QUESTION PERIOD — Justice
Online Harms Bill
February 29, 2024
Senator Gold, I want to discuss Bill C-63, the online harms bill.
While I applaud certain aspects of the bill that aim to protect children, my question relates more to the criminalization of online hate speech. I’m surprised to see that advocating genocide, as odious and reprehensible as that may be, can carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment rather than five years. These maximum penalties are much harsher than for sexual assault and other heinous crimes.
What is the logic behind that?
Thank you for the question.
The government is taking a holistic approach to online harm issues, and Bill C-63 proposes a new regulator, separate from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, mandated to reduce online harm.
The bill has just been tabled and will be studied in detail to address a number of issues — you mentioned some of them — and other matters, such as balancing freedom of expression and proportionality in sentencing.
All of these issues will be addressed in the House of Commons and, when the bill arrives here in the Senate, I’m fully confident that it will receive serious consideration in committee and in this chamber, and that it will measure up to Canadians’ expectations.
At first glance, I question the logic of such a severe penalty. People could get life sentences for advocating genocide. That’s extremely harsh compared to the previous penalty, which was about five years.
I can understand you not giving me a substantive answer, but let’s just say that this bill has already been criticized on grounds I agree with. The bill consists of two main elements—
I think it would be best to wait until debate begins in the other place and the minister and his representatives answer questions in committee about their legislative intent. I think they’re in a better position to do that than I am.
