Peter Menzies: A New Online Harms Act Would Mean Canadians Talk Less Freely

Commentary

Once it was confirmed that, for the first time, Canada would be ruled by a majority government achieved through floor-crossing, it didn’t take long for talk of a renewed Online Harms Act to be proposed.

Heritage Minister Marc Miller was approached after his party—thanks to winning three byelections to hold seats it had previously won in last year’s election and gaining five floor-crossing MPs—had turned a minority government into a majority with unfettered legislative power.

He indicated that, now with complete control of the House of Commons, the Liberal government may finally have the power it needs to regulate legal internet content.

“It’s no secret we have been in a minority for six years,” Miller said. “There are some opportunities here. We have some work to do if we want to get it right.”

Getting it right would be a good idea, particularly since the government has been getting it wrong for the better part of the past six years, primarily due to different types of overreach.

Bill C-36, the Liberals’ first attempt to regulate speech on the internet in June 2021, was actually a scaled-back version of a draft bill that then-Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault’s staff had circulated for feedback the previous year. It set off alarm bells across the board concerning the infringement of Charter rights.

Still, as I described it at the time, when it came to even the improved version, Guilbeault and his team “have succeeded in scanning the globe, identifying the most invasive and inefficient regulatory practices in place and bundling them all into a single piece of legislation that very likely has no hope of surviving Charter challenges.”

That one died on the order paper when Justin Trudeau, the prime minister of the day, called the 2021 election.

The next effort, Bill C-63, was too clever by half. In an effort to make sure it wouldn’t be tossed out swiftly by the courts, the Department of Justice, under its then-Minister Arif Virani, was put in charge of its composition. It had some positive aspects (most people agree that the protection of children from harm is a laudable goal) that provided the sheep’s clothing for its more wolfish aspects. Those included empowering the Human Rights Commission to take complaints from people interpreting online comments as racist or otherwise offensive, and the power to fine those who posted comments it deemed to be problematic up to $20,000. Hate speech laws were to be reinforced, with life sentences possible. Also envisioned was a new bureaucratic structure called a Digital Safety Commission with the power to order takedowns and punish platforms for failure to exercise their duty of care.

That bill also died on the order paper in early 2025 when Trudeau prorogued Parliament in order to ensure his successor could control the timing of an election.

Now, with little chance of an election, the government is likely going to finally get an Online Harms Act passed. It has put a panel in place to help it do so and has suggested it will include a ban on children under 14, or maybe 16, from accessing social media. Either way, that means age verification will be required.

So get ready. There is no shortage of people asking for the government to, on their behalf, silence people online whose words they feel harmed by.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims has backed the concept in all its forms from the beginning and can be expected to continue its support.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, similarly, continues to advocate for stronger policing of online speech.

Even media unions are throwing their support behind it. While journalists have traditionally been staunch defenders of free speech, particularly as it forms the foundation upon which modern, liberal democracies are based, that is no longer the case for some.

“For many journalists, especially women, minorities, and LGBTQ members, the toxicity we face online and in person while doing our jobs is becoming overwhelming,” Jane Robertson, president of the Canadian Media Guild, which represents CBC journalists, told the House of Commons Heritage Committee on April 16.

“We urge the government to support stronger protection through the upcoming Online Harms Act, particularly with journalists’ safety and mental health as explicit priorities.”

There will, of course, be other groups such as the Free Speech Union and Canadian Constitution Foundation taking issue with whatever the authors of Online Harms 3.0 come up with. They will have their voices heard during the legislative process and, likely, in the courts once the bill is passed.

But this time, with the power of a majority in their pocket, Miller, Carney, and others will most certainly get what they want.

And when they are done, Canadians will speak less freely. The only question remaining involves whether they do so by a little or a lot.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.