Guilbeault defends online censorship as Liberals revisit legislation
Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault told a televised House of Commons heritage committee on Wednesday that the government’s long-delayed Online Harms Act is aimed only at “clearly harmful content”.
Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault told a televised House of Commons heritage committee on Wednesday that the government’s long-delayed Online Harms Act is aimed only at “clearly harmful content” and is “designed to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” as cabinet takes another look at how to move the controversial bill forward.
During the committee, Guilbeault said, “Online safety is certainly about protecting kids, but it’s obviously more than that,” adding that the legislation shields vulnerable people from exploitation.
Bill C-63, first tabled in May 2024, would create a Digital Safety Commission to enforce a new duty for social-media platforms to limit users’ exposure to harmful material.
Platforms would have to make non-consensual intimate images and child-sexual-abuse content inaccessible within 24 hours when flagged, while providing notice and allowing both posters and complainants to make representations before a final decision.
Guilbeault highlighted how the government is responding to new technology-driven risks.
“We are committing to making it a criminal offence to distribute non-consensual sexual deepfakes and increase penalties for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images,” he said. “My colleague, Minister Fraser, is in the House of Commons speaking on his new bill, Bill C-9 … We will be introducing measures to address hate speech, terrorist content, and the harmful distribution of intimate images.”
The bill also raises maximum Criminal Code penalties for hate propaganda, increasing the sentence for advocating genocide to life imprisonment. It also creates a new hate-crime offence and empowers judges to issue “peace bonds” to prevent anticipated hate crimes.
It further amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to let Canadians file complaints over online hate speech, which will be defined, in line with Supreme Court rulings, as expression amounting to “detestation or vilification,” but not speech that merely offends.
Civil-liberties groups, including the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, warn the plan would hand sweeping censorship powers to a federal regulator, duplicate existing Criminal Code provisions and invite platforms and users to self-censor.
They are particularly critical of the bill’s proposed human-rights process, which could impose financial penalties of up to $70,000 for non-criminal speech and of peace-bond provisions that would allow judges to restrict a person’s liberty based on fears of future “hate offences.”
Justice Minister Sean Fraser said this summer the Liberals are taking a “fresh” look at the file after the bill died on the order paper when the election was called.
He told The Canadian Press in June that the cabinet has not decided whether to rewrite or simply reintroduce the legislation, and is weighing whether to keep Criminal Code and human-rights provisions together or split them into separate bills.
Fraser has signalled that any new version will address deepfakes and child exploitation and that the rapid spread of artificial intelligence since the first draft means “policy needs to shift.”
By reiterating that Bill C-63 is both Charter-compliant and narrowly focused on harmful content, and by promising new criminal offences for deepfakes and tougher penalties for intimate-image abuse, Guilbeault sought to reassure critics while the government weighs how to revive the legislation.
 | A guest post by
|