Australian National Review – ‘Censorship’ or protecting children: parties clash in House debate over online harms law

When the Online Harms Act went to second reading in the House of Commons, Liberals said the bill would protect children and victims of sexual exploitation. Conservatives, however, raised concerns that the legislation would lead to censorship and disproportionate punishments for crimes.

“What is being considered in this bill is taking current case law that applies in the physical world and applying it to the online world,” Justice Minister Arif Virani told the Lower House on Sept. 23. “We have heard tremendous support for this legislation from all sectors of society, including (the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs) which has called for tougher penalties for hate speech, which is what prompted them to get behind this bill.”

Meanwhile, Conservative MP Larry Brock said Bill C-63 would “force Canadians into a false choice between their safety and free speech, rather than addressing the real issues.”

“This Liberal legislation silences Canadians under the guise of safety, and creates bloated bureaucracies run by the prime minister’s hand-picked allies,” he said.

If passed, the legislation would apply to social media services, live streaming websites and user-generated adult content. However, it would not include private communications, such as email correspondence and direct messages on social media.

‘Surprised’ by Conservative opposition to bill

During the debate on the legislation, Virani said he had heard stories of children committing suicide due to online bullying and harassment, and their families then being victimized when the images of their children could not be removed. “That is what this bill will do. It will remove the images and reduce the online circulation of images that abuse children,” he said.

Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux said he was “surprised” that Conservative MPs opposed legislation to tackle intimate images communicated without consent, including AI-generated “deep fakes” and content that sexually abuses a child or re-abuses a survivor.

“I would have thought that all members of this House would really support these initiatives,” he said. “I’ve heard Conservatives across the aisle talking about concerns about how offended they are about the issue and that the government needs to do something.”

“This legislation addresses the issues that matter to Canadians, and the Conservative Party says that not only will they vote against the bill, but if it passes in the future … a Conservative government will repeal or repeal the bill,” he said.

‘Vague regulatory framework’

Conservative MP Brock raised the issue of the new provision in Bill C-63, known as a “crime motivated by hatred,” which he warned could impose a life sentence for even minor offences under any Act of Parliament. He said the provision opens the door to “mere words” leading to life imprisonment, and said that while the government has argued that there must be a serious underlying act for the penalty to apply, that is not reflected in the bill’s wording.

“Laws to address the problems we see have been in place for decades and the Supreme Court has ruled on them multiple times,” Brock said. “We don’t need new laws to address hate speech. This administration needs to grow a spine and enforce the laws as they are.”

Brock also said Bill C-63’s “vague regulatory framework” could result in excessive bureaucratic oversight and opportunities for tech lobbyists to “manipulate the process behind closed doors.” The bill would also reinstate Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, he said, which was previously repealed for being too broad and subjective and opening the door to government censorship of speech without criminal proceedings.

Conservative MP Frank Caputo criticized the Liberal government for allowing some Canadians accused of possessing or distributing child pornography to serve their sentences under house arrest. He also expressed concern that the Online Harms Act would create a “parallel administrative process to address these both depraved and insidious crimes.”

Davies added that the Online Harms Act has two parts, one aimed at reducing exposure to harmful content, and the second aimed at tackling online hate crime. He asked Brock: “Would my honourable colleague be prepared to look at splitting this bill in two so that we can come up with legislation that protects our children, while also making sure that we take the time to ensure that we preserve freedom of expression?”