The News Rundown

Liberals’ “online hate” bill contains $20K fines for speech and life imprisonment for hate crimes

The Liberal government has introduced what they refer to as the Online Harms Act, in other words, their bill which aims to curb what they call "online hate", and the plan includes some controversial details that many media establishments are not reporting on.
The online hate bill introduces some very stiff penalties, which include hefty fines for online speech and stringent punishment including up to life imprisonment for hate crimes. You heard that right, a government that has struggled to even get murderers, organized criminals and drug traffickers locked up, is introducing a bill to life imprison anyone convicted of online hate.
Among the categories of harmful content identified in the act are materials that incite violent extremism or terrorism, promote violence, or foment hatred.
The bill will include amendments to the Criminal Code aimed at addressing hate crimes more effectively. These amendments include the introduction of a standalone hate crime offence applicable across all criminal offences, with penalties extending up to life imprisonment. Maximum punishments for existing hate propaganda offences are also set to be increased substantially.
The Online Harms Act was tabled by Liberal Minister of Justice Arif Virani in the House of Commons earlier this week.
A technical briefing describing the act goes into a bit more detail as to what it actually includes: “New standalone hate crime offence that would apply to every offence in the Criminal Code and in any other Act of Parliament, allowing penalties up to life imprisonment to denounce and deter this hateful conduct as a crime in itself.”
The bill would also raise “the maximum punishments for the four hate propaganda offences from 5 years to life imprisonment for advocating genocide and from 2 years to 5 years for the others when persecuted by way of indictment.”
Also, the bill would add a definition of “hatred” based on the past decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to the Criminal Code.
The text of the bill defines “content that foments hatred” as any “content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.‍”
It also adds that: “For greater certainty and for the purposes of the definition content that foments hatred, content does not express detestation or vilification solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”
To address such concerns, Virani has said the government is seeking to clarify the definition of hatred to reflect Supreme Court rulings on the matter. It will be newly defined as "the emotion that involves detestation or vilification" that is "stronger than disdain or dislike." The bill also says that a statement that "discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends" would not meet the bar to be considered promoting or inciting hatred.
That's a lot of words to say that the scope is actually quite broad, and up to a lot of interpretation as to what the government actually believes detestation and vilification actually is. Who will decide what is a crime or not? That will be up to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Anybody will also be able to file complaints against others for “posting hate speech online” that is discriminatory against protected categories such as gender, race, disability and others.
Amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act will let anybody file complaints against persons posting so-called hate speech with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If found guilty, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can order those found to violate the government’s definition of hatred with fines up to $70,000 and takedown orders for content.
According to the text of the bill, the Tribunal has the power to order payments of up to $20,000 for victims of so-called online hate, as well as an order to pay the government $50,000 “if the member panel considers it appropriate.”
In 2014, a similar provision under the Act dealing with online hate messages was repealed by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper after it was found to have violated the freedom of expression rights of Canadians.
So in essence, this new bill will be curbing freedom of expression for Canadians, and it will be up to an unelected body to decide what is a violation of the act or not, or how big the fine will be.
As a result, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has said the act includes "draconian penalties" and says higher sentences risk chilling free speech and also undermine "the principles of proportionality and fairness" within the legal system.
Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, its executive director and general counsel, said in an interview Wednesday she sees significant liberty issues throughout the bill. There are problems, too, with the proposal for a digital safety commission that would be given sweeping powers to regulate social-media giants, she said. When it comes to hate speech offences, she said she's concerned because of the difficulty of distinguishing between "political activism, passionate debate and offensive speech."
One particular part of the bill that hasn't received much coverage is the ability for the act to allow the government to impose house arrest on someone who is feared to commit a hate crime in the future – even if they have not yet done so already. The person could be made to wear an electronic tag, if the attorney-general requests it, or ordered by a judge to remain at home, the bill says.
Virani, who is Attorney-General as well as Justice Minister, said it is important that any peace bond be “calibrated carefully,” saying it would have to meet a high threshold to apply.
But he said the new power, which would require the attorney-general’s approval as well as a judge’s, could prove “very, very important” to restrain the behaviour of someone with a track record of hateful behaviour who may be targeting certain people or groups.
If “there’s a genuine fear of an escalation, then an individual or group could come forward and seek a peace bond against them and to prevent them from doing certain things.”
The peace bond could have conditions that include not being close to a synagogue or a mosque, he said. It could also lead to restrictions on internet usage and behaviour. “That would help to deradicalize people who are learning things online and acting out in the real world violently – sometimes fatally.”
Mr. Virani said the hate-crime offence would only be applied if coupled with another crime and the life sentence would only apply in the most serious of cases – not, for example, for mischief to a garage door.
“What’s really critical is that it gives the judge a wonderful range of sentences. This is not a mandatory minimum of a life sentence, this is just a larger range, including what would be the maximum sentence,” he said.
Experts including internet law professor Michael Geist have said even a threat of a civil complaint – with a lower burden of proof than a court of law – and a fine could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
Arif Virani should know well what draconian measures from a government can do for a person. Virani was born in Kampala, Uganda, with Muslim roots from Gujarat, India, but was forced to flee with his family to Canada in the early 1970s when brutal dictator Idi Amin ordered the expulsion of Uganda's Indian minority, giving them 90 days to leave the country.
Now, over 50 years later, Virani is heading one of the most draconian legal bills seen in Canada. He knows what it's like to be a victim of an overreaching government. Why is he determined to repeat that here?
Supplementals:

The Alberta budget dropped this week and as expected the province is seeing a surplus - a $367 million surplus.
This is a small surplus and combined with accounting decisions, the province will have to still borrow money.
Of the previous year’s $6.4b surplus the province will put $2b in the Heritage Savings Trust Fund and set aside $3.2b for debt repayment.
Spending in key ministries like health and education are up and are keeping pace with inflation + population growth.
The most interesting decision in this budget though is the province’s choice to further tie the province to reliance on natural resources revenue.
Last year’s budget banked on an oil price of $68/barrel and this year’s is up to $73/barrel.
Long term forecasts show that the price of oil can go up and the province can reap the benefits but this is at odds with the televised address we covered in last week's Alberta story.
Overall compared to previous years budgets and even the NDP budget from 2018, spending is up and higher than forecast.
According to calculations performed by U of C economist Trevor Tombe the Budget 2024 spending is up by roughly $2b a year which runs counter to the televised address from last week.
Also, comparing budgets taken by Smith in 2023 and 2024 compared to budgets prior under Travis Toews and Jason Kenney, operating expenses for the government have ballooned and under Smith are higher than forecast in the NDP’s last budget in 2018.
The government also provided an update on the income tax cut that was campaigned on in the last election and it is now contingent on “maintaining sufficient fiscal capacity to introduce the tax cut while maintaining a balanced budget” and will not be implemented until 2027.
The tax cut will be phased in starting with a new 9% bracket created for 2026 and the 8% bracket created in 2027.
In response to questioning on the tax cut Finance Minister Nate Horner said, “We’re trying to strike the right balance between saving for the future, managing our debt responsibly and making sure we have the infrastructure for a growing province.”
As with all things governments do the interesting part is what they don’t say and what we infer by reading between the lines.
First, by delaying the tax cut the UCP has gambled that Albertans would rather have the province exercise fiscal restraint and good budgeting with surpluses, invest into the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, and keep debt under control than spend on tax cuts since most Albertans already know that our taxes are the lowest in Canada and some of the lowest in North America.
Secondly, this budget also shows us that the Smith government is breaking the tradition of the Kenney government who largely kept all their promises and implemented what they campaigned on. In this budget and the policies surrounding it we see differences in what was campaigned on and what is being implemented.
Chiefly the tax cut, the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, and the new tax on electric vehicles.
All electric vehicles will have to pay a $200 tax at the time of yearly registration to have the EV owners pay their fair share for road maintenance since they do not pay a fuel tax in the government's own words.
Whether or not this is purely political falls on your own view of electric vehicles.
Taxes will also be going up on cigarettes and Alberta will be joining the existing federal-provincial coordinated vaping tax framework.
Land title fees will also be going up and the fuel tax relief program based on the price of oil will be codified in the budget.
But at the end of the day, Education receives a 4.4% increase and health will receive an additional $1.1b in funding.
Health also sees a cancellation of the south-Edmonton hospital with a commitment to build a new standalone Stollery Children’s hospital.
People were concerned that health and education funding would pause but that’s not the case and on the whole this budget while delivering a surplus raises a lot of questions about just when the Smith government will enact the plan that was talked about in the televised address.
Supplementals:

Pharmacare cornerstone has been laid but where are the blueprints and budget?

As we covered last week, the Liberals and NDP reached a deal on pharmacare, ensuring that Trudeau will likely govern until the next scheduled election in 2025. What we didn't know at the time, was that the pharmacare bill does not cover very much in the way of pharmacare, only some diabetes medication and treatments, as well as some contraceptives.
Canada is the only developed country with universal insurance for hospital and physician services but not for prescription drugs, so covering this third pillar of the system makes sense. But whether the agreement will do that in a sensible way isn’t yet clear.
According to news reports, the negotiations hinged on two main points: what’s in and who pays. The NDP wanted more drug categories included, while the Liberals were concerned about costs. And while the NDP insisted on a single-payer national program, the Liberals had never committed to that and no information has yet been made available about the plans for financing it.
In the end, it seems neither party got what it wanted: the plan will only cover contraceptives and diabetes medications and reportedly will cost taxpayers an additional $800 million.
Governments need to level with Canadians on how these two treatment categories were selected and how new ones will be chosen in future. Improving access to medication is important. But so are sustainable federal finances. The two have to be balanced. And whether a treatment is covered needs to consider — as transparently as possible — how well it works, how many people it will cover, how their eligibility is determined and last but certainly not least, its cost.
No plan can cover everything. Diabetes management and birth control are obviously both important, but are they more important than heart disease, cancer or mental health, to name just a few? Cover one drug or treatment and another won’t be covered. In public plans in 2021, five of the top prescribed drugs by spending were for diabetes. About $1.37 billion helped 1.52 million beneficiaries. By contrast, the top 10 non-diabetes drugs by number of beneficiaries cost public drug plans $1.54 billion but involved up to 19.02 million beneficiaries. The top 50 drugs prescribed to people in the lowest income quintile, where affordability challenges presumably are greatest, led to $1.02 billion in spending and brought in up to 7.42 million beneficiaries.
This is not to say diabetes drugs and contraceptives are the wrong things to cover, simply to show that the same dollars could provide different populations with different treatments. Canadians need to be told how coverage decisions were arrived at.
Though the Liberals and NDP have got themselves a deal, the problems of how to decide what’s covered and who pays remain. To ensure that national pharmacare can address the unmet needs of Canadians both now and in future, any new system has to be built on a strong foundation of sustainability in finance and transparency in writing the formulary. Though the cornerstone is about to be laid, we don’t yet have blueprints for what’s to come.
The government says one in four Canadians with diabetes — about 3.7 million people have the condition — have reported they're not following their treatment plans due to the cost. The pharmacare plan also will give the nine million Canadians of reproductive age better access to contraception to ensure "reproductive autonomy, reducing the risk of unintended pregnancies and improving their ability to plan for the future," the government said in its media release.
This is the first step in what could be a much more robust regime in the years ahead, although its future is uncertain. Some provinces, like Alberta and Quebec are already demanding the chance to opt out of the federal program, or are rebuffing Ottawa's efforts entirely.
The federal government says that, beyond diabetes treatments and contraception, it intends eventually to implement more coverage for other medications. But so far it has yet to say anything on future plans.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) has pegged the cost of a single-payer program for all medications at nearly $40 billion a year, which is obviously something the federal government could not afford since it has already spent way too much money on other things that don't benefit Canadians as much as they should.
But the idea that it's an all-encompassing national pharmacare plan as peddled by the media last week, when really it's only some diabetes medication and some contraceptives, has really set the tone for how the public views this policy, whether successful or not.
Supplementals:

Firing Line

Censored documents about Winnipeg scientists reveal threat to Canada’s security

Documents pertaining to the termination of two Chinese nationals at Canada’s high security infectious disease laboratory in Winnipeg have been made public.
Xiangguo Qiu and her husband, Keding Cheng provided confidential information to China and were fired when a security probe determined that the woman posed “a realistic and credible threat to Canada’s economic security.”
The documents also reveal they were engaged in clandestine meetings with Chinese officials.
Dr. Qiu when interviewed repeatedly lied to CSIS and refused to admit any knowledge with involvement in programs for the People’s Republic of China.
These two were escorted out of the National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg in July 2019.
In early 2021 we started hearing rumblings that something may have happened there but documents were hard to come by.
The Liberal government dragged their heels to the point the opposition declared the Liberal government in contempt of parliament and was in the process of suing the speaker to gain access to the documents.
As this was happening the 2021 election was called and because of that the case was dropped and all investigations into the Winnipeg lab ended.
With information coming out now it’s fair to say that part of the reason Trudeau called the 2021 election was to stop the allegations of this report from becoming public.
The Public Health Agency of Canada appears to be complicit in the cover up in that so far they have not addressed the issue of the two scientists but instead have chosen to focus on security changes that have been made since 2019.
And security changes being made should be the least that should be done.
The lab in question has access to some of the most deadly pathogens including Ebola, Lassa fever, and Rift Valley fever.
Dr. Qiu was involved with multiple Chinese “talent programs” run by the Chinese government that “aim to boost China’s national technological capabilities and may pose a serious threat to research institutions, including government research facilities, by incentivizing economic espionage and theft of intellectual property.”
Dr. Qiu was Canada’s head of pathogens who was working with the People’s Liberation Army and granted access to a people’s Liberation Army to the lab.
According to the documents, the reports found, "Dr. Qiu represents a very serious and credible danger to the government of Canada as a whole and in particular at facilities considered high-security due to the potential for theft of dangerous materials attractive to terrorist and foreign entities that conduct espionage to infiltrate and damage the economic security of Canada.”
The documents also describe Dr. Qiu as a “noted top virologist at the academy of military medical scientists and is China’s biological defence expert in research related to bio-safety, bio-defence, and bio-terrorism.”
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre called for there to be no collaboration between the lab’s infectious disease scientists and China.
He said, “I don’t think this is the kind of collaboration we want. We should be collaborating with like-minded democracies that we can trust, not those that want to attack our interests.”
And that’s exactly what China has been doing and Canada has been an accomplice that has enabled China.
The CSIS investigation also somehow managed to determine that Dr. Qiu led a project at the Wuhan Virology Institute that assessed cross-species infection and pathogenic risks of filoviruses which on the whole suggests that “gain of function studios were taking place.”
Gain-of-function studies, it said, include research to improve the ability of a pathogen to cause disease “in order to help define the fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions.”
What this means is that a lab like the Wuhan Virology Institute takes an already existing natural virus and combines it with another virus to make it more virulent in the hopes of using that to make a vaccine or inoculation for the original virus.
The entire spectre of gain of function was something that was deemed as a conspiracy theory in the media, social media, and by the US government but now it appears as though the Wuhan Virology Institute was engaged in this work and one of the researchers had access to Canadian materials.
This is a massive breach of security for Canada and we’ve only just seen the tip of the iceberg in over 600 pages of released documents.
But what is proving to be one of the biggest lapses in national security judgement by the Trudeau government may have indirectly blown the lid off the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Going forward more questions are going to have to be asked about how these people were granted their clearances, what government officials and cabinet knew, and what this means for the origins of COVID-19.
In the aftermath of this, the government has stopped sharing dangerous pathogens with China but some research and collaboration is still continuing.
Getting to the bottom of this story will take months if not years and we’re likely to not know the full ramifications until after the next election.
Supplementals:

Quote of the Week

“there’s a genuine fear of an escalation, then an individual or group could come forward and seek a peace bond against them and to prevent them from doing certain things. [The pre-emptive house arrest] would help to deradicalize people who are learning things online and acting out in the real world violently – sometimes fatally.” - Liberal Justice Minister Arif Virani on his government’s plan to house arrest people before they commit crimes.

Word of the Week

Pharmacare - a uniquely Canadian word referring a proposal for a government funded insurance program for medications

How to Find Us
Westerncontext.ca

westerncontext.ca/subscribe

westerncontext.ca/support

twitter.com/westerncontext

facebook.com/westerncontext

Show Data

Episode Title: Phony Pharmacare

Teaser: The Liberals’ new online harms act includes heavy punishments, Alberta’s 2024 budget contains surprises, and the new pharmacare plan covers very little medications. Also, new documents reveal more on the Winnipeg lab scientist firings.

Recorded Date: March 2, 2024

Release Date: March 3, 2024

Duration: 1:03:32

Edit Notes: Start Winnipeg lab story

Podcast Summary Notes

Duration: XX:XX