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 thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who often acts as the conscience of this chamber.

I would simply appeal to all parliamentarians: The issue of protecting kids from child sex predators should not be a partisan issue. Getting this bill into committee is of paramount importance for all of us who want to combat online sex predation by people who take vulnerable children and spread revenge porn about them. If we all simply listen to Amanda Todd's mother and Rehtaeh Parsons's mother, we can get behind this bill, get it to committee, get it off to the Senate and protect children. That is what Bill C-63 is about. I hope everyone in this chamber can support it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise with the Minister of Justice Bill C-63. We finally see some movement. It has gone from prestudy to committee. Legal groups that have looked at it and the many people who have reached me say that this four-part bill would help protect children from sexual predation online. Parts 1 and 4 have large degrees of consensus; parts 2 and 3 remain problematic.

Can the minister tell us what he will do to improve and expedite passage of this bill to protect our children and other vulnerable people from online sexual predators?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not like asking questions about this, but the trend of the NDP-Liberal government is toward greater obstruction and censorship. We are looking at the censorship bills Bill C-11, Bill C-18 and Bill C-63, and we cannot forget the Winnipeg lab. Do members remember when we were requesting those documents and the Prime Minister went as far as to take the Speaker to court? He actually called an election to keep Canadians from having that knowledge. I am extremely worried about the precedent we would set if we do not challenge the government on this point.

Could my colleague please talk about the importance of precedent? Enough is enough for the Canadian people with the government. Let us call an election.

Canadian Heritage

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a dissenting report, in both official languages, on harms caused to children, women and men by the ease of access to, and online viewing of, illegal sexually explicit material. It was a Conservative motion that led to this important study to bring understanding to the real harm experienced by many Canadians within virtual spaces.

Conservative members of this committee believe that the report fell short in a number of areas, notably that women are overwhelmingly the primary targets of online harms. Current legislation fails to include deepfakes. Existing legislation must be amended to address the criminal nature of online harms. A victim-centric approach and more effort are needed to prevent uploading of illegal sexually explicit material. There is a growing need to protect Canadians from the threat of online harms, and the Liberal government's online harms legislation, Bill C-63, will not satisfy the need for protection and will only limit the freedoms of Canadians.

It is my honour to table this dissenting opinion on behalf of members of the Conservative Party.

[Karim Bardeesy]

Bill C-63 has provisions for the tabling of a digital safety plan by the major platforms. We think that's an appropriate measure that helps them share their plan in a manner that we can understand for dealing with some of the online harms.

Foreign interference is a large issue, which is definitely something that threatens freedom of expression here in Canada. If we have foreign interference in elections and people are fearful of using their voices in Canada, that's a real problem.

[Karim Bardeesy, Executive Director, the Dais, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to the committee for undertaking this important study.

My name is Karim Bardeesy. I'm the executive director of the Dais, a policy and leadership think tank at Toronto Metropolitan University looking at the key digital drivers to shared prosperity and citizenship for Canada. In this conversation and throughout the time I'll be drawing a bit on our policy and opinion research that we've done in this space by the Dais and our predecessor of the organization, the leadership lab at Ryerson and TMU, since 2019.

I understand there's particular interest in some of the freedom of expression issues as they pertain to current Canadian legislation before Parliament at the moment, so I'll touch a bit on that, in particular the online harms act, which is before Parliament.

We know that expression on online platforms is bounded by a few things: by the charter, potentially by this prospective piece of legislation, and by the activities of people on the platforms as well as the choices and the algorithms of the platforms themselves.

I've just come back from Washington, D.C., from the Summit on the Future of the Internet, which was brought together by a number of players who are interested in the space. The technology that is moving, that empowers the incumbent platforms, in particular the incumbent social media platforms, to be ever more choiceful about the algorithms and what's being presented to people online continues to get more powerful. However, I think it's really important for this committee to remember that the charter is still the ultimate defender of freedom of expression, and that the online harms act, while being pretty specifically carved out to a few key sets of harms, is still in deference to the charter.

You're probably aware that the online harms act refers to seven categories of harms, with an exemption for private messaging platforms. We think the remedies that are proposed in that bill by and large are the right ones: the tabling of a digital safety plan and take-down provisions for the most egregious harms.

We believe at the Dais and in the civil society community that's following this really closely that freedom of expression can very successfully coexist with this proposed piece of legislation, and that it's important that Canada look to govern the online space appropriately in a targeted fashion while being respectful of our fundamental rights and freedoms. I'll note that Canadian public opinion in favour of action in this space is strong and growing. Some of our research finds that the desire for legislative action to counter deepfakes has increased now to a 68% level in our survey. This is a survey we've done pretty much every year since 2019.

The Canadians who are concerned about what's happening online acknowledge that it's.... Forty-six per cent of Canadians believe that the people who are producing content online are primarily responsible for the content, and 49% of them believe that it's the platforms themselves that have the responsibility to fix the problem. A plurality of Canadians believe that people who are making the content online are responsible for the problem, but a plurality of Canadians believe that it's the platforms themselves that have the responsibility for fixing the problem. That doesn't happen on its own. It happens through the give-and-take, the social licence that these platforms have with their users and with the countries in which they operate, but there's also a potential role for targeted legislation. We believe, at the Dais, based on our research, that the online harms act does a good job, in a targeted way, of dealing with the most egregious harms and of helping to set up a more healthy and safe online ecosystem for everyone.

I gave my presentation in English, but I'm happy to answer questions in English or in French.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, I reject that out of hand. What I would say on this side of the House is that we are working to ease tensions in our communities. We are looking at the statistics on hate crimes and seeking to address them.

What is the proof positive? When I announced Bill C-63 in the chamber, who was standing by my side? It was people from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. Why is that? They know that a Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue attack does not happen unless people are radicalized online. Radicalization online is causing anti-Semitism. It is what we will combat through the bill and through every measure on this side of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians in the House and all Canadians around the country detest and render unacceptable what we saw on the streets of Montreal. That kind of violence, unlawful behaviour and anti-Semitism is unacceptable and will never be countenanced.

While we are talking about the fight against anti-Semitism, I will put it to the member that there is legislation on the floor of the chamber that would, with respect to the ban on willful promotion of anti-Semitism, accentuate the penalties, taking them from two to five years.

Will the member support the bill? It is called Bill C-63 and it targets online radicalisation, which is the root cause of what we are seeing.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am an advocate for free speech. We have laws in this country that address the issue of hate speech. If one crosses the line, they should expect to be visited by law enforcement.

I listened to the answer of the hon. member for Thornhill, and I agree with her. Are we going to get to a point, which we would through Bill C-63, but hopefully with a change in government we would not, when we would be starting to censor the freedom of speech of Canadians? I believe, and it is an ideological belief on my part, that free speech is paramount in our democracy. It is paramount in our democratic institutions. If we as a government are restricting that in any way, save and except for what constitutes hate speech as identified in the Criminal Code, then we are doing a disservice to not just our freedoms, but also our institutions.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is not going to like what I say about this, but we have been entirely consistent that the solution to bad speech is not necessarily to stop speech. That is what we have seen from the Liberals with Bill C-11, Bill C-63 and, to some extent, Bill C-18. The solution is both more speech and having the consequences in place to actually arrest people who break the law. There are plenty of laws that currently exist in our Criminal Code that have been broken time after time and that would create more civil rest in this country rather than the unrest, the rioting and the behaviour that we have been seeing in the streets. I do not think the solution is stopping Canadians from having their point of view; it is stopping the lawbreakers from breaking the law.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague well knows, it is him and his party members who are keeping Parliament paralyzed because they are obstructing their own motion of instruction. The Speaker very clearly ruled that this matter should be sent to the procedure and House affairs committee for further study. We agree with that. We are just waiting for the Conservative Party of Canada members of Parliament to do the same. In the interim, they continue to filibuster their own filibuster, and we have seen that, because they continue to amend their amendments on this matter, but when they are ready to get back to work, we are here to work for Canadians, and we look forward to that.

As I mentioned last week, we look forward to the Conservatives putting an end to their political games so that the House can move on to studying Bill C-71 on citizenship, Bill C‑66 on military justice, Bill C‑63 on online harms, the ways and means motion on capital gains and the ways and means motion on charities.

I also want to inform the House of our government's announcement regarding upcoming legislation to put more money in the pockets of Canadians through a tax break and a working Canadians rebate. We would be giving a tax break to all Canadians and putting more money directly into the pockets of the middle class. These are important measures to help Canadians pay their bills. We encourage Parliament and all parties to get this legislation passed quickly and unanimously, so workers and working families can get more money in their pockets. We are committed to getting things done for Canadians in Parliament. Important legislation is before the House, and we believe the Conservatives should stop playing obstructionist, partisan games so that MPs can debate those bills.

I would also like to inform the House that the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth will deliver a ministerial statement on Monday, November 25, which is the first day of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence.

[Valérie Auger-Voyer]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, you're absolutely right. There's very much a backlash against women and against feminists in particular, too, online. We're hearing young men in the U.S. right now saying “Your body, my choice.” They are very much emboldened by the types of narratives that they're hearing, that rape culture narrative and the skewed gender norms.

I think it is important to act on misogyny online, and we would like to see the government actually name that as a type of hate when they are working on bills such as Bill C-63.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for what has been a very productive conversation today.

Professor Sérafin, we've talked about Bill C-63. One of the concerning aspects I read in that bill is.... Nobody disagrees with wanting to protect especially children from online harms, but the key is how you do it. In some of the language that is proposed, it changes from an objective measure of hate speech to a subjective one, including words that may discredit, humiliate, hurt or offend.

It's especially that last word that is I think so deeply problematic when I read this bill. I'll use the example that I shared the other day. Because I support the oil and gas sector—and there is, ironically, a bill before Parliament that would make it illegal to advertise for that—there have been Liberals in Parliament who have said that my views in support of the oil and gas sector, as a key part of the economy in the regions I represent, are somehow hateful.

With what I've described there, Professor Sérafin, I'm just wondering if you could expand a bit on the impact of changing from an objective measure of what would incite violence and harm, for example, versus a subjective measure, which could be as low as somebody being offended by what somebody says.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I think we're low on time, but I would say that I think your testimony and your writing affirm why so many Canadians are concerned about what we're seeing from Justin Trudeau and the Liberal government.

Certainly, with Bill C-63 you raise a lot of important considerations that need to be made and that speak to why Canadians are so unhappy with what's happening right now.

Thank you.

[Stéphane Sérafin]

Yes. The main example of this is.... I talked about the EDI stuff and higher education earlier. There's also the Canada research chairs program, which is subject currently to a rather strict quota system that I think was a subject of controversy a year or two ago.

Actually, that quota system is the result of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal settlement. The Human Rights Tribunal settlement essentially consecrated an agreement between the government and the plaintiffs in that human rights complaint, which had as an effect to completely overturn the entire way in which the Canada research chairs are awarded. Now there's a strict quota system in place because of that, so it's not inconceivable.

My suggestion was that there are some provisions in the wording of the proposed amendment to Bill C-63 that would suggest that orders against content distributors in and of themselves are off the table, but that's a question of interpretation. It's not inconceivable in that context that there would be a possibility of an order against someone who was found to be doing more than just distributing content, to proactively adopt certain measures to, for example, prevent marginalized voices—as they are conceived—from being censored, which would maybe mean censoring other voices instead.

Those are the kinds of things I had in mind when I was writing that.