With Prime Minister Justin Trudeau precariously hanging on to power following the Dec. 16 resignation of his formerly trusted lieutenant Chrystia Freeland as Minister of Finance, a growing revolt within the Liberal ranks and calls from Opposition benches for the PM’s resignation and an election, there’s been no lack of drama on Parliament Hill.
While the events of Dec. 16 will undoubtedly generate a lot of speculation and perhaps further developments, there is still business on hand on Parliament Hill. Lost in the histrionics surrounding the future of Trudeau and his government has been the shifting political sands over Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which earlier this month was split into two new yet-to-be-tabled pieces of legislation.
The first new bill would combine the decree to establish a Digital Safety Commission of Canada with the new “duty of care” guidelines for social media platforms to protect minors from sexually victimizing content.
The second bill would feature the proposed controversial changes to Section 320 of the Criminal Code. The modifications would make it an indictable offence if anyone is deemed making a transgression based on hatred “of race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.”
It’s this second bill that many are expressing concerns about, some even suggesting it could lead to “floods of complaints” that could target Christians.
Critics, including Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner, who released the competing policy proposal Bill C-412 to provide for a safe online environment for minors by requiring operators to take steps to protect them, said such a policy would mean that “words alone could lead to life imprisonment.”
Peter Menzies, a former vice-chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), has oft told the Register that the suggested changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act in Bill C-63 are problematic as well.
By empowering the Human Rights Commission to take complaints based on what people say, Menzies said “you can get accused of discrimination based on what you say instead of what you do. That will result in absolute floods of complaints by various groups and others trying to shut down their political opponents.” He anticipates this would lead to Christians and Catholics being subject to many complaints.
Menzies, now a senior fellow with The Macdonald-Laurier Institute, welcomed the fission in the legislation as it “separates the wolf from the sheep’s clothing.”
“There was a lot of good intention around the front end (of the bill) with protecting children from online harm,” said Menzies. “There are still parts that I think are of concern, but hopefully once the bill is broken apart we can see what it looks like because I think that’s important.”
Regarding the timing of this move on the government’s part, Menzies suggested the “general mood in the country” toward the bill, perhaps coupled with some self-realization that the bill “might be a little extreme and problematic,” triggered this change.
“I think the parts dealing with the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Commission are likely to make enemies out of friends for the Liberals. And I think they need all the friends they can get right now. So, I think they’re probably focused on that.”
Menzies expects that the “duty of care” and Digital Safety Commission of Canada part will get passed “if the government lasts long enough to pass it, which day by day becomes more questionable.”
