‘Censorship’ or Protecting Children: Parties Clash in House Debate on Online Harms Bill

As the Online Harms Act went through second reading in the House of Commons, Liberals said the bill would protect children and victims of sexual exploitation, while Conservatives raised concerns about the legislation leading to censorship and disproportionate penalties for crimes.
“What is contemplated in this law is taking current jurisprudence that applies in the physical world and applying it in the online world,” Justice Minister Arif Virani said in the House of Commons on Sept. 23. “We’ve heard tremendous support for this legislation from all sectors of society, including [The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs] that has called for more strict penalties for hate propaganda, prompting 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 expression, instead of addressing the real issues.”
“This Liberal legislation silences Canadians under the guise of security, creating bloated bureaucracies led by the prime minister’s hand-picked allies,” he said.
If the legislation passes, it will apply to social media services, live-streaming websites, and user-generated adult content services. However, it would not include private communications such as correspondence via email and direct messaging on social media.
Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux said he was “surprised” that Conservative MPs were against legislation that would deal with intimate images communicated without consent, including AI-generated “deep fakes,” and content that sexually victimizes a child or re-victimizes a survivor.
“I would have thought that all members of this House would, in fact, support those initiatives,” he said. “I have heard Conservatives across the way talk about concerns related to how offended they are about the issue and that the government needs to do something.”
Conservative MP Brock raised the issue of Bill C-63’s new provision known as “offence motivated by hatred,” which he warned could impose a life sentence for even minor infractions under any act of Parliament. He said the provision opens the door to “mere words alone” leading to life in prison, and said while the government has claimed a serious underlying act must happen for the punishment to apply, that is not reflected in the bill’s wording.
“Laws to address the issues we’re witnessing 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 govern hate speech. This government needs to grow a backbone and enforce the laws as they stand.”
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 will also reinstate Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, he said, which was previously repealed for being overly broad, 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 charged with possession or distribution of child pornography to serve their sentences with house arrest, and raised concerns that the Online Harms Act would create a “parallel administrative process to deal with these both pernicious and insidious crimes.”
Davies added that the Online Harms Act has two parts, one aimed at reducing exposure to harmful content, and the second intended to address online hate crimes. He asked Brock, “Would my honourable colleague be willing 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 make sure that we preserve freedom of speech?”