House of Commons Hansard #341 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.
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.
Online Harms ActGovernment Orders
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 LiberalMinister 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
We now have quorum.
Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue
Iqra Khalid LiberalParliamentary 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.