Bill C-63

An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts

Part 1 of this enactment enacts 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.
That Act, among other things,
(a) establishes the Digital Safety Commission of Canada, whose mandate is to administer and enforce that Act, ensure that operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies are transparent and accountable with respect to their duties under that Act and contribute to the development of standards with respect to online safety;
(b) creates the position of Digital Safety Ombudsperson of Canada, whose mandate is to provide support to users of social media services in respect of which that Act applies and advocate for the public interest in relation to online safety;
(c) establishes the Digital Safety Office of Canada, whose mandate is to support the Digital Safety Commission of Canada and the Digital Safety Ombudsperson of Canada in the fulfillment of their mandates;
(d) imposes on the operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies
(i) a duty to act responsibly in respect of the services that they operate, including by implementing measures that are adequate to mitigate the risk that users will be exposed to harmful content on the services and submitting digital safety plans to the Digital Safety Commission of Canada,
(ii) a duty to protect children in respect of the services that they operate by integrating into the services design features that are provided for by regulations,
(iii) a duty to make content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and intimate content communicated without consent inaccessible to persons in Canada in certain circumstances, and
(iv) a duty to keep all records that are necessary to determine whether they are complying with their duties under that Act;
(e) authorizes the Digital Safety Commission of Canada to accredit certain persons that conduct research or engage in education, advocacy or awareness activities that are related to that Act for the purposes of enabling those persons to have access to inventories of electronic data and to electronic data of the operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies;
(f) provides that persons in Canada may make a complaint to the Digital Safety Commission of Canada that content on a social media service in respect of which that Act applies is content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor or intimate content communicated without consent and authorizes the Commission to make orders requiring the operators of those services to make that content inaccessible to persons in Canada;
(g) authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the payment of charges by the operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies, for the purpose of recovering costs incurred in relation to that Act.
Part 1 also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 2 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create a hate crime offence of committing an offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors;
(b) create a recognizance to keep the peace relating to hate propaganda and hate crime offences;
(c) define “hatred” for the purposes of the new offence and the hate propaganda offences; and
(d) increase the maximum sentences for the hate propaganda offences.
It also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Part 3 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to provide that it is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. It authorizes the Canadian Human Rights Commission to deal with complaints alleging that discriminatory practice and authorizes the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to inquire into such complaints and order remedies.
Part 4 amends An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service to, among other things,
(a) clarify the types of Internet services covered by that Act;
(b) simplify the mandatory notification process set out in section 3 by providing that all notifications be sent to a law enforcement body designated in the regulations;
(c) require that transmission data be provided with the mandatory notice in cases where the content is manifestly child pornography;
(d) extend the period of preservation of data related to an offence;
(e) extend the limitation period for the prosecution of an offence under that Act; and
(f) add certain regulation-making powers.
Part 5 contains a coordinating amendment.

Justice

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will do everything in my power to protect children. That is what splitting this bill is about.

At committee this morning, Carol Todd, the mother of Amanda, said, “I have waited 12 years for this, because on day one of Amanda's death, I knew that things needed to change in terms of law, legislation and online safety. I can't bring my child back, but we can certainly keep other children safe.”

Parents need our help. Children need our help. Bill C-63 is about protecting kids and saving lives. Every party in this chamber has a vested interest in doing just that. Will everyone find the courage to back this bill?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the government announced its intention to split the online harms act into two parts, to move quickly, to act now and to advance child protection measures. We have lost too much time because of Conservative stalling tactics. I find it unconscionable that the Conservatives are opposed to forcing the removal of child sexual abuse material from the Internet.

Can the Minister of Justice explain why the updated Bill C-63 is essential for the safety of Canadians, especially our kids?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. McSorley, I'll turn to you again. With respect to encryption tools that are designed to protect online security and privacy, do you believe anything in Bill C-63 poses a risk to those?

If you do have concerns, do you have any ideas on what we as a committee should be looking at in terms of addressing those concerns?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Given the time allocated to me, I will go quickly.

First of all, I want to thank you, Ms. Jordan-Smith and you too, Mr. McSorley, even though I did not ask you any questions. It does not mean your presence is unimportant. Your testimony was clear and I duly noted it.

Ms. Jordan-Smith, if I may, I would just like to ask you one last question.

We all hope the Online Harms Act, meaning Bill C‑63, will pass quickly. The bill proposes it and, in my opinion, there might be some adjustments to be made. However, I think we owe it to ourselves to be diligent. This will not solve all the problems, but it will criminalize certain behaviours and create entities for complaints and follow-up.

In your opinion, would it help if funds were dedicated to awareness campaigns—be they on television, the radio or social media—to target our young men and young women and help protect them against this?

I ask the question because they will be constantly facing these situations, no matter what laws we pass. In your opinion, could an awareness campaign in the media change anything for victims?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

I know the question has been asked to someone else, but do you think that your daughter might still be alive today had Bill C-63 been law at the time?

[Carol Todd]

I've been following what's been happening in Australia. I have actually met with the e-commission in Australia that does the regulatory administration. For all those who might not know, there was a question about what are the parts of a prospective e-commission.

The digital safety commission of Canada would be a body that would oversee the enforcement of the online harms act. A digital safety ombudsperson would support users and advocate for the public interest of online safety. There would also be duties for social media operators, and platforms would be required to implement measures to mitigate, protect children and make harmful content inaccessible.

It's a whole ball with different parts in the ball. That's sort of what's needed. It's not going to happen overnight, because in Australia it took years to come up with. We're doing this for long-term safety. We're not doing this for the short term. We want to do it right. Everything that we do takes time and care, really.

What I'm not happy about is that, as parents, we are being asked questions that we might not know about. We've come here to talk about is why Bill C-63 is important to enact. This is one of the last First World countries to enact something like this. That's why we need to have it done. We do need the regulatory board, and the e-commission is a regulatory board. That's what I have to say about that one.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Exactly.

There is a part of Bill C-63, in proposed section 4, where it talks about enhancing reporting requirements. Some of my colleagues have suggested that we need a regulator to do that. In the bill itself, it says that these reporting requirements would go to a law enforcement body that already exists.

Would you support those provisions that are enhancing laws that already exist and that would go through law enforcement? Is that perhaps what the government should be focusing on while also ensuring that there's a legislative duty of care, so that if one of us asked you again whether you know what this law does or what protections you're afforded, you'd be able to answer that with a degree of certainty that brought you some peace in your heart?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to go back to you, Ms. Jordan-Smith, to pick up on a line of questions from my colleague Mr. Fortin.

He asked you if you knew what the regulators did, and I think you gave a very succinct answer. You said that would be up to the government. It's concerning to me, though, that you don't know what they do. I'm not saying that pejoratively; I'm saying it from the perspective of a parent who's gone through so much loss. I feel that the stated goal of Bill C-63 is for you to know what protections you have upon its passage, but they don't exist, because all it does is create a regulator where there's no guarantee that the protections that you're asking for are going to be legislated by Parliament.

In that, my preference would be that Parliament legislate that duty of care immediately, so that either law enforcement or existing regulatory bodies could take action immediately.

Does that make sense to you?

[Tim McSorley]

I think it is very important, because as we address different forms of harms, we need to look at modelling different approaches. That's why, in our comments, we're not proposing changes in terms of addressing child sexual abuse material or other things, but focusing specifically around national security and anti-terrorism concerns.

That said, in terms of algorithmic transparency, we think that it would be important to, overall, have a mandate for these platforms to have to be open about the development of their algorithms and what kind of information is being fed into them.

As we've argued in other places around the current artificial intelligence and data act, there need to be third party assessments to ensure that these algorithms are doing their job, not only in ensuring that they're efficient in what they're being asked to do but also in ensuring that there aren't negative repercussions. We know that already, with the use of artificial intelligence and algorithms, there have been documented cases of bias around age, gender and race, so it's important that there be openness, and that's something that's missing from Bill C-63.

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

Thank you, Ms. Jordan‑Smith.

Bill C‑63provides for the creation of the Digital Safety Commission of Canada, the position of Digital Safety Ombudsperson of Canada and the Digital Safety Office of Canada.

Are you aware of their respective roles? What do you have to say about them?

[Miranda Jordan-Smith]

For me, it's whatever is easiest to administer. If there are contentious components to Bill C-63, then I feel as though I'd capitulate to government folks who know how things are administered to extrapolate components of the Criminal Code or pieces that might be up for debate and then create other pieces of legislation that might work better within the system.

I guess that's all I can really say on that topic. I don't see an issue with them being separated, so long as they're effective and they work within the system.

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

Very well. I just want to make sure it was properly explained to you. I am not blaming you. Witnesses must be told how interpretation works beforehand, because it is important for all Canadians, both those who speak French and those who speak English, to be able to hear your testimony. It is part of my role to make sure everyone fully understands you, because your testimony is important and must be understood by everyone. That said, I am aware it’s not necessarily obvious, when it is the first time.

As I was saying earlier, I thank you for being with us. Your testimony is touching, like that from Ms. Todd and Ms. Lavers, who preceded you. We are aware of the seriousness of your daughter’s victimization. Rest assured we will keep it in mind throughout our work on Bill C‑63.

The question I was asking you—before we realized you were not hearing the interpretation—was on Bill C‑63. The minister announced he could divide it so that we can work more quickly on every aspect of it, especially the issue of online harm. What is the most urgent, in my opinion, is protecting our children, and I think most of us feel the same way.

What do you think about the idea of dividing Bill C‑63 in order to study the Online Harms Act and the issue of online hate separately?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Jordan‑Smith, for being with us today. Your story is very troubling, like those from Ms. Todd and Ms. Lavers, whom we heard before you. Obviously, we will keep your experiences in mind all throughout our work on this important issue.

Bill C‑63deals with the issue of online hate, as well as bullying and protecting images, among other things. The minister announced he would be dividing the bill. We can therefore hope to look more quickly into the issue of bullying and use of social media, specifically by passing the new Online Harms Act. That’s good news for us.

For your part, did anyone speak to you about the idea of dividing Bill C‑63 in order to work more quickly on the Online Harms Act? If so, what did you think?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

You would like to see Bill C-63 pass quickly, then.

[Miranda Jordan-Smith]

I don't know to what extent we wouldn't be in the same position, but I certainly think that if tech companies were held responsible and actually moderated their sites, it would have been removed, so I think it could have been prevented by tech companies as well as by having an online safety component with a bill like Bill C-63.