Climb-down for Liberals on draconian Bill C-63 proposed by Conservatives
A new Conservative proposal would give immediate protections to Canadians while protecting civil liberties
Poor Arif Virani, or so he would have you believe.
Since the House of Commons resumed sitting in September, Mr. Virani—Canada's Justice Minister—has tried everything to get uptake for his rightfully maligned, draconian, and abysmally crafted Bill C-63, the "Online Harms Bill," to no avail. The public backlash on the bill has been so bad that the Liberals have only put it up twice for debate since it was tabled last February—once in June and then again in September.
But since then, as the Liberal government has gridlocked Parliament by refusing to comply with an order to produce documents, Virani has still been looking for a way to ram through his ill-conceived bill. So last week, after coming under fire for ten months from virtually every segment of civil society possible over Bill C-63's massive proposed chill on free speech, Virani announced an intent to split the bill into two parts so that parts of it could "finally" pass.
His proposal can't be supported for many reasons, but Conservatives have a better plan.
So here's the scoop on why Virani's plan is a bad idea and what the Conservatives plan to do instead.
Why is Virani's proposal to split bill C-63 problematic?
Rather than using the bill-splitting process to discard all of Bill C-63's problematic parts, Virani once again demonstrated the flaw that doomed the initial version of C-63: a failure to resist the temptation to tie online protections for Canadians to incursions into civil liberties, a transfer of Parliament's rights to unelected regulators, and a massive expense that could be better used to fund law enforcement.
To understand how he managed to do this, it’s important to understand exactly what’s in each of the bill’s four parts.
Part 1 establishes a brand new, three-part, online regulator and gives said regulator massive, largely undefined powers to make and enforce regulations in twenty-five different areas of online participation. Earlier in the year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated the cost of this new regulator to be north of $200 million. Said differently, Part 1 of C-63 asks Parliamentarians to create a three-headed censorship bureaucracy with undefined powers so that unelected, expensive bureaucrats can make decisions about online activities behind closed doors.
Parts 2 and 3 contain many of the other draconian provisions that have been panned by civil society groups, including creating a provision for so-called "thought crimes" and massive incursions on freedom of speech.
Part 4 contains provisions to strengthen a bill passed by the former Harper Conservative government (the Act Respecting the Mandatory reporting of Internet Child Pornography by persons who provide an Internet service), such as allowing police to retain data related to reports of child pornography (now more properly referred to as child sexual abuse material) for 12 months, as opposed to the current 21 days, to help facilitate investigations into child sexual abuse material.
Per above, Parts 1, 2, and 3 are not supportable and should be vigorously opposed by all Parliamentarians. The reasons for doing so with Parts 2 and 3 have been well outlined by many; these Parts propose massive incursions on Canadian civil liberties.
Part 1 should be opposed too, as in crafting Bill C-63 the Liberals propose creating a new, costly, regulatory monstrosity and giving it largely undefined, sweeping powers to make and enforce rules without any guidance from elected officials. This proposal is problematic not only from a civil liberties perspective, but also from a victim's rights perspective because there is nothing to guarantee that bureaucrats within the regulator would actually deliver reasonable public safety measures - in fact, they're more likely to be negatively influenced by big tech lobbyists than elected officials who are bound by stringent ethics laws. And because they're unelected and unaccountable to the public, they're also more likely to be influenced by, or composed of, members of fringe activist groups who seek incursions on civil liberties. The massive expenditure of public funds to create this regulator would be better spent on more law enforcement officials to enforce a legislated duty of care for big tech to follow - one which doesn’t infringe on Canadian Charter rights. And, the establishment of this regulator as opposed to simply legislating a list of responsibilities for online platforms to keep Canadians safe (again, without violating their civil liberties) will delay action for victims.
However, groups that have vigorously opposed Parts 1, 2, and 3 of Bill C-63 have agreed that provisions in C-63 which strengthens existing legislation regarding mandatory reporting of Internet child sexual abuse material by internet service providers (Part 4) are a good thing, because they would help law enforcement officials catch more people who sexually exploit children.
So, one would think that a Justice Minister looking to expedite passage of any of this bill by splitting it would hive off parts 1, 2, and 3 into one bill, and Part 4 into another, right?
Wrong.
What Virani has proposed is to split the bill into two components; Part 1 and Part 4 going into one, and Part 2 and 3 going into another. What he should have done, if he wanted to deliver something that would actually protect Canadians without taking away their civil liberties, was to hive Parts 1, 2, and 3 off into one section and abandon it, put Part 4 into another and pass it, table a legislated duty of care for online platforms to follow that didn't violate things like Charter protected speech, and announce support for law enforcement and existing regularly bodies to help protect Canadians from perverts, miscreants, and irresponsible online platform operators.
So why isn’t he doing this? The answer is obvious: crass politics, a desire to give unelected bureaucrats sweeping power to police what Canadians say and do online, and a need to cover up nine years of inaction in providing meaningful protections to Canadians online while protecting their civil liberties.
So how are Conservatives going to respond to Virani's proposal?
Today, I can confirm that the Conservative Party proposes that Liberals do the following:
Advance Conservative Bill C-412 to a study at the Justice Committee. This bill, tabled by me in September, outlines a legislated list of responsibilities that online platform operators would be responsible for in order to keep Canadians safe online, prevents people from creating AI generated deepfaked intimate images of someone else and distributing them without consent, and gives more tools to law enforcement to help people who are being stalked online. It includes no infringements on civil liberties, prohibits the use of digital identifiers for age verification purposes, and would provide immediate action to keep Canadians safe online. Conservatives will move a motion at the Justice Committee to have this study completed concurrently with the study Liberals on the committee approved for C-63.
Abandon Parts 1, 2, and 3 of Bill C-63 entirely, and put the provisions to strengthen the former Harper government bill that helps law enforcement officials catch people who generate and distribute digital child sexual abuse materials into another bill - ideally one that includes the entirety of C-412. Conservatives will continue to vigorously oppose Bill C-63, but would support specific measures proposed to strengthen the former Harper government bill that helps stop people who generate and distribute digital child sexual abuse materials, as well as the duty of care for online platforms as outlined in Conservative Bill C-412.
For the sake of Canadian's safety online, and the protection of civil liberties, this is a win the Liberals should be willing to take.