Liberal MP blasts Conservatives for dragging their feet on internet safety bill; BCCLA warns of chilling effect on free speech

New rules designed to curb online bullying and sexploitation aren’t being passed because of political gridlock, according to Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam MP Ron McKinnon.

“Our kids need help,” McKinnon said earlier this month in the House of Commons. “The internet is not a safe place for them right now.”

If passed, Bill C-63 would establish a Digital Safety Commission with a mandate to crack down on content that sexually victimizes children and to ensure online platforms make that content inaccessible.

The bill would also classify online content which is: “likely to foment detestation or vilification” of an individual or group as discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Content that advocates self-harm, disordered eating, which could seriously harm a child’s physical or mental health, or that incites violent extremism would also be prohibited.

It’s crucial Canada hold online platforms accountable, McKinnon said, noting Carol Todd recently called for the bill to be passed.

“Unfortunately, we can’t debate this bill because all business in the house is stalled in a Conservative delay tactic,” he said.

Liberal Justice Minister Arif Virani called for the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP to pass the bill.

An online platform could face a maximum fine of $25 million for failing to report child pornography.

The bill is designed to hold online platforms: “accountable for the design choices made that lead to the dissemination and amplification of harmful content,” according to a release from the federal government issued in February.

The general tenor of many social media sites will be the same, Virani acknowledged.

“There will still be humiliating comments, there will still be offensive comments, insults, expressions of disdain and dislike,” he said.

The bill could have a chilling effect on free flowing dialogue, argued the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

The bill could cause Canadians to fear speaking out, stated an essay published by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

Elements of the bill that focus on fomenting hatred are unnecessary, the organization contended.

“Hate-motivation is already an aggravating factor that can lead to higher sentences,” BCCLA stated. “The issue here is that these existing laws are not being enforced. Introducing harsher criminal penalties will not resolve this enforcement problem.”

The association also took issue with a provision in the bill that would authorize the Canadian Human Rights Commission to deal with complaints involving hate speech.

“There is a real danger that people will use the new provision to gain money or to carry out a grudge,” BCCLA stated, arguing the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal would be flooded with complaints.

“Countless insults, offensive remarks, threats, and genuinely problematic statements are posted daily on social media; the tribunal can’t possibly sort through them all.

The bill won’t undermine free speech, Virani stated earlier this year.

“It enhances free expression by empowering all people to safely participate in online debate,” Virani said. “Where your posts and go and what appears in your feed are dictated by platforms. Through this bill, we are restoring more of that power to you.”

The bill received some support from open-internet advocacy group Internet Society. The global nonprofit is also a registered lobbyist in Canada.

The bill amounts to a: “genuine effort to grapple with content many people find problematic, but without damaging the fundamentals of the Internet,” wrote the group’s former president and CEO Andrew Sullivan.

The bill puts private communications “firmly out of scope,” instead focusing on the responsibility of system operators, Sullivan wrote.