Canada.

The online harms act would require operators of social media services to integrate design features that protect children, such as age-appropriate design. Bill C-63 does not opt for a prescriptive approach requiring the use of a specific technology, such as age verification; instead, it opts for a principle-based approach that can evolve with technology. The goal of age-appropriate design is to make the online user experience of children safer by decreasing the risk that they will encounter harmful content. This might include design features such as parental controls, default settings related to warning labels on content and safe search settings.

Age-appropriate design is useful because it is not a one-size-fits-all approach. It recognizes that a five-year-old and a 16-year-old interact with the online world differently, so they likely require different design features to improve the safety of their online experience. The digital safety commission would articulate these features through regulations after examining industry practices and available technology, as well as engaging with stakeholders and Canadians. This process would ensure that the subsequent regulations on design features that protect children are well-informed and in line with Canadians' expectations of privacy and digital expression.

Bill C-63 was crafted with special attention to freedom of speech, a charter right that the government will always protect. At each step, we made design choices with freedom of expression top of mind. Under the online harms act, the risk-based approach is anchored in a duty to act responsibly that requires platforms to create safer spaces online so that users are less likely to encounter harmful content. The duty to act seeks to ensure that we have in place adequate systems by services that limit the likelihood of users viewing harmful content.

Bill C-63 would also enhance the protection of children online by amending an act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, the mandatory reporting act. The bill would amend the mandatory reporting act to strengthen reporting obligations under the act to help facilitate child pornography investigations. The bill would allow for the centralization of reporting to a single law enforcement body, a response to a long-time ask from law enforcement and child advocates.

The duty to report would be triggered when the service provider has reasonable grounds to believe that their network is being or has been used to commit a child pornography offence. The reporting requirement would also be enhanced to require the provision of transmission data in any report where the service provider believes that the material is manifestly child pornography.

We recognize that children are spending more and more of their time on the Internet. Our goal is not to prevent children from having access to valuable information and a social experience online. Our goal is the opposite: to make the online environment as safe as possible for them to explore. The duties set out in the online harms act would be critical to accomplishing this goal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

Would she agree that we should split the bill? That way, we could deal with part 1, which covers everything dealing with sexual content, separately from the other parts of the act that we find more problematic.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government spent four years consulting on the bill, and I think it is important that we look at the entire bill together. I know it is going to be going to committee, and hon. members can discuss those kinds of things there. However, given that it has had four years of consultation, I believe the government has listened to that consultation and put what needs to be put into the bill.

[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?

[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.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister 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?

[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.

[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.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister 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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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?

[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.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege and honour to rise in this House. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Richmond Hill, my neighbour in York region.

It is an honour for me to say a few words about Bill C‑63.

In addition to the new legislative and regulatory framework, this bill also amends 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. My comments will focus on the amendments to these three acts.

Online harms have a real-world impact, with sometimes tragic, even fatal, consequences. Ask the families of the six people killed at the Quebec City mosque by someone radicalized online. Ask the young boy orphaned by the horrific attack on the Afzaal family in London, Ontario. Ask the parents of the young people who have taken their lives after being sextorted online.

The online harms act is the result of extensive consultation conducted over more than four years. We have heard from countless organizations that represent victims on the essential nature of this legislation. The groups in support of this bill range from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection to the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, and the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.

Victims of exploitation and hatred and those who advocate on their behalf are asking all of us to do more. It is time we meet their call and meet their demands. The Leader of the Opposition forgets these facts. He is not serious about helping kids. He is not serious about stopping hatred online or not online. Conservatives are abandoning victims who are asking us to do more. They are discrediting the years of detailed expert advice and shared experience gathered during consultations.

The Conservatives' so-called law and order agenda vanishes when it comes to keeping our digital world and our kids safe. That puts children at risk. That allows hate to fester. We will not let that happen. We will do better. Canadians deserve to live in safety online and in the real world. They also deserve a measure of decency from their politicians, much like I would ask my colleagues on the other side to refrain from making comments when other individuals are commenting on important things. It is called decency.

As regards the Criminal Code amendments, the bill proposes to define the term “hatred”. This definition would apply to the two hate propaganda offences in section 319—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I know that as we get closer to two o'clock when question period starts, there are a lot of people coming in and having conversations. Let us keep it down to make sure the hon. member who has the floor can keep his thoughts straight and make his speech as I know he is prepared to do.

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this definition would apply to the two hate propaganda offences in section 319 of the Criminal Code that have the term “hatred” as an element of the offence, as well as the proposed new hate crime offence. The definition would put into statutory language the high bar that the Supreme Court of Canada has found is required to constitute hatred in this context. It means an emotion that involves “detestation or vilification”. A message that “discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends” another, no matter how unpleasant that message might be, does not meet this high bar. There is a category of online language that we call “awful but lawful”.

The bill will also amend the Criminal Code to create a new peace bond to prevent the commission of hate propaganda offences and hate crimes. This peace bond is modelled on other peace bonds in the Criminal Code that are designed to prevent certain crimes. For example, there is one to prevent the commission of terrorism offences and another to prevent offences related to organized crime.

Bill C-63 would also include new provisions to better denounce and address hate-motivated conduct. For instance, it would increase the maximum punishment for all hate propaganda offences when prosecuted as indictable offences.

It is important to note that this bill will create a separate hate crime offence. This new offence will apply to any offence when it is motivated by hate based on specific criteria, such as race, colour, religion, ethnic origin or gender identity or expression. The maximum sentence will be life imprisonment. This offence will recognize the serious harm caused by offences motivated by hate — harm to victims, harm to their community and harm to Canadian democracy in general. Although the maximum sentence for this offence is life imprisonment, independent judges will determine the appropriate sentence based on the facts of the case and the principle of proportionality in sentencing.

I strongly support this proposed change. It would respond to repeated calls for stronger hate crime laws in the Criminal Code. It would send a clear message that the government, and indeed all parliamentarians, strongly condemn and denounce any crime committed with a hate motive. Quite simply, harming others out of hatred has no place in our society and our laws should reflect this.

It would also allow us to better understand and address hate-motivated crimes by allowing better identification and tracking of individual offences.

Finally, I turn to the amendments outside the criminal law. This bill proposes amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act that would empower individuals and groups to obtain effective remedies against other users who post hate speech online. An improved section 13 of the CHRA would provide that it is a discriminatory practice to communicate hate speech online. Complaints would be filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which would screen them out of or into the process under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Respondents might recognize at this point that the content was hate speech and take it down. Otherwise, the commission would decide whether to send a complaint for adjudication to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. After a fair hearing, if the tribunal upheld the complaint, it would order the respondent to remove the hate speech. In special cases, the tribunal would be able to order compensation to victims personally identified in the hate speech and may award a monetary penalty, if needed, to ensure compliance with the law.

In any event, the purpose of the CHRA is not to punish but to remedy. Section 13 is not criminal law and it does not establish an offence.

Some members may recall that Parliament repealed an older version of section 13 of the CHRA a decade ago. That repeal took away an important tool for combatting hate speech online. In that time, we have seen why Canadians need this tool. We consulted widely to understand the perceived problems with the former section 13. As a result, these amendments include a number of improvements. Specifically, “hate speech” is now clearly defined and the commission would rapidly dismiss complaints that do not satisfy this definition. Complainants and witnesses may be given confidentiality where needed in order to protect them from reprisals. Further, the tribunal would have more control over litigants who abuse the process.

These amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act provide effective recourse in individual cases of hate speech, alongside the more systematic regulation of social media platforms under the online harms act.

I would like to conclude my speech by pointing out that this bill also addresses the extremely worrying cybercrime of child pornography. In 2011, Canada passed An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service. This bill will modernize that legislation to respond to the rapid societal and technological changes that impact how child pornography is created and distributed. Among other things, the law will clearly stipulate that it also applies to social media and apps.

These are important changes for everyone in this country, especially with the rise of the Internet and online social media networks. I encourage all members to support this groundbreaking legislation, Bill C-63.