Mr. Speaker, I think the track record of the previous Harper government, in which the Leader of the Opposition played a part in its cabinet, is demonstrably curious with respect to that barbaric cultural practices hotline suggestion, with respect to interdictions on the citizenship ceremonies and what people could wear, and with respect to approaches towards settlement of Syrian refugees and who would be selected for settlement in Canada and who would not. The track record is not an enviable one.
On this side of the House, we stand completely opposed to such policies and have implemented policies that are vastly different. That includes challenging Islamophobia. That includes funding for the security infrastructure program to protect places of worship. That includes Bill C-63, which would tackle Islamophobia head-on and help keep all Canadians safe.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think that is actually appalling, given where we are with the alarming rise in anti-Semitism post October 7. We need to be doing everything we can to shore up the Jewish community and its need for safety and security at this time.
Apropos of that, I find it very troubling that the opposition articulated by the Leader of the Opposition to a bill that I am shepherding through this chamber, Bill C-63, was so vociferous that he did not even wait to read the document. He came out against it before it was even tabled. This is the very same document that groups like CIJA have gone on record about, saying that if we tackle online hatred, we will help them stop anti-Semitism online from turning into real-world consequences in the physical world.
Bill C-63 is critical for the safety of the Jewish community, as it is critical for many vulnerable groups, including Muslims and Arabs in the LGBTQ community, the Black community and the indigenous community. That is what we need to stand for as Canadians. That is what the opposition leader is standing against.
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would be very open to looking at what is transpiring in California. Centring victims at the heart of our criminal justice strategy is important, and we have been attempting to do that with respect to victims of hatred, through the online hate bill; victims of child sex predation, through Bill C-63; victims of intimate partner violence, through our changes to the bail regime, not once but twice, through Bill C-48 and Bill C-75; and fundamentally, victims of gun violence in this country, through bills like Bill C-21, which would put a freeze on handgun sales and ensure tougher penalties with respect to things like gun trafficking. These are important provisions, but I am definitely willing to entertain suggestions about what California is doing and look at whether the model could be brought over.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have a few responses. First of all, Bill C-63 contemplates a responsibility to file a digital safety plan with the new commissioner to indicate how one is going to moderate risk for one's users, and lastly, to be vetted against that moderation and to be subject to penalties or orders by the digital safety commissioner.
It also contemplates the idea that the digital safety commissioner could green-light researchers at universities around the country to get access to some of the inner workings of the platforms. This has been hailed by people like Frances Haugen, the famous Facebook whistle-blower, as internationally leading legislation on promoting some of the transparency the member opposite is seeking, which I seek as well.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to Bill C-63. I support Bill C-63, the online hate bill, but I do not think it adequately gets to some of the questions of algorithms.
I think we have a real problem with rage farming. Some of the examples I have raised tonight are specifically useful because they raise ire and quick reaction and can be used to change public opinion through the manufacturing of a degree of rage that might otherwise not exist if all the facts were thoroughly discussed.
Does the minister believe that Bill C-63 could get at something like rage farming without getting at the algorithms?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to point out that Meta's response was also surprising, because there are a lot of penalties set out in Bill C-63, but Meta is still comfortable working with us.
With regard to the second question, I want to say that we stand up for the protection of both official languages across Canada under the Official Languages Act.
If that means giving the courts and the federal court administration across Canada more funding, then we are there to listen to those concerns and provide the resources necessary to improve access to justice in both official languages, including French, for all Canadians.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will move on to another subject that I think is extremely important: Bill C-63.
Earlier this evening, my colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, addressed this issue, among others, regarding the Bloc Québécois's suggestion to split part 1 of Bill C‑63 from the other parts so that the digital safety commission can be created as quickly as possible.
My concern is that we are all witnessing and aware of an appalling proliferation of hateful content on social media, including disinformation and aggressive fake accounts, often directed at vulnerable individuals or groups. This should be very worrisome not just to individuals, but to society as a whole.
How does the minister intend to pass a bill that is already being challenged, in a time frame that reflects the urgency of the situation?
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, we have tabled that legislation. We are looking forward to having it voted on in the House and proceeding to committee as fast as possible because the luring she mentioned is child predation. It is something that she and I hopefully can agree that we need to cure. That is one of the things that would be tackled through this legislation, among other things.
She has been spending a lot of time talking about women's rights. Women who are cowered through revenge porn would also be addressed through Bill C-63 because it is a second form of content that would be subject to a 24-hour takedown requirement. Surely we can agree on the necessity of prioritizing—
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, we have an increase of 815% under this minister's watch involving online sexual luring. He is trying to distract. He does not want to answer the questions. He is the one who brought up his proverbial Bill C-63 that is going to solve all these problems. He said Canada is not unsafe, yet we have stats that show an increase of 101% increase in gun crime.
Why, if Bill C-63 is so important and he is so worried about public safety and so worried about victims, has he not brought it forward to the House?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, it is absolutely desperate and pathetic, and that is a shameful response.
This is my last question. The minister says he is so concerned about Bill C-63, which he is in charge of bringing forward to the House. If it so important to protect children, why has he not done it?
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, I would say that we can start by moving with pace on Bill C-63. It talks about the fact that hate crimes are up 130% over the last five years in this country. We know that the hatred people are exposed to online has real-world consequences. Look no further than the trials of the individuals who were killed at the Quebec City mosque and the trials of the Afzaal family, who were killed in London, Ontario.
How do we cure this? We take a Supreme Court definition of hatred and entrench it in law. That is something that law enforcement has asked us for. Again, I hope the members opposite are listening. Law enforcement and police officers have asked us for these changes because they want to facilitate the work of their hate crimes units in identifying what is happening and laying charges for what is happening. By enhancing penalties under the Criminal Code, by entrenching a definition of hatred in the Canadian Human Rights Act that facilitates discrimination complaints for online hate speech and by ensuring that we are having this content addressed by social media platforms, we can address this at multiple angles.
This is critical toward keeping people safe, now more than ever, when hatred is on the rise, whether it is the anti-Semitism the member just spoke about, whether it is the Islamophobia we have seen with such fatal consequences, whether it is attacks towards the LGBTQ2 community or whether it is attacks against indigenous people in the Prairies. This is rife right now. The time to act is now, not at some future date, to keep Canadians safe. This must to be a priority for every parliamentarian here. Does that mean that we have the perfect bill? Absolutely, it does not mean that. I am open to amendments. We need to get this bill to the justice committee so that we can hear from experts about how a good bill can be strengthened further.
334 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, what I said at that committee, I will say again here: the Lego in my basement is subject to more restrictions than the screens my children are on. That has to change.
We need to change the incentivization on social media companies from monetary incentivization to safety incentivization. This legislation would create a duty to protect children and a duty to remove content. I hope the opposition is listening. The prosecution would be facilitated, in terms of child sex predators, by making changes to the Mandatory Reporting Act, such that the evidence must be preserved for one year. Someone will have up to five years to lay a charge. All entities, including social media companies, must report, and they must report to a central clearing facility. That is critical to facilitating the prosecutions. That is what law enforcement has asked us for. That is what the mothers and fathers affected by things like sextortion around this country have asked us for. That is what will help keep kids from being induced to self-harm, which includes, sadly and tragically, suicide in the case of Carson Cleland in Prince George, B.C., and so many other children around this country.
What we understand from the Centre for Child Protection is that 70 times per week they get notifications of sextortion, and that is only the kids who are coming forward. It is critical to address this issue with haste. We need to pass Bill C-63 at second reading and get it to committee to hear from experts about the pressing need for this bill.
266 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, I want the minister to speak a little more on this specific topic. I actually received a number of communications in my constituency from parents and grandparents who are very concerned about their children and about the fact that they are so preoccupied these days with online platforms. In fact, my recollection is that the justice minister was at our Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and he said that the most dangerous toys that Canadian families have are the screens their children use.
Can the minister explain that a little further and speak a little more about the measures in Bill C-63? I think that fundamentally it is a very alarming topic to many in my constituency and across the country.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, by way of addressing a couple of points on extortion, what I would indicate for the benefit of the House is that we have announced an RCMP national coordination and support team to help coordinate investigations of extortion, and that extortion remains subject to a maximum life imprisonment penalty, which the Supreme Court has indicated demonstrates the seriousness of the offence.
With respect to the question about Bill C-63, I welcome this question. Keeping kids safe is everyone's responsibility in this chamber. This legislation, Bill C-63, would require a takedown within 24 hours of any material that constitutes child sex exploitative material. It would require a risk analysis and a risk reduction of material that induces a child to self-harm or bullies or intimidates a child. That is about doing right by people like Amanda Todd's mother and Rehtaeh Parsons' mother and so many kids who are being sextorted and exploited online.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to rise today in the chamber. I will be providing remarks and using the remainder of my minutes, after my remarks, with some questions for the minister.
I am pleased to speak this evening to an important keystone of access to justice, and that is legal aid. There are so many things one can speak on, but I have to limit what I can say here tonight in the minutes I have available.
While legal aid is not covered in the appropriations requested under the main estimates, budget 2024 includes measures to increase funding to criminal legal aid as well as legal aid for immigrants and refugees. It also includes new funding for impact of race and culture assessments. These proposed increases are contained within Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, which is now going through Parliament.
I want to give a short preamble to my comments on legal aid.
Our work on access to justice is aligned with broader Government of Canada work to achieve the sustainable development goals, including SDG 16, which speaks to a peaceful, just and inclusive society.
Our government is moving forward on this objective thanks to a person-centred approach. That means that we are focusing on the various needs of people with justice issues. The system must take into account people's situations.
This includes any history of victimization, mental health or substance use. In this vein, we are committed to addressing the root causes of crime, recognizing that this is the most effective way to build safer communities. Fair and equal access to justice also means ensuring respectful and timely processing without discrimination or bias.
We recognize that racism and systemic discrimination exist in our institutions. We know indigenous people, Black people and members of other racialized communities are grossly overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system as both victims and offenders. In fact, we have heard plenty of testimony on that aspect at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
This brings me to the topic of legal aid.
A strong legal aid system is one of the pillars that advances access to justice in our justice system. However, not everyone has equal access to legal aid and representation. Lawyers are costly and the courtroom can be a confusing place.
Legal aid assists economically disadvantaged people in obtaining legal assistance and fair representation. We are committed, together with our provincial and territorial counterparts, to ensuring stable and predictable funding for legal aid so that Canadians can access justice.
Funding for criminal legal aid is marked as a decrease in the main estimates. While it is reflected as such, Bill C-69, and the justice minister addressed this in a previous question, proposes to renew this funding to provide $440 million over five years starting in 2024-25. The renewed funds would support access to justice for Canadians who are unable to pay for legal support.
We know that would be particularly helpful for indigenous people, Black people, members of other racialized communities and people with mental health problems, who are all overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system.
As I mentioned, improving access to legal aid is possible only with continued collaboration between our governments, the provinces and the territories. The proposed renewed federal contribution will assist them in paving the way to greater access to justice, especially for vulnerable groups. We are also committed to ensuring the ongoing delivery of legal aid in immigration and refugee matters with eight provincial partners. That includes Nova Scotia.
The world is facing an unparalleled flow of migrants and refugees, and Canada is no exception. I have heard their stories, heard about the lives they left behind and heard about the challenges that they have to face in a new country, no matter how welcoming it may be, particularly when they have to deal with unfamiliar, complicated legal processes.
That is why our government is firmly committed to upholding a fair and compassionate refugee protection system. Part of this work is making sure that refugees have access to legal representation, information and advice. That is why budget 2024 proposes to provide $273.7 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, and $43.5 million ongoing to maintain federal support for immigration and refugee legal aid services in eight provinces where services are available. This includes an additional $71.6 million this fiscal year.
The funding will improve access to justice for asylum seekers and others involved in certain immigration proceedings who may not have the means to hire legal representation. Immigration and refugee legal aid supports fair, effective and efficient decision-making on asylum and certain immigration claims by helping individuals present the relevant facts of their case in a clear and comprehensive manner.
To improve these specific legal aid services, Justice Canada works in tandem with provincial governments and legal aid service providers, as well as with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. We want to collectively ensure that we have stable and predictable ongoing funding for these important services.
Before I conclude, I also want to touch on another important item that would be supported by Bill C-69, impact of race and culture assessments, which would help the courts understand how racism and discrimination have contributed to a Black or racialized person's interactions with the criminal justice system. Budget 2024 proposes to provide an additional $8 million over five years and $1.6 million ongoing to expand these assessments in more jurisdictions.
On access to justice for all Canadians, we are committing to ensuring that the justice system is fairer for all. I will now continue with the time that I have left to pose a couple of questions to the minister.
My first question is going to centre on the online harms act, Bill C-63. I just want to preface it by saying that the online harms act is something that many of us are very concerned about these days. Obviously, we always were, but the concern is heightened. It is to combat online hate, but it is also to protect our children from sexual exploitation and other harms. One cannot happen without the other.
Can the minister please comment on this, and, specifically, can he explain to Canadians and to the House why is it essential to raise Bill C-63 in the context of protecting our children?
1069 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, I am pleased to see any efforts that deal with combatting hatred, which is unfortunately spiralling in terms of anti-Semitic incidents and Islamophobic incidents. There is a 130% rise in hate crimes in this country in the last five years. That informs the necessity for bills such as Bill C-63, the online harms bill, which will tackle things like hatred and its festering online, which has real-world consequences. It is very unfortunate that Canada ranks number one in the G7 for the number of deaths of Muslims in the last seven years, 11 in total, due to Islamophobic acts of hate.
What I would say, with respect to this bill, is that we are looking at it closely. I would also reiterate for the member's edification that we amended the hate propaganda provisions to include Holocaust denialism and willful promotion of anti-Semitism within the fold of sections 318 and 319, the hate propaganda offences. That was done within the last two years, I believe.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, I think that the suggestion about hate, the Bloc Québécois's private member's bill and our Bill C-63 highlight the fact that we need to pass this bill at second reading and send it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that we can study it, hear from experts and witnesses and propose amendments, if a few turn out to be appropriate.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, the government is completely ignoring Bill S‑210. Bill C‑63 is a huge bill that has received some criticism. It is likely to take a long time to study.
However, we think the proposal to set up a digital safety commission is a good idea that should be implemented quickly. That is why we are proposing that the bill be split, quite simply, so that we can take the time to properly study all harmful content while still setting up the digital safety commission quickly. I understand that the proposal has not been accepted, but I still think it is a good idea.
The topic of harmful content brings me to hate speech. Will the minister commit to abolishing the Criminal Code exemption that allows hate speech in the name of religion? In fact, that would be a great addition to his Bill C‑63.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, I have several answers to give on this matter. The big difference between the senator's bill and Bill C‑63 is that our bill had the benefit of a five-year consultation. That is the first thing.
The second thing is that, although we agree with some aspects, we want to work in close collaboration with the big digital companies to resolve the situation and protect the public and children from pornography. Taking down that information and content within a mandatory 24-hour period is a much stronger measure than what was proposed in the bill introduced by the senator.
The last thing is that we are targeting a situation where all harmful online content needs to be addressed. This concerns children, teenagers and adults. We want a big solution to a big problem. Australia started nine years ago with children only. Nine years later, protecting children only is no longer appropriate—
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, I politely beg to differ. I feel that Bill C‑63 is extremely important, but it is not exactly the same thing. Yes, it contains elements that make it possible to regulate or, at least, be warned before consuming certain types of content, but there is nothing that really makes it possible to verify the consumer's age.
I would therefore advise the government to support a bill like Bill S‑210. Obviously, it is not easy to implement this type of safeguard, and other countries are currently looking at that. However, it is an extremely important bill.
To return to Bill C‑63, would the minister agree that the first part of the bill could be split from the rest so that the digital security commission could be created as quickly as possible? That would enable us to protect female victims of intimate content communicated without consent, including deepfakes.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
