Canada’s proposed Online Harms Act includes alarming “precrime” provisions that could imprison citizens for up to 12 months simply for refusing preventive surveillance measures ā before committing any actual offense.
Key Takeaways
- Bill C-63 proposes severe penalties for hate speech, including life imprisonment for promoting genocide and introduces “precrime” measures allowing preemptive legal action.
- The legislation enables authorities to place individuals under house arrest or electronic surveillance based on suspicion they might commit hate crimes in the future.
- Senator Kristopher Wells is actively advocating for the revival of this bill, which lapsed before receiving a final vote in Parliament.
- Critics, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, warn the bill’s broad definitions and harsh penalties pose serious threats to free speech and civil liberties.
- The bill follows a pattern of internet censorship efforts under the Trudeau administration, including the previously passed Bill C-11.
Orwellian “Precrime” Measures in Proposed Canadian Law
Canada’s proposed Online Harms Act (Bill C-63) is raising serious concerns among free speech advocates as Senator Kristopher Wells pushes for its revival. This legislation contains disturbing provisions that would introduce the concept of “precrime” into Canadian law, allowing authorities to take preemptive legal action against individuals merely suspected of potentially committing hate crimes. The bill would permit courts to impose house arrest or electronic surveillance on citizens who have not yet broken any laws, and refusing such monitoring could result in a 12-month prison sentence.
“The broad criminal prohibitions on speech in the bill risk stifling public discourse and criminalizing political activism,” stated the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
The severity of the proposed penalties is alarming for a Western democracy. Individuals found guilty of promoting genocide could face life imprisonment under the legislation. While protecting vulnerable populations is a stated goal, the bill’s vague language and broad scope create dangerous potential for abuse, particularly against those expressing traditional conservative viewpoints that might be labeled as “hateful” by progressive activists or government officials.
I am sure Trudeau would be shocked that anyone could get away with saying something like that. š²
Liberal Hate Speech Efforts Under Trudeau:
Bill C-36 (2021):
Introduced on June 23, 2021, this bill aimed to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to reintroduce a provision similarā¦— Bit by Bit ā”ļø (@bitcornage) May 16, 2025
Senator Wells Leads Push to Revive Censorship Legislation
Senator Kristopher Wells has emerged as a leading advocate for reviving the Online Harms Act, which was originally introduced under Justin Trudeau’s administration but failed to come to a vote before Parliament dissolved. Wells, who has previously supported policies challenging religious principles in education and backed conversion therapy bans, is now pressuring the government to reintroduce the legislation, framing it as necessary to combat online hate and extremism.
“In the last Parliament, the government proposed important changes to the Criminal Code of Canada designed to strengthen penalties for hate crime offences,” stated Kristopher Wells.
Wells further emphasized his position, saying: “I believe Canada must get tougher on hate and send a clear and unequivocal message that hate and extremism will never be tolerated in this country no matter who it targets.” This rhetoric mirrors the justice minister’s aggressive stance on the legislation, which critics view as a concerning sign of the government’s determination to implement these measures despite free speech concerns.
Government Officials Demand Compliance, Dismiss Concerns
Justice Minister Arif Virani has taken a particularly hardline approach in advocating for the bill, making statements that suggest little tolerance for opposition. His rhetoric indicates the government views this legislation as essential regardless of legitimate concerns about its impact on civil liberties. Rather than addressing these concerns, government officials have largely dismissed them as obstacles to their agenda.
“We need the ability to stop an anticipated hate crime from occurring,” declared Arif Virani.
Virani further pressured opposition parties by stating: “The Conservatives need to get on board. Now.” This demand for compliance rather than thoughtful debate reflects the concerning approach to governance that has characterized recent Canadian administrations. The push to implement this legislation follows a pattern of increasing internet censorship in Canada, including Bill C-11, which has already passed but not yet been fully implemented.
Pattern of Censorship and Threat to Free Expression
The Online Harms Act represents the latest in a series of attempts by the Canadian government to regulate online speech. Critics argue these efforts collectively threaten to transform Canada from a liberal democracy into a nation where government officials determine acceptable speech. The bill’s provisions for censoring content deemed likely to incite “detestation or vilification” could easily be weaponized against political opponents, religious conservatives, or anyone expressing views contrary to progressive orthodoxy.
While proponents cite child protection as justification, the bill’s scope extends far beyond this laudable goal. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has warned that the legislation’s overly broad definitions and disproportionate penalties pose a genuine threat to free expression and democratic discourse. If passed, this bill would grant unprecedented power to government bodies like the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate and potentially punish citizens for their online speech.
