Thanks for that. I want to preface that by making it clear that when I said legislation needs to go back to the drawing board, I was actually referring to Bill S-210, which is the age verification bill that includes the blocking I referred to and a number of other issues.
Bill C-63 needs to go to committee. In some ways, it's really two bills in one. There is the element that is the larger part, about online harms, which deals specifically with the responsibility of the Internet platforms. There is a lot that can be worked with there. I have some concerns about the enforcement mechanisms that have been established, but I think there's a lot in it.
What you are referring to, though—and I apologize and I'll be quick—is the Criminal Code provisions and in particular an attempt to create what is essentially the equivalent of a peace bond for speech in this context.
We use these kinds of things in other contexts. If we're concerned about domestic violence and it's imminent, we might get an order to ensure that it doesn't happen or to try to prevent it from taking place. This would similarly be an attempt to prevent certain kinds of potential hate from taking place. As I mentioned off the top, the Jewish community has seen an unprecedented number of shootings and targeting at synagogues and at schools. If we knew they were coming, a bond might be able to try to stop some of those kinds of activities from taking place.
I think, though—and Professor Laidlaw mentioned this before—that both the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act provisions in the legislation run the risk of overreach. Frankly, the bill should be split. We should be focusing on the Internet stuff and leave this other stuff for a separate study.