Parties agree on the need to act on online harms, but time is running out for new law

OTTAWA — Justice Minister Arif Virani is unapologetic about the money it would take to set up new regulators to tackle online harms under his proposed legislation.

Canadians want children to be safe online, “and if that costs money to set up and to enforce, so be it,” Virani said.

The cost of those bodies, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer has pegged at $200 million over five years, is a bone of contention for the Conservatives, who say the bill would create a “massive” bureaucracy.

Even if the Online Harms Act manages to somehow make it through a months-long impasse at the House of Commons and become law before an election, the Conservatives have pledged to repeal it should they form government.

Both the Liberals and Conservatives agree it’s time for something to be done to tackle online harms. They have both introduced bills to do so. But with no apparent common ground, legislation doesn’t have a path forward, even as parents whose children died because of online sexual extortion plead with MPs to act.

Virani said in a year-end interview with The Canadian Press that it “seems the Conservative Party of Canada has a problem with investing money to keep Canadians safe. And that to me is not a morally tenable proposition.”

The interview took place on Dec. 11, before the surprise resignation of former finance minister Chrystia Freeland raised questions about the future of the Liberal government. Virani, who was named justice minister in July 2023, kept the role in a shuffle Friday.

The Online Harms Act is among legislation that’s been blocked for months due to a parliamentary privilege debate raging between the Liberals and Conservatives. The Conservatives say they won’t end the filibuster until the Liberals hand over unredacted documents related to misspending at a now-defunct green technology fund, while the NDP also want the documents handed over.

Earlier this month, Virani said he would split the bill in two, leaving the more controversial provisions for later in an attempt to get the bill across the finish line.

“As the clock ticked in October and November, I had to make some tough decisions about what do I want to do with this bill? Do I want to see the entire thing die on the order paper?” he said.

“I actually asked myself some troubling questions about, could I look moms like Carol Todd in the face and say I did everything in my power to at least ensure that we’re protecting Canadian children.”

Todd, whose daughter Amanda died by suicide after being victimized by online sextortion, recently told MPs at a parliamentary committee she has been waiting 12 years for legislation and it is hurtful to watch political arguments.

The Conservatives have been pitching their own private member’s bill as a better alternative, including to Todd and other victims’ families testifying at a Parliamentary committee.

Under the Liberals’ Online Harms Act, social media companies would have to outline how they plan to reduce the risks their platforms pose to users, and the bill would impose on them a duty to protect children.

Two types of content would have to be taken down within 24 hours— content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor, or intimate content that’s shared without consent, including deepfakes.

“We heard loudly and clearly that there was consensus across the country that those two types of materials should just come down, and they need to come down fast,” Virani said.

The takedown provisions are limited to those two categories of content after an earlier iteration of the bill proposed applying them more broadly, drawing widespread alarm about impacts on free expression.

Then when the government introduced the bill, it included Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights Act amendments targeting hate, which some said risk chilling free speech. Those are the provisions Virani now aims to set aside for a separate bill.

But even after those changes were announced, the Conservatives were still accusing the Liberals of setting up a “censorship bureaucracy.”

They say the bill introduced by Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner, which would modernize existing law so a victim can ask a judge to force social media companies to identify someone who has repeatedly harassed them online, is “superior.”

“We consulted on this bill for four years,” Virani said. “They spent the summer realizing that this is not a good look for them, that they’re not protecting kids, and came up with a bit of an impromptu alternative solution.”

Rempel Garner has argued her bill would make changes immediately, instead of having to wait for a regulator to be set up, while Virani counters that the Conservative bill wouldn’t result in images getting taken down.

“What law enforcement has told me is… this is tough stuff to do when the accused is in downtown Toronto. When the accused is actually in eastern Europe or Sub-Saharan Africa, it’s even that much harder.”

He says because “what the families need is for the images to simply come down,” setting a up a regulator is a model that “makes sense.”

Virani acknowledged his isn’t an “overnight solution.”

“It will take some time to set up the regulator, get it fully staffed and get it operational, there’s no doubt.”

Virani said his bill has support from the Bloc Québécois and NDP. That would enable it to pass and become law—if it could make it through the House of Commons fillibuster, and if the House sits long enough before an early election call, which is looking increasingly likely after Freeland’s resignation.

And Virani has already hit a roadblock in trying to get unanimous consent to split the bill in two. After the Conservatives voted against that move, he posted on X that the party is “against removing online child sex abuse material.”

Virani said he would support a Criminal Code amendment to criminalize the circulation of deepfakes. “If that’s something that the Conservatives want to pursue, the Bloc Québécois has raised that with me, I am fully in favour of pursuing an amendment of that nature.”

He is also open to amending the bill, noting the NDP has proposed addressing algorithmic transparency in the legislation.

“If there are ways of addressing certain things that certain parties are raising in good faith, (I’m) perfectly willing to do that,” he said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 24, 2024.

Anja Karadeglija, The Canadian Press