From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The Democracy Fund warned that the Liberal government may bring back a form of Bill C-63, which is aimed at regulating online speech.

One of Canada’s top pro-democracy groups has sounded the alarm by warning that the Canadian federal government is planning to revive a controversial Trudeau-era internet censorship bill that lapsed.

The Democracy Fund (TDF), in a recent press release, warned about plans by the Liberal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney to bring back a form of Bill C-63. The bill, which lapsed when the election was called earlier this year, aimed to regulate online speech, which could mean “mass censorship” of the internet.

“TDF is concerned that the government will try once more to give itself the power to criminalize and punish online speech and debate,” the group said.

“TDF will oppose that.”

According to the TDF, it is “concerned that the government intends to re-introduce the previously abandoned Online Harms Bill in the same or modified form.”

Bill C-63, or the Online Harms Act, was put forth under the guise of protecting children from exploitation online. The bill died earlier this year after former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the 2025 federal election.

While protecting children is indeed a duty of the state, the bill included several measures that targeted vaguely defined “hate speech” infractions involving race, gender, and religion, among other categories. The proposal was thus blasted by many legal experts.

The Online Harms Act would have censored legal internet content that the government thought “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group.” It would be up to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints.

The TDF said that Bill C-63 would have made it a criminal offense to publish ill-defined “harmful content.”

“It required social media companies to remove potentially harmful content or face punitive fines. Many defenders of civil liberty, including TDF, worried that the application of this badly defined concept would lead to mass surveillance and censorship,” the group said.

The TDF warned that under Carney, the government is “once again considering new or similar legislation to regulate online speech, with the Minister of Justice claiming he would take another look at the matter.”

Mark Joseph, TDF litigation director, pointed out that Canada already has laws that “the government can, and does, use to address most of the bad conduct that the Bill ostensibly targeted.”

“To the extent that there are gaps in the Criminal Code, amendments should be carefully drafted to fix this,” he said.

“However, the previous Bill C-63 sought to implement a regime of mass censorship.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews last month, a recent Trudeau-appointed Canadian senator said that he and other “interested senators” want Carney to revive a controversial Trudeau-era internet censorship bill that lapsed.

Another recent Carney government Bill C-2, which looks to ban cash donations over $10,000, was blasted by a constitutional freedom group as a “step towards tyranny.”

Carney, as reported by LifeSiteNews, vowed to continue in Trudeau’s footsteps, promising even more legislation to crack down on lawful internet content.

He has also said his government plans to launch a “new economy” in Canada that will involve “deepening” ties to the world.

Under Carney, the Liberals are expected to continue much of what they did under Justin Trudeau, including the party’s zealous push in favor of abortion, euthanasia, radical gender ideology, internet regulation and so-called “climate change” policies. Indeed, Carney, like Trudeau, seems to have extensive ties to both China and the globalist World Economic Forum, connections that were brought up routinely by conservatives in the lead-up to the election.

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Even the UN has described Canada’s assisted suicide program as ‘state-sponsored eugenics’ and called upon the government to curtail plans to expand euthanasia access.

In Canada, we kill the disabled. Over 90 percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome in the womb are aborted; pre-born children diagnosed with other disabilities usually meet the same fate. But for decades, our Nazi-style lethal ableism was limited to those not yet born. 

With the expansion of euthanasia eligibility to those suffering solely from disability or mental illness scheduled to come into effect in 2027, that is slated to change. Disability groups have been nearly unanimous in their condemnation of this plan, which has been delayed twice by the Liberal government due to pushback from across Canadian society – but not cancelled entirely. 

Even the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, examining Canada’s compliance with the U.N. Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities earlier this year, concluded that Canada was embarking on “state-sponsored eugenics” and called on the Canadian government to scrap these plans and roll back the expanding euthanasia regime. The disability rights group Inclusion Canada, as well as several others, had written to the body to sound the alarm about Canada’s euthanasia policies. 

Canadians with physical disabilities have been attempting to get the government’s attention for years, with stories of those who seeking euthanasia because they cannot get the support or care they need periodically dominating international headlines. (This ugly reality is best encapsulated in a famous cartoon showing stairs leading to a healthcare provider, with the only wheelchair ramp leading to “euthanasia.”) These stories have not yet been heeded by the government. 

A story recently posted to X by Samantha Smith, a victim advocate and survivor of the grooming and rape gangs in the U.K., highlights Canada’s grim slippery slope. It is worth reading in full: 

A family member of mine is a nurse in Canada. They performed several assisted dying procedures at the care home they worked at, before refusing to continue. In one case, the family of a mentally disabled man decided they wanted him to be euthanised. He didn’t want to die. But my family member was legally forced to end his life. They held his hand while he told them “I’m hungry” and “I’m thirsty.”

That poor man didn’t understand what was happening to him as he was pumped full of medication that would end his life, and my family member wept for the soul that was being lost unnecessarily. He wasn’t terminally ill. He wasn’t particularly old. He wasn’t dying. He didn’t want to die. But he didn’t have a choice. Because his life was deemed dispensable by his family, and the Government gave them the power to end his life regardless of his needs or wishes.

And when my family member told their workplace that they couldn’t continue performing these procedures – that their conscience wouldn’t allow it – they were told that it was their “legal duty” as a nurse. They still refused. But not everyone will have the moral fibre or bravery of my family member.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this is exactly what the Assisted Dying Bill opens the door to. It starts with “choice” and “dignity.” But suicide isn’t only done “when the patient wants it.” And the countries where it is already legalised have shown us the grim reality. In the Netherlands, 40% of euthanasia deaths occur without patient consent. In Canada, it has been offered to Paralympians who only asked for a mobility aid. If it can happen there; it will happen here. People will be killed against their will.

When asked for public corroboration, Smith stated: “No, my family member will not ‘go public.’ Yes, I trust his testimony. No, he is not a horrible, awful person. Yes, this is really happening. The black letter law vs. the grim reality are two very different things. Just because the law was supposed to protect against coercion or non-consenting procedures … doesn’t mean it is.” 

I wish I didn’t believe her, but I do. I believe her because euthanasia providers have ended the lives of people like Alan Nichols, who was taken to the hospital by family members after a psychiatric episode and euthanized days later. I believe her because leaked documents show that Ontario’s euthanasia providers have tracked 428 cases of possible criminal violations without a single case being referred to law enforcement. I believe her because Canada’s medical establishment already embraces lethal ableism, and our government does too.  

Canada is already killing those with disability or mental illness; thus far, euthanasia practitioners are forced to come up with other reasons for doing so (the written reason for Alan Nichols’ lethal injection was “hearing loss”). But once eligibility requirements are expanded in 2027, the floodgates will open. There is still time to stop this expansion, and we must doing everything we can to do so. The lives of people with disabilities depend on it. 

---

Jonathon Van Maren

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture War, Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion, Patriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life Movement, Prairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.