SoVote

Jun/7/24 12:44:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is why we want to divide the bill in two. This is yet another example, in addition to the matter of algorithms that my colleague from Victoria raised. My esteemed colleague from Drummond, with whom I worked on this file, is right. Increasing minimum sentences is an issue of major concern. In fact, that is why we want to examine it in committee. Is that the best solution, or should we focus instead on restorative justice?

79 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/7/24 12:45:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-63

Mr. Speaker, first of all, as we mentioned earlier, the NDP believes that certain aspects of Bill C‑63 are important and will help address a situation that calls for measures to counter online harm. However, other elements of this bill are not as clear and raise important questions. We feel it is really necessary to pass the bill, send it to committee and give that committee the opportunity to do a thorough review. Parts of this bill are well done, but other parts need clarification and still others raise concerns. We therefore have some reservations. This bill has been needed for years. The Liberal government promised it within 100 days of the last election, but it took almost three years, as members know. Finally, it has been introduced and is being examined. As parliamentarians, we need to do the work necessary to get answers to the questions people are asking, improve the parts of the bill that need improving and pass those parts that are sorely needed. If parts of the bill cannot be passed or seem not to be in the public interest after a thorough examination in committee, it is our responsibility to withdraw them. However, there is no question that we need this legislation. The harm being done to children is definitely rising. The idea that people can approach children, without restriction, to encourage them to self-harm or commit suicide should be something that our society will not tolerate. The fact that we have these web giants or platforms that promote child pornography is unacceptable. It should not be happening in our society. We have to acknowledge the importance of implementing laws to prevent this from happening. Hate speech is another issue. We are seeing a disturbing rise in violence in society, which is often fomented online. For all of these reasons, we are going to pass this bill at second reading. We are going to send it to committee. This part of the process is very important to us. All answers must be obtained and all necessary improvements to the bill must be made in committee. I do not think that anyone in the Parliament of Canada would like to vote against the principle of having such legislation in place. In practice, the important role of parliamentarians is to do everything in their power to produce a bill that achieves consensus, with questions answered and the necessary improvements put in place. There is no doubt about the need for the bill. The NDP has been calling for the bill for years. The government promised it after 100 days. Canadians had to wait over 800 days before we saw the bill actually being presented. In the meantime, the reality is that we have seen more and more cases of children being induced to harm themselves. This is profoundly disturbing to us, as parents, parliamentarians and Canadians, to see how predators have been going after children in our society. When we are talking about child pornography or inducing children to harm themselves, it is something that should be a profound concern to all of us. Issues around the sharing of intimate content online without permission, in a way that it attacks victims, is also something that we have been calling for action on. It is important for parliamentarians to take action. We have seen a steady and disturbing rise in hate crimes. We have seen it in all aspects of racism and misogyny, homophobia and transphobia, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. All of these toxic sources of hate are rising. I would note two things. First, the rise in anti-Semitism is mirrored by the rise in Islamophobia. Something we have seen from the far right is that they are attacking all groups. Second, as the ADL has pointed out, in 2022 and 2023, all the violent acts of mass murder that were ideologically motivated came from the far right in North America. These are profoundly disturbing acts. We have a responsibility to take action. The fact that the government has delayed the bill for so long is something we are very critical of. The fact that it is before us now means that, as parliamentarians, we have the responsibility to take both the sections of the bill where there is consensus and parts of the bill where there are questions and concerns being raised that are legitimate, and we must ensure that the committee has all the resources necessary, once it is referred to the committee in principle. That second reading vote is a vote in principle, supporting the idea of legislation in this area. However, it is at the committee stage that we will see all the witnesses who need to come forward to dissect the bill and make sure that it is the best possible legislation. From there, we determine which parts of the bill can be improved, which parts are adequate and which parts, if they raise legitimate concerns and simply do not do the job, need to be taken out. Over the course of the next few minutes, let us go through where there is consensus and where there are legitimate questions being raised. I want to flag that the issue of resources, which has been raised by every speaker so far today, is something that the NDP takes very seriously as well. In the Conservative government that preceded the current Liberal government, we saw the slashing of crime prevention funding. This basically meant the elimination of resources that play a valuable role in preventing crimes. In the current Liberal government, we have not seen the resources that need to go into countering online harms. There are legitimate questions being raised about whether resources are going to be adequate for the bill to do the job that it needs to do. Those questions absolutely need to be answered in committee. If the resources are not adequate, the best bill in the world is not going to do the job to stop online harms. Therefore, the issue of resources is key for the NDP as we move forward. With previous pieces of legislation, we have seen that the intent was good but that the resources were inadequate. The NDP, as the adults in the House, the worker bees of Parliament, as many people have attested, would then push the Liberal government hard to actually ensure adequate resources to meet the needs of the legislation. Legislation should never be symbolic. It should accomplish a goal. If we are concerned about online harms, and so many Canadians are, then we need to ensure that the resources are adequate to do the job. Part 1 of the bill responds to the long-delayed need to combat online harms, and a number of speakers have indicated a consensus on this approach. It is important to note the definitions, which we certainly support, in the intent of part 1 of the bill, which is also integrated into other parts of the bill. The definitions include raising concerns about “content that foments hatred”, “content that incites violence”, “content that incites violent extremism or terrorism”, “content that induces a child to harm themselves”, “content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor”, “content used to bully a child” and “intimate content communicated without consent”. All of these are, I think it is fair to say, definitions that are detailed in how they address each of those categories. This is, I think, a goal all parliamentarians would share. No one wants to see the continued increase in sexual victimization of children and content that induces a child to harm themselves. I have raised before in the House the sad and tragic story of Molly Russell. I met with her father and have spoken with the family. The tragic result of her having content forced upon her that led to her ending her own life is a tragedy that we have seen repeated many times, where the wild west of online platforms is promoting, often through secret algorithms, material that is profoundly damaging to children. This is something that is simply unacceptable in any society, yet that content proliferates online. It is often reinforced by secret algorithms. I would suggest that, while the definitions in the bill are strong concerning the content we do not want to see, whether it is violent extremism or the victimization of children, the reality is that it is not tackling a key element of why this harmful online content expands so rapidly, and with such disturbing strength, and that is the secretive algorithms online platforms use. There is no obligation for these companies to come clean about their algorithms, yet these algorithms inflict profound damage on Canadians, victimize children and, often, encourage violence. One of the pieces I believe needs to be addressed through the committee process of the bill is why these online platforms have no obligation at all to reveal the algorithms that produce, in such disturbing strength, this profoundly toxic content. The fact is that a child, Molly Russell, was, through the algorithms, constantly fed material that encouraged her to ultimately end her own life, and these companies, these massive corporations, are often making unbelievable profits. I will flag one more time that Canada continues to indirectly subsidize both Meta and Google, to the tune of a billion dollars a year, with indirect subsidies when there is no responsibility from these online platforms at all, which is something I find extremely disturbing. These are massive amounts of money, and they meet with massive profits. We have, as well, these significant subsidies, which we need to absolutely get a handle on. We see the fact that these algorithms are present, and not being dealt with in the legislation, as a major problem. Second, when we look at other aspects of the bill and the detail that I have just run through in terms of the actual content itself, the definitions in part 1 are not mirrored by the same level of detail in part 2 of the bill, which is the aspects of the Criminal Code that are present. The Criminal Code provisions have raised concerns because of their lack of definition. The concerns around part 2, on the Criminal Code, are something that firmly needs to be dealt with at the committee stage. Answers need to be obtained, and amendments need to be brought to that section. I understand that as part of the committee process there will be rigorous questions asked on part 2. It is a concern that a number of people and a number of organizations have raised. The committee step in this legislation is going to be crucial to improving and potentially deleting parts of the bill, subject to the rigorous questioning that would occur at the committee stage. The third part of the bill addresses issues around the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We were opposed to the former Harper government's gutting of the ability of the Human Rights Commission to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution that governs our country, Canadians have a right to be free from discrimination. The reality of the Harper government's cuts to that portion of the Canadian Human Rights Commission is something that we found disturbing at the time. The reality is that part 3, the question of resources and whether the Canadian Human Rights Commission has the ability to actually respond to the responsibilities that would come from part 3 of the bill, is something that we want to rigorously question witnesses on. Whether we are talking about government witnesses or the Canadian Human Rights Commission, it is absolutely important that we get those answers before we think of the next steps for part 3. Finally, there is part 4, an act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service. That section of the bill as well is something that, I think it is fair to say, should receive some level of consensus from parliamentarians. In short, at second reading, as members well know, the intent of the debate and discussion is whether or not we are in agreement with the principle of the bill. New Democrats are in agreement with the principle of the bill. We have broad concerns about certain parts of the bill. The intent around part 1, though, the idea that we would be tackling and forcing a greater level of responsibility on the web giants that have profited for so long with such a degree of irresponsibility to tackle issues of content that incites violence or violent extremism, content that induces a child to harm themselves or that sexually victimizes a child, content used to bully a child, and intimate content communicated without consent, all of those elements of the bill, we support in principle. We look forward to a very rigorous examination at committee with the witnesses we need to bring forward. There is no doubt that there is a need for this bill and we need to proceed as quickly as possible, but only by hearing from the appropriate witnesses and making sure that we have gotten all the answers and made all the improvements necessary to this bill.

2229 words

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Jun/7/24 1:05:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it was very good to hear the word “quickly” in the hon. member's comments. When something gets posted, it gets propagated at the speed of light. We heard earlier today in the debate that there were questions about using existing mechanisms to deal with this, but existing mechanisms are notoriously slow. What factors would need to be considered in this bill to, in essence, use the precautionary principle? If it looks awful, there should be a way of dealing with it very quickly and not just leaving it up there while some process works its way through. Can the hon. member comment on that?

109 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/7/24 1:06:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, certainly, but what I am saying is with regard to the rigorous examination of this at the committee stage. When I say “quickly”, I am not talking about, in any way, short-circuiting the important work of committee. That needs to happen. One of the major concerns I have seen, as the member points out, is that we have identified content that harms a child but the problem is that, because algorithms are not touched by this, and algorithm transparency is not touched by the bill, it could well mean closing the barn door after the horse has already left, and that the despicable content that harms a child has been promoted widely by algorithms. It is then ultimately taken out of circulation. However, with the algorithms, it is amplified so quickly and to such a huge extent that this is, I would suggest, a major shortfall in the bill. The U.S. Congress is considering legislation around algorithm transparency. I have a bill in front of the House on algorithm transparency. The reality is we cannot act quickly to save a child if the algorithms have already promoted that harmful content everywhere. That is a major concern and a major shortfall, I believe, in this legislation.

211 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Jun/7/24 1:07:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the Human Rights Tribunal. Would calling for the elimination of the State of Israel online land someone before the Human Rights Tribunal or would calling for “from the river to the sea”, which refers to the dismantling of Israel or the removal or extermination of its Jewish population, either of those, online, end up landing somebody before the Human Rights Tribunal?

69 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/7/24 1:08:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think this is why we need to have the rigorous committee process. I know Conservatives will try to throw out lines and ask, “Does this matter? Does this matter?” With regard to the important aspect of definition, if we just look through part 1 of the bill, it is very clear. As for the definitions that apply, the member knows, as I am sure she read the bill, what definitions apply. In terms of what happens around the Criminal Code, we have concerns about the definitions and we need to be very clear about that. Conservatives will take that issue of clarity and try to exploit it. I think it is important, as adults in the room, as legislators, as parliamentarians, that we go through that rigorous committee process and that we ensure that questions are answered. I do not believe that the kind of speculation that Conservatives do is helpful at all. Let us get the work done around the bill. It is definitely needed to combat online harms. Let us make sure the definitions are clear and concise.

185 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Jun/7/24 1:09:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-63

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby also cares about regulating what happens on the web. We had the opportunity to work together at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on various topics that have to do with this issue. We have been waiting for Bill C‑63 for a long time. I think that there is consensus on part 1. As the Bloc Québécois has been saying all day, it is proposing that we split the bill in order to quickly pass part 1, which is one part we all agree on. The trouble is with part 2 and the subsequent parts. There are a lot of things that deserve to be discussed. There is one in particular that raises a major red flag, as far as I am concerned. It is the idea that a person could file a complaint because they fear that at some point, someone might utter hate speech or commit a crime as described in the clauses of the bill. A complaint could be filed simply on the presumption that a person might commit this type of crime. To me, that seems to promote a sort of climate of accusation that could lead to paranoia. It makes me think of the movie Minority Report. I am sure my colleague has heard of it. I would like his impressions of this type of thing that we find in Bill C‑63.

247 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/7/24 1:10:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is why we would like the bill to go to committee for a thorough study, because it is important in the context of this bill. That said, we know that hate crimes are on the rise. We are seeing more and more anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and so on. That is why it is important to have clear definitions in the bill. At this stage of the bill's consideration, we are being asked to vote on the principle of the bill. The bill seeks to reduce online harm, and we agree with that principle. However, there are still many questions and details to be studied. We will have the opportunity to amend the bill in committee to remove certain parts or add others. There is still a lot of work to be done. The NDP wants to refer the bill to committee so that we can begin that work.

156 words

Harm

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/7/24 1:12:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his speech and his involvement in this serious issue. Unfortunately, we have more proof that the Liberals are dragging their feet and waiting to take action. Online hate is a real problem. Many children and teenagers are experiencing social media in harmful, aggressive and damaging ways. These young people are often the victims of cyberbullying and cyber-attacks, which create very tense situations. The Liberals have not done anything about that. My colleague is right in saying the Liberals missed something in this bill. The Minister of Justice does not see it. The algorithms are creating echo chambers where people with far-right perspectives, who are racist, homophobic, transphobic and sexist, feed off each other. For example, the phenomenon of fake news is on the rise. The Liberals do not dare touch the issue of secret algorithms. Why does my colleague think that the Liberals do not dare take that fundamental step in the fight against online hate?

171 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/7/24 1:13:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a really great question from my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. I know that he has done a lot of work to protect children. As a father, it is important for my colleague to ensure that children are not inundated with toxic content that encourages them to self-harm or to commit suicide. It is appalling to see what is out there. My colleague is right to talk about the Liberals' abject failure. Everyone heard the Prime Minister say in 2021 that he was going to introduce a bill within 100 days to counter all the attacks, the hate crimes and the attacks on children that we are seeing. It took another two years. Furthermore, the Liberals did not touch on the real profit maker for the web giants: the algorithms. Algorithms rake in incredible profits for these companies. They did not seem to want to look at this key element, and we can speculate as to why. However, we want to get answers to this question, and that is something we are going to do in committee.

184 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/7/24 1:14:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-63

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to Bill C-63. We often talk about the communities and neighbourhoods in which we live. We do this not only as parliamentarians but also as politicians in general, whether at the municipal, provincial, or federal level. We talk about how we want people to feel safe. People need to feel safe in their homes, in their communities and in the places where they live. That has always been a priority for the current government and, I would like to think, for all parliamentarians of all political stripes. However, sometimes we need to look at finding a better definition of what we mean when we talk about keeping people safe in our communities. The Internet is a wonderful thing, and it plays a critical and important role in society today. In fact, I would argue that, nowadays, it is an essential service that is virtually required in all communities. We see provincial and national governments investing greatly to ensure that there is more access to the Internet. We have become more and more dependent on it in so many different ways. It is, for all intents and purposes, a part of the community. I could go back to the days when I was a child, and my parents would tell me to go outside and play. Yes, I would include my children as having been encouraged to go outside and play. Then things such as Nintendo came out, and people started gravitating toward the TV and playing computer games. I have grandchildren now, and I get the opportunity to see my two grandsons quite a bit. I can tell members that, when I do, I am totally amazed at what they are participating in on the Internet and with respect to technology. There are incredible programs associated with it, from gaming to YouTube, that I would suggest are a part of the community. Therefore, when we say that we want to protect our children in our communities when they are outside, we also need to protect them when they are inside. It is easy for mega platforms to say it is not their responsibility but that of the parent or guardian. From my perspective, that is a cop-out. We have a responsibility here, and we need to recognize that responsibility. That is what Bill C-63 is all about. Some people will talk about freedom of speech and so forth. I am all for freedom of speech. In fact, I just got an email from a constituent who is quite upset about how the profanity and flags being displayed by a particular vehicle that is driving around is promoting all sorts of nastiness in the community. I indicated to them that freedom of speech entitles that individual to do that. I care deeply about the fact that we, as a political party, brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. At the end of the day, I will always advocate for freedom of speech, but there are limitations. I believe that, if we look at Bill C-63, we can get a better sense of the types of limitations the government is talking about. Not only that, but I believe they are a reflection of a lot of the work that has been put together in order to bring the legislation before us today. I understand some of the comments that have been brought forward, depending on which political parties addressed the bill so far. However, the minister himself has reinforced that this is not something that was done on a napkin; it is something that has taken a great deal of time, effort and resources to make sure that we got it right. The minister was very clear about the consultations that were done, the research that took a look at what has been done in other countries, and what is being said here in our communities. There are a great number of people who have been engaged in the legislation. I suspect that once it gets to committee we will continue to hear a wide spectrum of opinions and thoughts on it. I do not believe that as legislators we should be put off to such a degree that we do not take action. I am inclined to agree with the minister in saying that this is a holistic approach at dealing with an important issue. We should not be looking at ways to divide the legislation. Rather, we should be looking at ways it can be improved. The minister himself, earlier today, said that if members have ideas or amendments they believe will give more strength to the legislation, then let us hear them. Bring them forward. Often there is a great deal of debate on something at second reading and not as much at third reading. I suggest that the legislation before us might be the type of legislation that it would be beneficial to pass relatively quickly out of second reading, after some members have had the opportunity to provide some thoughts, in favour of having more reading or debate time at third reading but more specifically to allow for time at the committee stage. That would allow, for example, members the opportunity to have discussions with constituents over the summer, knowing full well that the bill is at committee. I think there is a great deal of merit to that. There was something that spoke volumes, in terms of keeping the community safe, and the impact today that the Internet has on our children in particular. Platforms have a responsibility, and we have to ensure that they are living up to that responsibility. I want to speak about Carol Todd, the mother of Amanda Todd, to whom reference has been made already. Ultimately, I believe, she is one of the primary reasons why the legislation is so critically important. Amanda Michelle Todd was born November 27, 1996, and passed away October 10, 2012. Colleagues can do the math. She was a 15-year-old Canadian student and a victim of cyber-bullying who hanged herself at her home in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. There is a great deal of information on the Internet about to Amanda. I thank her mother, Carol, for having the courage to share the story of her daughter, because it is quite tragic. I think there is a lot of blame that can be passed around, whether it is to the government, the private sector or society, including individuals. Carol Todd made reference to the thought that her daughter Amanda might still actually be alive if, in fact, Bill C-63 had been law at the time. She said, “As a mom, and having gone through the story that I've gone through with Amanda, this needs to be bipartisan. All parties in the House of Commons need to look in their hearts and look at young Canadians. Our job is to protect them. And parents, we can't do it alone. The government has to step in and that's what we are calling for.” That is a personal appeal, and it is not that often I will bring up a personal appeal of this nature. I thought it was warranted because I believe it really amplifies and humanizes why this legislation is so important. Some members, as we have seen in the debate already, have indicated that they disagree with certain aspects of the legislation, and that is fine. I can appreciate that there will be diverse opinions on this legislation. However, let us not use that as a way to ultimately prevent the legislation from moving forward. Years of consultation and work have been put into the legislation to get it to where it is today. I would suggest, given we all have had discussions related to these types of issues, during private members' bills or with constituents, we understand the importance of freedom of speech. We know why we have the Charter of Rights. We understand the basics of hate crime and we all, I believe, acknowledge that freedom of speech does have some limitations to it. I would like to talk about some of the things we should think about, in terms of responsibilities, when we think about platforms. I want to focus on platforms in my last three minutes. Platforms have a responsibility to be responsible. It is not all about profit. There is a societal responsibility that platforms have, and if they are not prepared to take it upon themselves to be responsible, then the government does need to take more actions. Platforms need to understand and appreciate that there are certain aspects of society, and here we are talking about children, that need to be protected. Platforms cannot pass the buck on to parents and guardians. Yes, parents and guardians have the primary responsibility, but the Internet never shuts down. Even parents and guardians have limitations. Platforms need to recognize that they also have a responsibility to protect children. Sexually victimized children, and intimate content that is shared without consent, are the types of things platforms have to do due diligence on. When the issue is raised to platforms, there is a moral and, with the passage of this legislation, a legal obligation for them to take action. I am surprised it has taken this type of legislation to hit that point home. At the end of the day, whether a life is lost, people being bullied, or depression and mental issues are caused because of things of that nature, platforms have to take responsibility. There are other aspects that we need to be very much aware of. Inciting violent extremism or terrorism needs to be flagged. Content that induces a child to harm themselves also needs to be flagged. As it has been pointed out, this legislation would have a real, positive, profound impact, and it would not have to take away one's freedom of speech. It does not apply to private conversations or communications. I will leave it at that and continue at a later date.

1700 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/7/24 1:30:28 p.m.
Watch

There being no amendment motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

32 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/7/24 1:30:51 p.m.
Watch

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

45 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

Jun/7/24 1:30:51 p.m.
Watch

moved that the bill be concurred in.

7 words

Mr. Todd Doherty

Jun/7/24 1:30:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives ask that the motion be adopted on division.

12 words

Division

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/7/24 1:30:55 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/7/24 1:31:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59 Bill C-323 Bill C-250

The Chair wishes to draw the attention of the House to a particular situation concerning Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act regading mental health services, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester. The bill was previously the subject of a ruling on December 12, 2023. The Chair addressed the similarity between Bill C-323 and Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. Both bills would amend sections 1 and 7 of part II of schedule V of the Excise Tax Act in order to exempt psychotherapy from GST, along with “mental health counselling services” in the case of Bill C-323 and “counselling therapy services” in the case of Bill C-59. As explained in a ruling regarding Bill C-250 of May 11, 2022, which can be found on page 5123 of the debates: The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision. Government and private members' bills belong to different categories of items and are governed by different sets of rules and precedents. Standing Order 94(1) provides the Speaker with the authority to “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members' Business”. The House passed Bill C‑59 at third reading and sent it to the Senate on May 28, 2024. To comply with the principle that the House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, the Chair may not put the question on the motion for third reading of Bill C‑323 unless, of course, the House takes other measures to substantially amend the bill before that stage is reached. For now, the Chair will give the House the opportunity to do so and allow the member for Cumberland—Colchester to move the motion for third reading of Bill C-323. If no changes are made to Bill C‑323, the Chair will delay the vote on the bill at third reading until the process surrounding Bill C‑59 has been completed by the Senate. If Bill C‑59 is passed by the Senate and Bill C‑323 is still in its current form when the time comes for the question to be put on the motion for third reading, the House will not be able to vote on it.

452 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis

Jun/7/24 1:34:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-323

moved that Bill C-323, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services), be read the third time and passed. He said: Mr. Speaker, whenever we have an opportunity to bring a private member's bill to this House, it is an important and exciting day. I know some of my colleagues on both sides, or at least over here, have had the opportunity to do that, and some of them even successfully, which is a great feeling, especially when private members' bills speak on behalf of the people who asked us to do this work on their behalf. It is a significant opportunity that can have a very personal meaning attached to it. Bill C-323, as you, Mr. Speaker, have spoken about, has had a bit of a tumultuous course in this House, even having been adopted in the fall economic statement, in some form at least. Many would suggest that it should be taken as a great compliment that the NDP-Liberal government would see the wisdom of things that we do on this side of the House, which happens very rarely, I would suggest. We should be happy that it happened. Since it is Friday, we will just be happy that it happened, nonetheless. The original form of Bill C-323 recognized that psychotherapy and mental health counselling services are not exempt from GST and/or HST, thereby making it significantly more expensive when Canadians have to pay out of pocket for those things. If we do the math associated with it, depending on where one lives, removing those services from GST or HST could mean that every seventh or eighth session would, in essence, be free, although we know nothing is free. Certainly on this side of the House, we get concerned with the use of the word “free”. That being said, one significant type of therapy that was omitted originally was registered massage therapy services. When we look at how people recover from their mental health stress, distress and illnesses, we do know that registered massage therapy services can be a significant part of that. Many people choose to use registered massage therapy services on a regular basis as maybe a health maintenance type of program. Of course, many people choose to use it with injury and other illness as part of their ongoing self-care regimen. When we look at the utility of registered massage therapy services, I would suggest that adding it to this private member's bill would make perfect sense with the way it dovetails with self-care that Canadians so desire. I know that I have talked a bit about this before, but it is worth repeating. Mental health difficulties and, indeed, perhaps even the crisis that exists in Canada are ongoing. In a more cumulative sense, we know that after age 40, one in two Canadians will have had a mental health diagnosis during their lifetime. Those fortunate enough to have someone sitting beside them can look at that and understand how significant that really is, when we realize it is every other person in Canada at the current time. I will try not to irritate the NDP-Liberal government too much, because I do want it to pass this bill, but I cannot not say that I am incredibly disappointed with its announcement of the $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer, which has never been allocated. I know that the folks on the other side of the House will say that they have allocated it in a different way, and this and that. I am not entirely convinced of that. I would like to see the numbers and understand where the $4.5 billion is. That being said, I am not trying to be irritating to the NDP-Liberal government, but it is a bit of a cruel trick to say to Canadians that this country values mental health treatment and support for people who suffer with mental illness. The NDP-Liberal government effectively said, “We will transfer $4.5 billion to provinces to help strengthen mental health treatment and diagnosis”, and then, of course, it did not happen. That is the proverbial rug being pulled out from under people, and it is a sad day when that happens. It was a big announcement, but it just did not happen; that is the way it went. To further underscore the severity of mental illness in this country, we know from studies being done that the cost to the economy of our great nation is about $51 billion every year in lost productivity, direct health care costs and mental health quality-of-life issues for people who suffer from mental illness. It is not insignificant; even though we talk in the House easily about billions of dollars, $51 billion is a heck of a lot of money. How do we put a price on individual suffering and the angst and distress that it causes? I think one of the things that has been done reasonably well in our great country is the ability now that people have to understand that, first, mental health issues are incredibly common, and also, second, that it is important that we have the courage and the ability to speak out about them. Certainly initiatives like the Bell Let's Talk Day have been important. I will also give a shout-out to Kids Help Phone because I think it has done incredible work. There is also the advocacy work of my colleague, the member for Cariboo—Prince George, with respect to the 988 suicide prevention hotline. I am absolutely thrilled to tell members that he will speak to Bill C-323 later. His passion and his compassion for Canadians always come through in everything that he says. When he speaks, it really comes from the heart, which has a significant amount of meaning for me. I am happy to call him a friend and a colleague. In that vein, we do know, sadly, that 11 Canadians die every day by suicide. It goes without saying, of course, that is 11 Canadians too many. When we think about it deeply as an individual, we begin to think how bad must things be in a person's life that they think their only option is to take their own life, that things are that incredibly difficult and that there is no future they can possibly see. However, certainly if they have the opportunity to realize there is a 988 number, and they think, “Hey, I can reach out to this number and have someone answer me”, then we know the likelihood is hopeful that they may see a different picture when they are finished with some talk therapy, as we might say. However, accessing talk therapy, accessing help from a therapist of whatever kind one may choose, has become exceedingly difficult in this country. We know that it has become more and more difficult because Canadians do not have access to primary care. Seven million Canadians do not have access to primary care in this country. Why is that important? It is important because the majority of the way we access care in this country is by having a primary care provider. If they are unable to meet someone's service needs themself, they will reach out on their behalf and help find someone who can. Even in the town of Truro, Nova Scotia, where I live and where I was a family physician for many years, when people finally make the decision to present themselves to me, for example, as a former family physician, and have made the decision that they need to get some help, they do not want to wait months or weeks to get that help. I know that they have struggled with that decision, often over many weeks and months, and that when they finally make that decision, it is important that they get help in a timely fashion. Sadly, at the current time, the timely help that Canadians need is just not available to them, and we need to be more responsive, as a country, to Canadians who need mental health care. This is not just for financial reasons but, most important, for the mental health quality of life that Canadians want to experience, and for their inclusion in and enjoyment of society. We also have to talk a bit about the opioid crisis when we were talking about mental health in this country. People with a mental health diagnosis are twice as likely to suffer with substance use disorder and misuse of substances as well. We all know in the House that this is a crisis in this great country. I am not going to stand here to say that we do not, perhaps, disagree on how it is being treated. However, it is important that Canadians understand that we all would agree, and certainly I do not think I will get much push-back from my colleagues, that there is a crisis with respect to opioid use in this country. We also know that incredibly, sadly and disappointingly, 22 Canadians are dying every day from opioid overdoses. As I said, we may differ on how this should be tackled. That being said, we do know that resources need to be given to help with things such as prevention. How do we help ensure that future generations of Canadians do not suffer with substance use disorder the way that we are seeing in our country now? We still also believe in this country that there needs to be disruption of those who deal drugs and profit from the suffering of others. That has to be an important part of it and, of course, recovery has to be a part of it, as well as what quality, meaningful recovery looks like. We can argue about that, but we need to make progress with respect to recovery in this country, especially for those who want to choose to attend recovery programs, get their lives back in a meaningful fashion and mend those relationships that have become very difficult to mend. People need vocational training. They need housing. They need support. We all know that, and it does not matter from which side of the House one is arguing that point. This is a huge problem. In spite of the fact that we know there are differences in how we want to approach it, we have seen compassionate testimony on the health committee. I know, by virtue of the fact that all of us agreed to extend the study on opioids in Canada, that we know that this is a significant problem for many Canadians. Therefore, we turn our attention to unmet mental health needs. A third of Canadians have unmet mental health needs. That is a significant number of people, and we know that currently 20% of Canadians are suffering with mental health issues. When we do the math, based on 40 million Canadians, that is quite simply eight million Canadians. This is a significant problem in our country, and we need to devote some resources to fixing that problem. Bill C-323 is not a cure-all. It is not a panacea. It does not mean that, if passed in the House, suddenly all of the mental health issues are going to be gone for Canadians. Boy, I wish I had that opportunity. For people who are seeking help and are paying out of their pocket, Bill C-323 would help. The bill would mean that, as a country, we would not charge them GST and HST on psychotherapy, counselling therapy and registered massage therapy services. If the House sees fit to, hopefully, pass the amendment and ensure that this bill is significantly different, it would be sent to the finance committee, since it deals with taxes and not to the health committee. The health committee does not want us to deal with money there, but just other important health-related issues. I will leave it at that. Hopefully, Canadians now have a good understanding of the compassion and concern that we on this side of the House, shared with our NDP and Liberal colleagues, have for Canadians who are suffering out there, and that we see fit to help alleviate that suffering in some way, shape or form, today, here in the House.

2076 words

C-323, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/7/24 1:49:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, over the years we have seen a substantial change in attitudes toward mental health in a positive way, where we have seen governments and people, in general, recognize that mental health is, in fact, health and should be a part of having a healthy body. A part of a healthy body is a healthy mind. Could I get the member's take on that particular issue?

68 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis

Jun/7/24 1:50:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, often in the House, we have a lot of back and forth. Some days one wishes it were different. Today it will be different. I will tell the member opposite that I agree with him wholeheartedly, with respect to the fact that mental health and physical health go hand in hand. I think that, as I said during my comments, Canadians also understand that clearly, that the difficulties one may have if one is suffering with things like anxiety and depression certainly impact one's ability to have a healthy lifestyle as well, and vice versa. We know that the interconnection is quite significant. For instance, if one is diagnosed with diabetes, that often creates a significant amount of anxiety and distress for people as well, as do many other diagnoses, cancer or heart disease, etc. They are incredibly linked together, that biopsychosocial model, which is why we often also talk about the need for appropriate housing. Health care services go hand in hand. We know that there is that incredible link. We wish we could ensure that there was not, but my colleague is absolutely right. There is that incredible connection of mental health and physical health.

200 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 327