Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2024

Online Harms Act

[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.