An assortment of stakeholders representing civil society groups gathered in Ottawa to discuss Canada’s proposed internet censorship legislation, with some advocating more protections for free speech and others saying the bill doesn’t go far enough.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims and Open Media co-hosted the Digital Justice Summit in Ottawa on Monday. A diverse range of stakeholders and lawmakers gathered to learn, discuss and debate Bill C-63, also known as the Online Harms Act.
Spearheaded by Justice Minister and Attorney General Arif Virani, the Liberals argue that the bill, which is in its second reading in the House of Commons, is necessary to protect children and Canadians at large against “online harms such as hate speech, non-consensual sexual images and child pornography.
The Conservatives have put forward an alternative bill to replace the proposed legislation with Bill C-412. The bill is intended to protect children from harms outlined in the first part of Bill C-63 regarding sexual crimes and argue that existing hate speech laws can address online hate.
There was widespread consensus that part one of C-63, which protects minors from internet crimes, was worthwhile to pursue though many said it required further attention. The panel on the first part of the bill unanimously agreed that the bill ought to be split into two seperate pieces of legislation, although some in attendance disagreed.
“Part one is more fixable (than the later sections of the bill,)” Matt Hatfield, the executive director of Open Media told True North. “We need to make sure that (the commissions) order-making power is restricted to be used for its actual purposes and also that it doesn’t overstep. I’d like to see language that is very explicit, saying that any orders need to be proportionate and respectful of the privacy and free expression of internet users.”
Many attendees advocated that C-63 does not go far enough and argued for further restrictions on social media platforms and how Canadians use social media.
Green Party leader Elizabeth May, who is in support of the goals of the Online Harms Act and expects the bill to be split was a keynote speaker at the event. She advocated for designating social media companies as publishers so that courts could charge them for allowing libellous information on their platforms, making the legislation obsolete. She wanted laws to ensure law enforcement could identify people posting online more easily.
Others advocated for the government to influence social media algorithms to dampen the reach of potentially “harmful” content. They stated that the social media landscape is already heavily manipulated by algorithms, so having a regulatory body influence companies to tweak the algorithm would be a positive change.
“Open Media would not agree with that perspective. I think people should probably have some regulation on algorithms, but it should give users more choice over the algorithms affecting their feed, not to tilt the algorithm further,” Hatfield said.
Hatfield and others, such as Christine Van Geyn, the litigations director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, opposed C-63 and advocated for the removal of specific sections or narrower definitions in the bill to ensure the rights of Canadians’ free expression remain protected.
In an interview, Van Geyn told True North that the current bill would stifle Canadians’ freedom of expression and chill free discourse online. Her panel discussed the reintroduction of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which criminalized “hate messages” that were “likely to expose” a person or persons in an identifiable group prohibited from discrimination, hatred or contempt.
The section was removed from the CHRA in 2014 due to its potential abuse and stifling of free speech. Later sections of the Online Harms Act would codify the provision into law and Van Geyn thinks it should stay out.
The hate-speech provision was challenged after it was used against author and columnist Mark Steyn in a failed lawsuit against him following his criticism of Islam in various Op-Eds in between 2005 and 2007.
“The guardrails that the federal government has proposed do not provide adequate protections against the process being abused the way it was previously,” Van Geyn said.
She noted that it won’t cost hate-crime complainants a dime to flag speech they don’t approve of to the commission while anyone who wanted to fight the complaint could expect to pay hefty legal costs and fines of up to $70,000 if they lose. Van Geyn said most Canadians will opt to simply take their post down even if it’s valuable to public discourse.