1. Opening Remarks

Opening Remarks for the Honourable Arif Virani, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada for the 2023–24 Supplementary Estimates (C)

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Ottawa, Ontario

March 21, 2024

Check against delivery

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee,

Thank you for inviting me to join you today. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.

As I am sure you have seen, a few weeks ago, I introduced Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act.

I want to both explain the vital importance of the Online Harms Act and dispel misunderstandings about what it does and doesn’t do.

The premise of this legislation is simple: we all expect to be safe in our homes, neighbourhoods and communities. We should be able to expect the same kind of security in our online communities.

We need to address the online harms that threaten us, and especially our children, every day.

Let me start by talking about our children.

There are currently no safety standards mandated for the online platforms our kids use every day. In contrast, the Lego in my basement is subject to rigorous safety standards and testing before my kids get their hands on it.

I know that, these days, my kids spend much more time online than playing with Lego. Social media is everywhere. It brings unchecked dangers and horrific content. This terrifies me. We need to make the Internet safe for our young people.

As a parent, one of the first things we teach our kids is how to cross the road. We tell them to wait for the green light and look both ways. We trust our kids, but we also have faith that drivers will respect the rules of the road. We trust that cars will stop at a red light. Safety depends on this network of trust.

This is what we are desperately lacking in the digital world. The Online Harms Act establishes “rules of the road” for platforms, so that we can teach our kids to be safe online with the knowledge that platforms are doing their part, too.

Now, let’s talk about hate crimes.

The total number of police-reported hate crimes in Canada has reached its highest level on record, nearly doubling the rate recorded in 2019.

Police across the country are calling the increase “staggering”. Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw said this week that hate crime calls in his city have spiked by 93 percent since last October. Communities and law enforcement have been calling on Governments to act.

We are.

C-63 creates a new standalone hate crime to make sure that hate crimes are properly prosecuted and identified. Under our current legal system, hate motivation for a crime is only considered as an afterthought, at the sentencing stage. It is not part of the offence itself.

The threshold for criminal hatred is high. Comments that offend, humiliate, insult, or disdain are what we call “awful but lawful”.

The definition of hate we are embedding in the Criminal Code comes straight from the Supreme Court of Canada. We did not make it up ourselves.

It has been disappointing, though not surprising, to see the wildly inaccurate assertions made by some commentators about how sentencing for this new hate crime provision would work.

I have heard some claim that under this provision, someone who commits an offence under the National Parks Act would now be subject to a life sentence.

This is simply not true.

In Canada, judges impose sentences, following sentencing ranges established through past court decisions. Judges are required by law to impose sentences that are proportionate to the offence committed. In other words, the punishment must always fit the crime. If judges impose a sentence that is “unfit”, we have appeal courts that can overturn them.

Ok, you may be asking, so why not specify that? Why put a maximum sentence of life? Let me explain. First, it’s important to remember that a maximum sentence is not an average sentence. It’s the absolute ceiling. Second, the new hate crime offence captures any existing offence – if it was hate-motivated.

That can run the gamut from a hate-motivated theft all the way to hate-motivated murder. The sentencing range was designed to mirror the existing sentencing options for all of these underlying offences – from the very minor to the most serious offences on the books which can attract life sentences.

This does not mean that minor offences will suddenly receive extremely harsh sentences. This would violate all the legal principles that sentencing judges are required to follow. Hate-motivated murder will result in a life sentence. A minor infraction will certainly not result in it.

Another criticism I have heard is that this bill could stifle freedom of expression. This is simply not true. On the contrary, this bill strengthens freedom of expression.

There are people in Canada who cannot speak out because they legitimately fear for their safety. When they speak out, they are mistreated and subjected to truly despicable threats, intimidation and harassment.

This bill protects children and gives everyone the tools they need to protect themselves online. We do not tolerate hate speech in the public square. Nor must we tolerate hate speech online.

We have seen the consequences of unchecked online hate and child sexual exploitation. Ask the families of the six people killed at the Quebec City Mosque by someone who was radicalized online.

Ask the young boy orphaned by the horrific attack on the Afzaal family in London, Ontario. Ask the parents of the young people who have taken their lives after being sextorted by online predators.

Finally, let me set the record straight on the peace bond provision. Peace bonds are not house arrest. Peace bonds are not punishment. Peace bonds are well-established tools used to impose individually tailored conditions on someone where there is credible evidence to show that they may hurt someone by committing a hate-motivated crime. The proposed peace bond would operate very similarly to existing peace bonds.

As an example – if someone posts online about their plan to deface or attack a synagogue to intimidate the community, members of the synagogue could take this information to the police and the court, and seek to have a peace bond imposed after obtaining consent from the provincial Attorney General.

Decades of case law tells us that conditions must be reasonable and linked to the specific threat. So, here, conditions imposed on the person could include staying 100 feet away from the synagogue for 12 months. If the person breached that simple condition, they could be arrested. If they abide by their conditions, they will face no consequences.

I ask you this: why should members of that synagogue, when facing a credible threat of being targeted by a hate-motivated crime, have to wait to be attacked or to have a swastika graffitied on the front door before we help them? If we can prevent some attacks from happening, isn’t that so much better? Peace bonds are not perfect, but we believe they can be a valuable tool to keep people safe. In the face of rising hate crime, our government believes that doing nothing in an instance like this would be irresponsible.

As always, I am open to good faith suggestions to improve this legislation. My goal is to get it right. I look forward to debating the Online Harms Act in the House of Commons and following the committee’s process as it reaches that stage. I am convinced that we all have the same goal here: we need to create a safe online world, especially for the most vulnerable members of our society – our children.

Thank you for your time. I am now happy to take your questions.