The long promised, long overdue and now reconfigured Online Harms Bill — Bill C-63 — was tabled in the House of Commons, Monday. There’s a lot in it to worry about.Its scope is broad and through the Digital Safety Commission it creates — described by one critic as “a new CRTC, funded by the tech companies” — places too much control and punitive measures into the hands of a government that has been proven in court to use the power it already has in a wrongful way... Remember what the Federal Court said about how the federal government used the War Measures (Emergencies) Act.And the experts are already there with their warnings.At the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Marty Moore says this bill allows for secret hearings and gives the new commission “any measure” it sees fit.Josh Dehaas from the Canadian Constitution Fund highlights how this bill allows for punitive measures on the grounds an offences that ‘might’ happen. Welcome to the world of Minority Report. Law professor Michael Geist highlights concern over the new legal structure (and much else besides).“The first (of three concerns) involves the definitions for harms such as inciting violence, hatred and bullying. As someone who comes from a community that has faced relentless antisemitism and real threats in recent months, I think we need some measures to combat online harms. However, the definitions are not without risks that they may be interpreted in an over broad manner and have implications for freedom of expression.”“Second is the incredible power vested in the Digital Safety Commission, which will have primary responsibility for enforcing the law. The breadth of powers is remarkable: rulings on making content inaccessible, investigation powers, hearings that under certain circumstances can be closed to the public, establishing regulations and codes of conduct and the power to levy penalties up to 6% of global revenues of services caught by the law. There is an awful lot there and questions about Commission oversight and accountability will be essential.”Closed hearings? What? Are we re-inventing England’s old Star Chamber, where the king could arbitrarily dispose his will?“Third, the provisions involving the Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights Act require careful study as they feature penalties that go as high as life in prison and open the door to a tidal wave of hate speech related complaints.”Ironically, Geist calls this an improvement on what the Trudeau Liberals first offered in 2021. For the freedom-loving, law-abiding Canadian who has views, both political and religious, at odds with those of the prime minister, there is enough here to make us again rightly question living in Canada.So what’s really going on here? The news cycles so quickly that it’s easy to forget what just happened only a few weeks ago but in my view, a lot of things are falling into place.For a start, why was Trudeau so adamant that parental rights were a bigoted extreme right-wing notion after Premiere Danielle Smith brought forth regulations protecting parental rights? Was it because he was working on expanding his government’s reach and power, but needed to use our children and their supposed need for his government’s protection as the solution? Might that be the justification— in his mind at least — for bringing in sweeping legislation to set up a new administrative body with incredible powers that will have far reaching effects on what Canadians are allowed to say to each other on the Internet — effects that go way beyond the gender discussion?Looking at what Liberal Justice Minister Arif Virani said yesterday as he ran PR for the new bill, you have to wonder.His first proof-point was the mother of a child who had been groomed and raped by someone who was supposed to care for her. The mother stated, “she was told or taught to believe that sex and sexual actions between children and grownups was completely normal.” Are there not laws already in place against such things? Yes, there are. The issue is not a lack of laws, but rather a failure of society to stand on the principles already established.So why do we need a new commission with unbelievably broad powers and punitive measures? Does anyone think that a new commission of five members can reduce the flow of child pornography, revenge porn and violent internet footage in a country with nearly 40 million people?The solution for online porn and sextortion is for parents to be more involved in their children’s lives, have dinner together, open a Bible and do not limit your speech for fear of a tyrant with more laws than common sense.This bill however goes much further than that. In my view, this is not about protecting your children. Rather, it is all about building an oppressive and over-reaching framework that can punish Canadians and gaslight citizens into self-censoring their speech.Now, more than ever, speak up.Ryan McMillan is a fourth year Journalism student at Mount Royal University. X @RyaniMcMillan
The long promised, long overdue and now reconfigured Online Harms Bill — Bill C-63 — was tabled in the House of Commons, Monday. There’s a lot in it to worry about.Its scope is broad and through the Digital Safety Commission it creates — described by one critic as “a new CRTC, funded by the tech companies” — places too much control and punitive measures into the hands of a government that has been proven in court to use the power it already has in a wrongful way... Remember what the Federal Court said about how the federal government used the War Measures (Emergencies) Act.And the experts are already there with their warnings.At the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Marty Moore says this bill allows for secret hearings and gives the new commission “any measure” it sees fit.Josh Dehaas from the Canadian Constitution Fund highlights how this bill allows for punitive measures on the grounds an offences that ‘might’ happen. Welcome to the world of Minority Report. Law professor Michael Geist highlights concern over the new legal structure (and much else besides).“The first (of three concerns) involves the definitions for harms such as inciting violence, hatred and bullying. As someone who comes from a community that has faced relentless antisemitism and real threats in recent months, I think we need some measures to combat online harms. However, the definitions are not without risks that they may be interpreted in an over broad manner and have implications for freedom of expression.”“Second is the incredible power vested in the Digital Safety Commission, which will have primary responsibility for enforcing the law. The breadth of powers is remarkable: rulings on making content inaccessible, investigation powers, hearings that under certain circumstances can be closed to the public, establishing regulations and codes of conduct and the power to levy penalties up to 6% of global revenues of services caught by the law. There is an awful lot there and questions about Commission oversight and accountability will be essential.”Closed hearings? What? Are we re-inventing England’s old Star Chamber, where the king could arbitrarily dispose his will?“Third, the provisions involving the Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights Act require careful study as they feature penalties that go as high as life in prison and open the door to a tidal wave of hate speech related complaints.”Ironically, Geist calls this an improvement on what the Trudeau Liberals first offered in 2021. For the freedom-loving, law-abiding Canadian who has views, both political and religious, at odds with those of the prime minister, there is enough here to make us again rightly question living in Canada.So what’s really going on here? The news cycles so quickly that it’s easy to forget what just happened only a few weeks ago but in my view, a lot of things are falling into place.For a start, why was Trudeau so adamant that parental rights were a bigoted extreme right-wing notion after Premiere Danielle Smith brought forth regulations protecting parental rights? Was it because he was working on expanding his government’s reach and power, but needed to use our children and their supposed need for his government’s protection as the solution? Might that be the justification— in his mind at least — for bringing in sweeping legislation to set up a new administrative body with incredible powers that will have far reaching effects on what Canadians are allowed to say to each other on the Internet — effects that go way beyond the gender discussion?Looking at what Liberal Justice Minister Arif Virani said yesterday as he ran PR for the new bill, you have to wonder.His first proof-point was the mother of a child who had been groomed and raped by someone who was supposed to care for her. The mother stated, “she was told or taught to believe that sex and sexual actions between children and grownups was completely normal.” Are there not laws already in place against such things? Yes, there are. The issue is not a lack of laws, but rather a failure of society to stand on the principles already established.So why do we need a new commission with unbelievably broad powers and punitive measures? Does anyone think that a new commission of five members can reduce the flow of child pornography, revenge porn and violent internet footage in a country with nearly 40 million people?The solution for online porn and sextortion is for parents to be more involved in their children’s lives, have dinner together, open a Bible and do not limit your speech for fear of a tyrant with more laws than common sense.This bill however goes much further than that. In my view, this is not about protecting your children. Rather, it is all about building an oppressive and over-reaching framework that can punish Canadians and gaslight citizens into self-censoring their speech.Now, more than ever, speak up.Ryan McMillan is a fourth year Journalism student at Mount Royal University. X @RyaniMcMillan
