Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2024

Online Harms Act

[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.

Canadian Dental Care Plan

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dental care plan is already changing lives in many communities in Bonavista—Burin—Trinity and across Newfoundland and Labrador. Almost 42,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can now visit a dental office thanks to the Canadian dental care plan.

Dental care is health care, and we know that Canadians, including the 750,000 who have already received care, do not want their uninsured neighbours or family members to end up in the ER from infections for the simple fact that they cannot afford to go to the dentist.

As members of Parliament, we must show up for our communities and put the interests of Canadians first.

Red Roof Retreat

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, across our country, millions of Canadians selflessly invest their time and energy to help make our communities great. One such individual is Steffanie Bjorgan, who has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for children and their parents through the establishment of the Red Roof Retreat.

The Red Roof Retreat was established in 2000, but the journey to its creation began in 1993 when Steffanie's middle son, Garrett, was born with cerebral palsy. That is when Steffanie started realizing just how little there was available for Garrett and other children with special needs. She then got to work and has been tremendously devoted ever since to starting and growing this incredible organization.

In July, Steffanie was awarded the Meritorious Service Decoration in the civil division by the Governor General. It is my sincere honour to recognize Red Roof Retreat and Steffanie Bjorgan in the House of Commons today and to thank her for making our community and our country a better place to live.

Canadian Dental Care Plan

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, over 8,000 Prince Edward Islanders have already received dental care thanks to the Canadian dental care plan and the dental professionals in P.E.I., who worked closely with our indefatigable Minister of Health to improve the program.

I wish to recognize the leadership of the Dental Association of Prince Edward Island, including Dr. Mike Connolly and Dr. Matt Shaffner, who always put their patients first during discussions with our government. I am honoured to represent 2,000 of those patients, many of whom are seniors on fixed incomes. What does the leader of the official opposition have to say to them? He claims the program does not exist. He did not protect their CPP pension and he will not fight for their dental care.

Seniors have worked hard their whole lives. They deserve the dignity of knowing that their pension is safe and that they can receive the dental care they need. Our government is delivering exactly that for them.

Local Media in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert

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

Mr. Speaker, the local media plays a crucial role in the vitality and cohesion of communities across Quebec. In my home community of Longueuil, FM 103.3, the south shore community radio station, recently won community radio station of the year at Les rencontres de l'ADISQ for its commitment to promoting emerging francophone artists and their music. By giving a voice to local artists and bringing its audience closer to the arts, FM 103.3 strengthens the region's cultural identity.

TVRS, which is celebrating 35 years on the air, continues to serve the community with rich and diverse programming. By focusing on local events and history, TVRS reflects the day-to-day reality of its viewers, helping provide the local news essential to the well-being of the community.

These two media venues demonstrate just how important it is to have strong local news that builds ties and brings everyone closer together in our communities. I thank them so much for being community builders. We will continue to fight for them.

Canadian Dental Care Plan

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to talk about the Canadian dental care plan, which has helped over 7,000 constituents in my riding of Cape Breton—Canso. The Conservative leader says the program does not even exist, but he should tell that to the more than 750,000 Canadians and close to 69,000 Nova Scotians who have already received dental care.

Our government knows that investing in dental care means better health outcomes for Nova Scotians and Canadians. However, the Conservatives do not even know how to run public health care plans; they only know how to cut them. The Conservative leader has had dental coverage for the last 20 years or so. Is it too much to ask for Nova Scotians to have the same?

The Economy

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the summer, I met with and heard from the good people of Okanagan—Shuswap and people across B.C. They are hard-working and love their country, but what I heard from them was that taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up.

One in five Canadians skipped or reduced the size of at least one meal because they could not afford groceries. One in five parents ate less so their children or other family members could eat. In Vernon, one in 23 families relied on a food bank in the last 12 months, and one in 13 kids depended on a food bank last year. Thirty per cent of food bank users in Vernon are children.

Many food bank users are hard-working, middle-class families struggling to put food on the table, some already working two or more jobs. What I heard was that after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, those good people have no confidence in the government and want a carbon tax election now.

Canadian Dental Care Plan

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to our government, the Canadian dental care plan is helping Canadians across the country, including in Quebec.

More than 713,000 Quebeckers—including 12,000 in my riding of Vimy—are eligible for care under the Canadian dental care plan. If that is not enough to convince my colleagues that this program is successful, just ask the 750,000 Canadians who have already received care. These are real people who are benefiting from this historic program put in place by our government.

When we prioritize the health of our communities, everyone benefits.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Madawaska—Restigouche are seeing the positive impact of the Canadian dental care plan. More than 52,000 New Brunswickers are currently eligible for care under this program.

This is not only great news for my province, it is also great news for the 750,000 Canadians who have already received dental care.

Conservative budget cuts will jeopardize this much-needed program for our citizens, both in New Brunswick and across the country.

Canadians can rest assured that our government is committed to protecting our health care system and our Canadian dental care plan.

Hunters and Anglers

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the third Saturday in September is National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day across Canada, but the NDP-Liberal government has turned its back on hunters and anglers. Hunting, trapping and fishing are synonymous with Canadian identity and heritage. Canada is blessed to have vast amounts of public land, forests, rivers, lakes and oceans.

As the shadow minister for hunting, angling and conservation, I am proud to represent the interests of the millions of Canadians who hunt, fish and conserve our wild spaces, but after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, hunters and anglers have had enough. As lawful gun owners, hunters are tired of being demonized and blamed by the government for the violent crime wave it has caused. Anglers are frustrated by the restrictions and closures that make no sense, and grassroots and local conservation organizations are ignored or left out in the cold in favour of global agendas that deny Canadians access to their own wild spaces.

Conservatives know that hunters and anglers are the original and best conservationists. A Conservative government will always listen to them, respect them and include them.

Canadian Dental Care Plan

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before our government passed the Canadian dental care plan, one out of four Canadians could not afford to go to a dental office. Since we passed the Canadian dental care plan, more than 700,000 Ontarians can now visit a dental care provider. This has allowed dentists to serve over 10,000 people in London West. We clearly know that this is working because 750,000 Canadians have already used a CDCP and do not want to lose access to this vital program.

The Conservatives do not want to talk about the incredible impact that this program has had on many thousands of lives in our country because they do not want people to know that they would cut this program, which will impact Canadians. Our government, however, is always going to put Canadians first. We are going to work to get this country the health care that it deserves.