The Liberal government’s controversial Online Harms Act will be split into two separate bills, Justice Minister Arif Virani has confirmed.
The sections of the bill dealing with child pornography and child sexual exploitation and establishing a Digital Safety Commission to regulate tech platforms will now proceed as their own bill. The provisions dealing with hate crimes and online hate speech, which have been subject to significant alarm from civil liberties advocates, will be in their own bill as well.
“These bills will proceed on different tracks. We are putting our emphasis and prioritization and our time and efforts on the first portion of the bill, which deals with child sex predators,” said Virani in a Wednesday scrum.
The bill’s splitting follows legal experts urging the Liberals to separate the act into two or three separate bills.
The proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act would allow anyone to file complaints against people posting “hate speech.” If found guilty, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal would be able to order the content’s removal and impose fines of up to $70,000.
However, according to University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist, the provisions that are even more concerning are those to the Criminal Code.
“I think the notion of life in prison, where any violation is motivated by hate, the idea that this could include life (in prison) has some pretty significant implications, and I find it really difficult to justify,” he said while speaking at a webinar hosted by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.
Virani said that the splitting of the bill was not a compromise to any party or interest groups’ demands, but so that there can be a greater focus on sexual predators and fighting hateful statements.
“I’m very happy to listen to suggestions to amend the Criminal Code or human rights legislation to improve our anti-hate battle,” said Virani.
Virani said there is a stronger consensus on the parts of the bill affecting youth. He added that he had been having conversations with opposition parties to determine a rational way to split the bill.
Canadian Constitution Foundation lawyer Josh Dehaas told True North that splitting the bill is an improvement because it reduces the risk of penalties for speech that may violate constitutional rights from passing.
However, he said that the parts of the Online Harms Act that would create requirements for websites to take down and remove harmful content remain a risk to freedom of expression.
“It’s going to pressure social media companies to err on the side of caution and take down all kinds of constitutionally protected speech or face big fines,” said Dehaas. “And we’re not okay with that. We think that’s going to chill too much speech and be unconstitutional.”
The Liberals aimed to create a new organization to enforce rules on harmful online content. This body would include the Digital Safety Commission, the Digital Safety Ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, which would be tasked with ensuring compliance with regulations and have the ability to order online platforms to remove content.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association previously warned that the authority to allow government appointees to interpret the law, make up new rules, enforce them, and subsequently serve as judge, jury, and executioner was troubling.
“Granting such sweeping powers to one body undermines the fundamental principle of democratic accountability,” said Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, executive director and general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Virani said the changes would have come faster without the House of Commons being at a standstill.
The Liberals were found in contempt of the House for failing to hand over documents about Sustainable Development Technology Canada and its gross misconduct.
Without getting into specific changes, Virani said he encourages a deep and detailed study of this bill when it gets to committee.
Former chief justice Beverly McLachlin previously said the bill would face constitutional challenges surrounding free speech.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre previously condemned Bill C-63 for fostering censorship, pledging to repeal it if it’s passed before the Conservatives potentially form government.
He suggested that Canadians explore their own thoughts and determine what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau might consider hate speech or unconstitutional.
“I point out the irony that someone who spent the first half of his adult life as a practicing racist, who dressed up in hideous racist costumes so many times he says he can’t remember them all, should then be the arbiter on what constitutes hate,” said Poilievre. “What he should actually do is look into his own heart and ask himself why he was such a hateful racist… And maybe in that way, rather than through coercion, he could help us all in the fight against real hate.”
