44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 7, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/7/24 12:12:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first follows the Gutsy Walk that just happened across this country to bring attention to irritable bowel syndrome and those suffering from Crohn's and colitis.
The people who signed the petition point out that safe access to washrooms is a basic physical need and necessary for participation in civic life, the workplace, educational settings and other public spaces. They also point out that exclusionary washroom policies cause significant barriers for trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming people. They note that avoiding washroom use can result in serious health consequences including urinary tract infections and kidney problems.
Therefore they call on the government to, among other things, amend the Canada Labour Code to require gender-inclusive washrooms in all federally regulated workplaces and to ensure that there is access to public washrooms for everyone in this country.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 12:13:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with the second petition, petitioners note that the COVID-19 pandemic continues to put an unsustainable level of strain on Canada's public health system. They say that provincial health care systems must be brought into compliance with the five criteria of the Canada Health Act. They would like to see facilitation of the development of new post-infection therapeutics, and, more importantly, enforcement of air quality standards for all public buildings and the provision of funding for the resources needed to maintain those standards. Also, they would like to see the institution of universal mandatory paid sick leave of at least two weeks.
There is a suite of measures, but I think the petition reminds us all that, having come out of the pandemic, there are lessons still to be learned and policies still to be implemented for the health of Canadians.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 12:13:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time, please.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 12:14:01 p.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 12:14:24 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. government House leader is rising on a point of order.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 12:14:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28, 2024.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 12:14:47 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28, the minister's request to extend the said sitting is deemed adopted.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to report stage and third reading of Bill C‑40, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews).
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages of the bill.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 12:15:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Shefford, who does essential work as the Bloc Québécois critic on issues having to do with seniors.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 12:15:59 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member needs the unanimous consent of the House to share her time.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 12:16:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 12:16:11 p.m.
- Watch
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have been authorized to share my time with the hon. member for Shefford, who does essential work for the Bloc Québécois on issues having to do with seniors. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the government that Bill C‑319, which was introduced by my colleague, was unanimously adopted in committee with good reason. The Bloc Québécois is proposing to increase the amount of the full pension by 10% starting at age 65 and change the way to guaranteed income supplement is calculated to benefit seniors.
There is a lot of talk about that in my riding. This bill is coming back to the House and the government should make a commitment at some point. We are asking the government to give royal assent to Bill C‑319. In other words, if the bill is blocked again, seniors will understand that the Liberals are once again abandoning them. I am passionate about the cause of seniors, and so I wanted to use my speech on Bill C‑63 to make a heartfelt plea on behalf of seniors in Quebec and to commend my colleague from Shefford for her work.
Today we are debating Bill C‑63, which amends a number of laws to tackle two major digital scourges, specifically child pornography, including online child pornography, and hate speech. This legislation was eagerly awaited. We were surprised that it took the government so long to introduce it.
We have been waiting a long time for this bill, especially part 1. The Bloc Québécois has been waiting a long time for such a bill to protect our children and people who are abused and bullied and whose reputations are jeopardized because of all the issues related to pornography. We agree with part 1 of the bill. We even made an offer to the minister. We agree with it so completely, and I believe there is a consensus about that across the House, that I think we should split the bill and pass the first part before the House rises. That way, we could implement everything needed to protect our children, teens and young adults who are currently going through difficult experiences that can change their lives and have a significant negative impact on them.
We agree that parts 2, 3 and 4 need to be discussed and debated, because the whole hate speech component of the bill is important. We agree with the minister on that. It is very important. What is currently happening on the Internet and online is unacceptable. We need to take action, but reaching an agreement on how to deal with this issue is not that easy. We need time and we need to debate it amongst ourselves.
The Bloc Québécois has a list of witnesses who could enlighten us on how we can improve the situation. We would like to hear from experts who could help us pass the best bill possible in order to protect the public, citizens and groups when it comes to the whole issue of hate speech. We also wonder why the minister, in part 2 of his bill, which deals with hate speech, omitted to include the two clauses of the bill introduced by the member for Beloeil—Chambly. I am talking about Bill C-367, which proposed removing the protection afforded under the Criminal Code to people who engage in hate speech on a religious basis.
We are wondering why the minister did not take the opportunity to add these clauses to his bill. These are questions that we have because to us, offering this protection is out of the question. It is out of the question to let someone use religion as an excuse to make gestures, accusations or even very threatening comments on the Internet under these sections of the Criminal Code. We are asking the minister to listen. The debates in the House and in committee are very polarized right now.
It would be extremely sad and very disappointing if we passed this bill so quickly that there was no time to debate it in order to improve it and make it the best bill it can be.
I can say that the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of the bill at second reading. As I said, it is a complex bill. We made a proposal to the Prime Minister. We wrote to him and the leader. We also talked to the Minister of Justice to tell him to split the bill as soon as possible. That way, we could quickly protect the survivors who testified at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the other Parliament. These people said that their life is unbearable, and they talked about the consequences they are suffering from being victims of sites such as Pornhub. They were used without their consent. Intimate images of them were posted without their consent. We are saying that we need to protect the people currently going through this by quickly adopting part 1. The committee could then study part 2 and hear witnesses.
I know that the member for Drummond and the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia raised this idea during committee of the whole on May 23. They tried to convince the minister, but he is still refusing to split the bill. We think that is a very bad idea. We want to repeat our offer. We do not really understand why he is so reluctant to do so. There is nothing partisan about what the Bloc Québécois is proposing. Our focus is on protecting victims on various platforms.
In closing, I know that the leaders are having discussions to finalize when the House will rise for the summer. Maybe fast-tracking a bill like this one could be part of the negotiations. However, I repeat that we are appealing to the Minister of Justice's sense of responsibility. I know he cares a lot about victims and their cause. We are sincerely asking him to postpone the passage of parts 2, 3 and 4, so that we can have more time to debate them in committee. Most importantly, we want to pass part 1 before the House rises for the summer so that we can protect people who are going through a really hard time right now because their private lives have been exposed online and they cannot get web platforms to taken down their image, their photo or photos of their private parts.
We are appealing to the minister's sense of responsibility.
1129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 12:24:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech.
This a very important issue in our region. We have already seen cases of abuse. It is very concerning.
According to what we are hearing today, some people oppose the bill because they say that freedom of expression needs to be protected at all costs. I think my colleague understands that there should be limits. Protecting our young people is one of those limits.
I would like to hear more about that from her.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 12:25:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is from the neighbouring constituency.
She is right. I totally agree that we need to take action to eliminate or reduce all types of hate speech on platforms and on the Internet. It feels like the wild west. She is totally right.
Where do we draw the line? After all, there are sections of the Criminal Code that protect people and offer them some protection. How do we strike a balance between protecting freedom of expression and taking action to eliminate or reduce hate speech on the various platforms or on the Internet? That is the question.
That is why we are inviting her government to acknowledge that this requires a lot of work and discussion. We should split off Part 1 and pass it, then debate the other parts to make it a better law.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 12:26:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as usual, I listened to my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît's speech with great interest. There is one aspect of the bill that I see as a major flaw, specifically the fact that children are often profoundly harmed by hateful content promoted by secret algorithms, yet there is nothing in this bill about algorithm transparency.
Does my colleague agree that the big digital platforms, the web giants, should be responsible for disclosing the algorithms they use? These algorithms amplify hate speech, which is often extremely harmful to children.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 12:27:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the issue raised by my colleague is just one example of something that could be studied and debated in committee. For instance, experts could share their expertise on algorithm management. As legislators, our goal is to improve the bill. What my colleague is proposing is one of the things that will probably be discussed in committee. Depending on the nature of the deliberations, we might be able to amend the bill.
Quebec began exploring how we could reduce radicalization and hate speech on the Internet in 2015. This was even the subject of a bill studied in the Quebec National Assembly. However, it was not easy. We realized that what we were doing would not necessarily help the situation and could even do more damage.
I urge my colleagues to study parts 2, 3 and 4 of the bill in committee and to pass part 1 now.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 12:29:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, since I have very little time, I would just like to say something and perhaps ask my colleague a question. Not very long ago, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and member for Beloeil—Chambly introduced a bill to prevent people from using the religious exemption to engage in hate speech. I would like to know whether this bill addresses that very important matter.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 12:29:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I hope we are going to discuss this and be able to amend the bill, because we do not understand why this aspect was not included.
I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the schoolchildren from École Edgar-Hébert, who are here with us today to observe our work in the House and see what a good job the Speaker is doing.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to speak in front of the member for Salaberry—Suroît, who does outstanding work and who just gave a wonderful speech. I will see what I can add to it. I may get a little more technical than she did. She spoke from the heart, as usual, and I commend her for that. I also want to thank her for her shout-out to Bill C-319. People are still talking to me about Bill C‑319, because seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 feel forgotten. We will continue this debate over the summer. In anticipation of this bill's eventual return before the House, we will continue to try to raise public awareness of the important issue of increasing old age security by 10% for all seniors.
I have gotten a bit off today's topic. I am the critic for seniors, but I am also the critic for status of women, and it is more in that capacity that I am rising today to speak to Bill C-63. This is an issue that I hear a lot about. Many groups reach out to me about hate speech. They are saying that women are disproportionately affected. That was the theme that my colleague from Drummond and I chose on March 8 of last year. We are calling for better control over hate speech out of respect for women who are the victims of serious violence online. It is important that we have a bill on this subject. It took a while, but I will come back to that.
Today we are discussing the famous Bill C‑63, the online harms act, “whose purpose is to, among other things, promote the online safety of persons in Canada, reduce harms caused to persons in Canada as a result of harmful content online and ensure that the operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies are transparent and accountable with respect to their duties under that Act”. This bill was introduced by the Minister of Justice. I will provide a bit of context. I will then talk a bit more about the bill. I will close with a few of the Bloc Québécois's proposals.
To begin, I would like to say that Bill C‑63 should have been introduced much sooner. The Liberals promised to legislate against online hate. As members know, in June 2021, during the second session of the 43rd Parliament, the Liberals tabled Bill C-36, which was a first draft that laid out their intentions. This bill faced criticism, so they chose to let it die on the Order Paper. In July 2021, the government launched consultations on a new regulatory framework for online safety. It then set up an expert advisory group to help it draft a new bill. We saw that things were dragging on, so in 2022 we again asked about bringing back the bill. We wanted the government to keep its promises. This bill comes at a time when tensions are high and discourse is strained, particularly because of the war between Israel and Hamas. Some activists fear that hate speech will be used to silence critics. The Minister of Justice defended himself by saying that the highest level of proof would have to be produced before a conviction could be handed down.
Second, I would like to go back over a few aspects of the bill. Under this bill, operators who refuse to comply with the law, or who refuse to comply with the commission's decision, could face fines of up to 8% of their overall gross revenues, or $25 million, the highest fine, depending on the nature of the offence. Bill C‑63 increases the maximum penalties for hate crimes. It even includes a definition of hate as the “emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”. The bill addresses that. This legislation includes tough new provisions stipulating that a person who commits a hate-motivated crime, under any federal law, can be sentenced to life in prison. Even more surprising, people can file a complaint before a provincial court judge if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that someone is going to commit one of these offences.
Bill C-63 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to allow the Canadian Human Rights Commission to receive complaints regarding the communication of hate speech. Individuals found guilty could be subject to an order. Private conversations are excluded from the communication of hate speech. There are all kinds of things like that to examine more closely. As my colleague explained, this bill contains several parts, each with its own elements. Certain aspects will need a closer look in committee.
Bill C-63 also updates the definition of “Internet service”. The law requires Internet service providers to “notify the law enforcement body designated by the regulations...as soon as feasible and in accordance with the regulations” if they have “reasonable grounds to believe that their Internet service is being or has been used to commit a child pornography offence”.
Bill C-63 tackles two major scourges of the digital world, which I have already discussed. The first is non-consensual pornographic material or child pornography, and the second is hate speech.
The provisions to combat child pornography and the distribution of non-consensual pornographic material are generally positive. The Bloc Québécois supports them. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports part 1 of the bill.
On the other hand, some provisions of Bill C‑63 to fight against hate are problematic. The Bloc Québécois fears, as my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît explained, that the provisions of Bill C‑63 might unnecessarily restrict freedom of expression. We want to remind the House that Quebec already debated the subject in 2015. Bill 59, which sought to counter radicalization, was intended to sanction hate speech. Ultimately, Quebec legislators concluded that giving powers to the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, as Bill C‑63 would have us do with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, would do more harm than good. The Bloc Québécois is going with the consensus in Quebec on this. It believes that the Criminal Code provisions are more than sufficient to fight against hate speech. Yes, the Bloc Québécois is representing the consensus in Quebec and reiterating it here in the House.
Third, the Bloc Québécois is proposing that Bill C‑63 be divided so that we can debate part 1 separately, as I explained. This is a critical issue. Internet pornography has a disproportionate effect on children, minors and women, and we need to protect them. This part targets sexual content. Online platforms are also targeted in the other parts.
We believe that the digital safety commission must be established as quickly as possible to provide support and recourse for those who are trying to have content about them removed from platforms. We have to help them. By dividing Bill C‑63, we would be able to debate and reach a consensus on part 1 more quickly.
Parts 2, 3 and 4 also contain provisions about hate speech. That is a bit more complex. Part 1 of the bill is well structured. It forces social media operators, including platforms that distribute pornographic material, such as Pornhub, to take measures to increase the security of digital environments. In order to do so, the bill requires social media operators to act responsibly. All of that is very positive.
Part 1 also talks about allowing users to report harmful content to operators based on seven categories defined by the law, so that it can be removed. We want Bill C-63 to be tougher on harmful content, meaning content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and intimate content communicated without consent. As we have already seen, this has serious consequences for victims with related PTSD. We need to take action.
However, part 2 of the bill is more problematic, because it amends the Criminal Code to increase the maximum sentences for hate crimes. The Bloc Québécois finds it hard to see how increasing maximum sentences for this type of crime will have any effect and how it is justified. Introducing a provision that allows life imprisonment for any hate-motivated federal offence is puzzling.
Furthermore, part 2 provides that a complaint can be made against someone when there is a fear they may commit a hate crime, and orders can be made against that person. However, as explained earlier, there are already sections of the Criminal Code that deal with these situations. This part is therefore problematic.
Part 3 allows an individual to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for speech that foments hate, including online speech. As mentioned, the Bloc Québécois has concerns that these provisions may be used to silence ideological opponents.
Part 4 states that Internet service providers must notify the appropriate authority if they suspect that their services are being used for child pornography purposes. In short, this part should also be studied.
In conclusion, the numbers are alarming. According to Statistics Canada, violent hate crimes have increased each year since 2015. Between 2015 and 2021, the total number of victims of violent hate crimes increased by 158%. The Internet is contributing to the surge in hate. However, if we want to take serious action, I think it is important to split Bill C‑63. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for this for a long time. Part 1 is important, but parts 2, 3 and 4 need to be studied separately in committee.
I would like to acknowledge all the work accomplished on this issue by my colleagues. Specifically, I am referring to the member for Drummond, the member for Rivière-du-Nord and the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. We really must take action.
This is an important issue that the Bloc Québécois has been working on for a very long time.
1759 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
