Bill C-319

An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension)

This enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 or older are entitled by 10% and to raise the exemption for a person’s employment income or self-employed earnings that is taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500.

Main Estimates 2024-25

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, speaking of people who need help, my colleague just mentioned families. However, another group that needs help is seniors, and something that they are calling for is the passage of Bill C-319, which his party supported both in the House and in committee.

There are people who need extra help, and that includes seniors. Of course, families need help, but seniors are also asking to be treated fairly. The government decided to only increase the pensions of seniors aged 75 and up, but financial insecurity does not wait for people to turn 75. Seniors are asking for a little more old age security income.

Does my colleague still support this bill, as his party has from the start?

Online Harms Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would rise in the House one day to say that the Prime Minister and I finally agree on a constitutional issue. A careful reading of this budget makes it clear that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party are no longer federalists. Like the Bloc Québécois, they now oppose the idea of dividing responsibilities between the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces and those of the House of Commons.

Let us take a closer look at the definition of federalism. According to the late Benoît Pelletier, the hallmark of a federation is that federal institutions have sovereignty in their areas of jurisdiction, while the provinces have sovereignty in their own areas of jurisdiction. We in the Bloc Québécois do not subscribe to Canadian federalism, but since our party was created, we have always fought to protect Quebec's areas of jurisdiction until Quebec becomes independent. How could anyone conclude that the Liberals still believe in Canadian federalism after seeing the dozens of encroachments on Quebec's jurisdictions featured in this budget?

That means that most members in this House do not believe in Canadian federalism. That is great news. However, rest assured that is where the similarities end. The Liberal Party is running a country that is unable to provide passports within a reasonable period of time, unable to make sure its public servants get paid and even unable to properly equip an invaded ally without neutralizing its own army's capabilities. This same party is now claiming that it wants to show the provinces and Quebec how to manage their health care systems, for instance.

The Liberals have interfered so much that they have run out of areas to infringe upon. If the Prime Minister loses a a few more points in the polls, will he suggest changing the code of conduct for child care centres or will he interfere in how Hydro-Québec operates? Oh, wait. He has already done that. Believe it or not, when the Bloc Québécois comes up with its pre-budget requests, we do our homework and we request things that actually fall under federal jurisdiction.

Here is what we asked for. We asked for the federal government to give Quebec the unconditional right to opt out with full compensation from any new federal program in areas under the constitutional responsibility of the provinces. Obviously, that is not in the budget. We also asked for the federal government to increase old age security starting at age 65, which is what my esteemed colleague from Shefford's Bill C-319 seeks to do. Obviously, that is not in the budget either.

We also asked the government to put an immediate end to all fossil fuel subsidies, including tax measures, and to support clean, renewable energy instead. Everyone knows that tax credits are a pretty deceptive way of subsidizing an industry that is already very rich and that is making billions in profits on the backs of taxpayers. It is actually very difficult to figure out exactly how much those tax credits are worth. Obviously, this budget does not end fossil fuel subsidies.

We had another request as well. We asked the government to pay Quebec what it owes for asylum seekers. That is certainly not in the budget. Quebec is still asking for the $900 million it spent welcoming asylum seekers after the feds opened the borders. Quebec welcomed them and worked hard to integrate them, but we are still waiting to be reimbursed.

Lastly, Quebec asked the government to transfer the housing budget. The federal government is unfortunately taking over in the housing crisis. Instead of transferring the money to Quebec and the provinces, the federal government is now imposing conditions, not only on Quebec and the provinces, but also on municipalities. For example, it wants to impose conditions related to density around college and university campuses. That is direct interference in municipalities' jurisdiction over city planning. That is next-level jurisdictional encroachment.

Let me recap what is in this budget, because none of the Bloc Québécois's requests are there. On April 16, the Government of Canada tabled its budget. First, it mentions a negative budgetary balance of $40 billion for 2023-24, $39.8 billion for 2024-25 and $38.9 billion for 2025-26, which is not that far off. The trend continues before reaching a projected deficit of $20 billion in 2028-29. The government is therefore choosing to rack up debt for itself, for Canadians and for Quebeckers in the years to come, of course, with no plan to balance the budget, which is alarming. The government is therefore deciding to tax the public more, as with the increased capital gains tax. However, it is taking on as much debt as ever. I laid out the figures. Our debt remains the same. The government is going to get a little more money, but it is going to keep taking on more debt.

National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill. I want to commend my NDP colleague for initiating this debate on a guaranteed livable basic income.

We need to know how to recognize the social issues in our society, such as guaranteeing everyone enough income to live. In Quebec, there are studies that talk about a livable income, which is more than a minimum income. This type of income is supported by Quebec's Institut de recherche et d'informations socioéconomiques. That, too, is an interesting concept. No matter what region a person lives in, they need more than just a basic income. That is where the concept of livable income comes from. We addressed this issue during the study of Bill C‑319, which pertains to seniors.

All that to say, I do not believe that prosperity alone will bring about equality or equity. It takes robust social measures to ensure income equality in our societies.

As many know, no matter what it is called, be it guaranteed minimum income or universal allowance, this idea is not just being championed by the left. The right has also has also used it in its own way, saying we should dismantle social programs and give everyone a basic income. That, too, is a vision.

In Quebec, similar discussions have taken place regularly, particularly since the 1960s, when labour activists promoted them. Then the pandemic hit and nine million jobs suddenly vanished, laying bare just how fragile the system is. EI used to be a social safety net, but sadly, it no longer plays that role. During that time, we saw just how many people fell through the cracks.

These debates are ongoing in Quebec, in the other Canadians provinces and internationally. In Quebec, as I said, we have been having this debate since the 1960s.

Sorry about the noisy papers.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Shefford's Bill C-319 is currently at committee stage.

We in the Bloc Québécois want just and equitable social safety nets. That is why we are calling on Ottawa to strengthen its own social safety net programs.

As far as old age security is concerned, Canada is currently faring poorly among the OECD countries. Moreover, the federal government has seen fit to increase old age security by 10% for people 75 years and over, excluding those who qualify for OAS upon turning 65. Those seniors are getting no support and no increase.

That is a disgrace.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like his opinion on a certain budget matter. Nothing in this budget addresses the situation facing our seniors by trying to correct what was done before. In fact, the government created two classes of seniors: Those aged 65 to 75 and those 75 and over.

Bill C‑319, however, was studied, unanimously passed in committee and sent back to the House last March. It is awaiting a third reading, passage through the Senate and royal assent. I would like to know whether my colleague and his party plan to vote in favour of Bill C-319 so that it can be passed quickly.

Otherwise, if the Conservative Party were to form the next government, what position would it take on the situation of seniors?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the member justify the fact that he voted in the House in favour of Bill C‑319, which gives seniors over the age of 65 an increase in their old age security pension, yet there is nothing to that effect in the budget? The budget talks about housing, and seniors also have difficulty finding affordable housing.

How can he justify the fact that his government, after voting in favour of the bill in the House, did not bother to eliminate this discrimination, this double standard for seniors, even though that was part of the budget expectations we presented to the minister? What was he waiting for?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague praising the budget, but I would rather talk about the people who were completely overlooked in this budget. I would even say that it adds insult to injury.

Not only did the government still not budget for the increase in old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74, as urgently called for by the Bloc Québécois in a pre-budget request, not only did it fail to allocate funding for Bill C-319, but there is nothing for seniors.

No, I do not want to hear about measures for housing. These measures for housing are not aimed specifically at seniors. Seniors have specific requests. There is nothing in this budget for them. They have been overlooked. This only adds insult to injury.

[Olivier Surprenant]

Ultimately, all seniors should be able to benefit from this increase so that they don't find themselves in a precarious position by being penalized if they work. We understand that some seniors can no longer return to work, but we believe that all seniors should be covered by this reform, which was submitted, I believe, last year. That is why, in our opinion, the House of Commons should swiftly adopt Bill C‑319.

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

All right.

You also asked that the government swiftly adopt Bill C‑319, which deals with increasing the Old Age Security pension for people aged 65 to 74. As we know, this pension was increased for people aged 75 and over, but we're told there's no need to do so for people aged 65 to 74. However, we at the Bloc Québécois think it is necessary. Can you explain why you think it would be important to do this swiftly?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you very much, Minister.

On another front, the Bloc Québécois has made a further request, which is to avoid creating two classes of seniors. There was an increase in the Old Age Security pension for people aged 75 or over. We would like everyone 65 and over to also receive it. My colleague Ms. Andréanne Larouche introduced Bill C-319 for that purpose. It went through second reading and was adopted unanimously by a committee. All elected representatives on that committee, from every party, voted in favour of it.

Is the government currently considering Bill C-319 to increase the Old Age Security pension for those 65 and over?

Is the government likely to agree on what appears to be the unanimous view of legislators? Does it think it will be able to support the bill?

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to circle back to an issue that my colleague touched on in his speech, which is the vulnerable situation seniors are in. I would like to come back to it because, this morning, in the House, I had the honour of tabling the report from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. At that committee, my colleague's party and all the parties in the room unanimously recognized that we need to increase old age security for seniors. This could actually put money back into seniors' wallets and pockets.

Does he support his colleagues on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities who voted for Bill C-319?

Will he continue to pressure the Liberals, not just on the carbon tax, but to think about other solutions to help people in vulnerable situations, including seniors, by increasing old age security for all seniors and address this inequity between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, concerning Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act regarding amount of full pension, which I and all the members of my political party, the Bloc Québécois, are advocating for.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report it back to the House without amendment.

I sincerely thank the committee for its work and for allowing me to present the report this morning.

Seniors

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, members from all parties—Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Bloc—unanimously voted to do away with two classes of seniors when it comes to receiving old age security.

Members will recall that the government had decided to limit benefit increases to those aged 75 and over only. In committee, MPs from all parties voted to do away with this terrible idea. Now, the government just needs to give royal recommendation so that we can do away with these two classes of seniors.

Will the government give royal recommendation to Bill C‑319?