Having a spent virtually the entire day yesterday talking with media and colleagues about Bill C-63, one thing has become increasingly clear: the Criminal Code and Human Rights Act provisions found in the Online Harms Act should be removed. In my initial post on the bill, I identified the provisions as one of three red flags, warning that they “feature penalties that go as high as life in prison and open the door to a tidal wave of hate speech related complaints.” There is no obvious need or rationale for penalties of life in prison for offences motivated by hatred, nor the need to weaponize human rights complaints by reviving Human Rights Act provisions on communication of hate speech. As more Canadians review the bill, there is a real risk that these provisions will overwhelm the Online Harms Act and become a primary area of focus despite not being central to the law’s core objective of mitigating harms on Internet platforms.
Archive for February 28th, 2024

Law Bytes
Episode 282: Udbhav Tiwari on Why Signal May Exit Canada Over Bill C-22’s Encryption and Metadata Retention Rules
byMichael Geist

November 9, 2026
Michael Geist
November 2, 2026
Michael Geist
October 26, 2026
Michael Geist
October 19, 2026
Michael Geist
August 10, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
Back-of-the-Napkin Cultural Policy: The Government’s $600 Million Streaming Plan Copies the CRTC Decision It Killed at More Than Double the Cost
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 282: Udbhav Tiwari on Why Signal May Exit Canada Over Bill C-22’s Encryption and Metadata Retention Rules
From Making Web Giants Pay to Paying Media Giants: Budget 2026 Replaces the Government’s Internet Platform Strategy With $1.5 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars for Culture and News
Has the Government Read Its Own Bill? What Three Days of House Debate Revealed About Bill C-34 Before the Committee Hearings Begin
Surveillance By Design: Government Officials Say Lawful Access Could Reach Gaming Platforms, Daycares and AI Services

