Liberals to introduce new hate speech bill
Will be more contentious than C-10: minister
Right before the House of Commons breaks for summer, the Liberal government will introduce a new bill tackling hate speech, which could bring back a controversial law under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Justice Minister David Lametti has given notice the government will introduce a new bill, dealing with “hate propaganda, hate crimes and hate speech.” Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault has been working on a new online harms bill with Justice and other ministries, though government spokespeople declined to say Tuesday whether that bill is the legislation that will be tabled by Lametti.
One possibility is that Lametti's bill could leave out online regulation and focus only on changes to hate speech law the government consulted on last year — though if that includes bringing back a civil remedy for hate speech, the bill still stands to garner much opposition.
Guilbeault told an industry conference last week that the upcoming online harms legislation, which will deal with hate speech and other illegal content, will be even more contentious than broadcasting bill C-10. That legislation finally passed through the House of Commons in the early hours of Tuesday morning after nearly two months of concern about its impact on free expression.
“Now, this is going to be controversial. People think that C-10 was controversial. Wait till we table this legislation,” Guilbeault said at an appearance at the Banff World Media Festival.
Spokespeople for Guilbeault and Lametti said they couldn't provide any information about what will be in Lametti's bill because of parliamentary privilege. Guilbeault and Arif Virani, Lametti's parliamentary secretary, told the National Post in March the online harms bill would include both a justice ministry piece in the form of a codifying in law a new definition of online hate, and new rules for online platforms, including a regulator that would enforce 24-hour takedowns for illegal content.
According to the notice paper, Lametti's bill will “amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act and to make related amendments to another Act (hate propaganda, hate crimes and hate speech).”
As part of the work on building up the online harms bill, Virani held consultations across the country on Lametti's behalf. That consultation included questions about reintroducing a form of a hate speech law — Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act — that was widely criticized over free speech rights before it was repealed in 2013.
Virani said in the spring bringing back a form of that law was something the government got “feedback on both sides of the ledger” from. He confirmed the government was “examining” section 13.
Under section 13, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal could issue cease-and-desist orders and impose fines of up to $10,000 in response to complaints from individuals about matters likely to expose them “to hatred or contempt” for the reason of those individuals being “identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
Cara Zwibel, the director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's fundamental freedoms program, said in an interview the fact that Lametti's bill “is going to make amendments to the Criminal Code and to the Canadian Human Rights Act makes me think that ... they will either reintroduce Section 13 or introduce something similar, but maybe not exactly the same.”
She noted the government had also consulted about potentially creating a new peace bond under the Criminal Code, which would deal with hate incidents that wouldn't be prosecuted “to the fullest extent by the Crown, but where they'd still want to try and impose some sort of restrictions.”
The CCLA opposed Section 13, and Zwibel said it wouldn't be a good idea to reintroduce it. “If it's going to be something a little different from Section 13, then I guess I would reserve my judgment up until after I've seen exactly what it is,” she noted.
Zwibel said the concern with bringing back Section 13 is that it could create a chilling effect on free speech.
“The worry with, for example, reintroducing a remedy under the Canadian Human Rights Act is that with the Criminal Code we have the requirement that the attorney general approve a charge to pursue a promotion of hatred charge under the Criminal Code,” she said.
She said the same kind of screening mechanism isn't there under a human rights regime. Even if the Human Rights Commission decides not to pursue cases and bring them forward under a tribunal, “there can be this chilling effect on people because they've been the subject of a complaint.”
Zwibel said “even if the mechanism works well” and the commission is not pursuing cases that shouldn't be pursued, “there is still a cost to free speech associated with investigating those complaints.”