National
Online Harms Act threatens free expression in Canada

News release from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
This repudiates centuries of legal tradition that rightly reserved punishment for what a person had done, not for what a person might do. Under this new provision, a complainant can assert to a provincial court that they “fear” that someone will promote genocide, hate or antisemitism.
On February 26, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Arif Virani introduced Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, in the House of Commons. The Online Harms Act is presented by the government as a means to promote the online safety of persons in Canada and reduce harmful content online. The Online Harms Act would impose severe penalties for online and offline hate speech, including life imprisonment, which is the most severe criminal punishment in Canada. This new legislation would establish a new Digital Safety Commission with power to enforce new regulations created by the federal cabinet. The Canadian Human Rights Commission would acquire new powers to prosecute and punish non-criminal hate speech.
Good intentions should be applauded
Although the Online Harms Act seriously threatens free expression in Canada, there are good intentions behind some of its provisions. It is a laudable goal to force online platforms to remove revenge porn and other non-consensual sharing of intimate images, content that bullies children, content that sexually victimizes children, content that encourages children to harm themselves, and content that incites violence, terrorism or hatred.
Unnecessary duplication of the Criminal Code
However, good intentions do not justify passing additional laws that duplicate what is already prohibited by Canada’s Criminal Code. Additional laws that duplicate existing laws are a poor substitute for good law enforcement.
Section 162.1(1) of Canada’s Criminal Code already prohibits online and offline publication of an intimate image without consent. Section 163 already prohibits publication of obscene materials and child pornography. Thus, it is already illegal to post online content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor.
Section 264(1) already prohibits criminal harassment. Section 319(1) already prohibits the public incitement of hatred towards a group that is identifiable by race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and other personal characteristics. Section 59(1) criminalizes sedition: advocating the use of force to achieve governmental change within Canada. Sections 83.21 and 83.22 criminalize instructing to carry out terrorist activity; any online content that incites terrorism is already illegal.
Further, Section 22 of Canada’s Criminal Code prohibits counselling, procuring, soliciting or inciting another person “to be a party to an offence.” Any person who counsels, procures, solicits or incites another person to be a party to an offence will be found guilty if the person receiving such counsel commits the offence in question. This applies to terrorism and other violent crimes, and even to minor criminal offenses like shoplifting. Further, section 464 of the Criminal Code criminalizes counselling another person to commit an offence even if that offence is not committed.
Those who support the Online Harms Act should explain why they believe that existing legislation is inadequate to address “harmful” online expression.
New government bodies to censor online speech
If passed into law, the Online Harms Act will create a new Digital Safety Commission to enforce compliance with new regulations created by the federal cabinet. This Digital Safety Commission will have the power to regulate nearly any person or entity operating as a “social media service” in Canada. Any person or social media service found to have permitted “harmful content” would face penalties. The severity of the penalties would be established by the federal cabinet. The creators and users of online content will self-censor to avoid the risk of running afoul of the new regulations and government-imposed censorship. The Online Harms Act provides that an Order of the Digital Safety Commission may be converted into an Order of the Federal Court and enforced like a Court Order. This could result in people operating social media services being fined and imprisoned for contempt of court if they refuse to censor Canadians’ speech.
Pre-emptive punishment for crimes not committed
The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, will add section 810.012 to the Criminal Code, which will permit pre-emptive violations of personal liberty when no crime has been committed. This repudiates centuries of legal tradition that rightly reserved punishment for what a person had done, not for what a person might do. Under this new provision, a complainant can assert to a provincial court that they “fear” that someone will promote genocide, hate or antisemitism. If the judge believes that there are “reasonable grounds” to justify the fear, the court can violate the liberty interests of the accused citizen by requiring her or him to do any or all of the following:
- wear an ankle bracelet (electronic monitoring device)
- obey a curfew and stay at home, as determined by the judge
- abstain from alcohol, drugs, or both
- provide bodily substances (e.g. blood, urine) to confirm abstinence from drugs or alcohol
- not communicate with certain designated persons
- not go to certain places, as determined by the judge
- surrender her or his legally owned and legally required firearms
In other words: a citizen who has not committed any crime can be subjected to one or more (or all) of the above conditions just because someone fears that that person might commit a speech crime in future. Further, if the person who has committed no crime fails to agree to these court-ordered violations of her or his personal liberty, she or he could be sentenced to up to two years in prison.
Our criminal justice system is not supposed to function this way. Violating the liberty of citizens through pre-emptive punishment, when no crime has been committed (and quite possibly when no crime will be committed), is a radical departure from centuries of common law tradition. The respect that our legal system has for individual rights and freedoms means that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by way of a fair trial, held before an independent and impartial court. We do not punish the innocent, nor do we restrict their liberty based on what they might do. The mere fear that harmful expression may occur is not a legitimate basis for court-ordered imprisonment or other conditions that violate personal liberty.
Life imprisonment for words spoken
For the existing Criminal Code offence of advocating for genocide, the Online Harms Act would raise the maximum penalty from five years in jail to life imprisonment. Free societies recognize the distinction between speech and actions. The Online Harms Act blurs that distinction.
Considering the inherent difficulty in determining whether a person has actually “advocated for genocide,” the punishment of a five-year prison term is already an adequate deterrent for words alone.
Federal cabinet can censor speech without input from Parliament
The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, would give new powers to the federal cabinet to pass regulations (which have the same force of law as legislation passed by Parliament) that place prohibitions or obligations on social media services. This includes passing regulations that impose fines or other consequences (e.g., the removal of a licence or the shutting down of a website) for non-compliance. New regulations can be created by the federal cabinet in its sole discretion, and do not need to be debated, voted on or approved by Parliament. Parliamentary proceedings are public. Any political party, or even one single MP, can raise public awareness about a Bill that she or he disagrees with, and can mobilize public opposition to that Bill. Not so with regulations, which are deliberated in secret by the federal cabinet, and that come into force without any public consultation or debate.
Apart from a federal election held once every four years, there is no meaningful way to hold cabinet to account for the draconian censorship of social media services by way of regulations and the harsh penalties that may be imposed for hosting “harmful content.” The federal cabinet can also decide what number of “users” the “social media service” needs to have in order to trigger federal regulation of content, or the federal cabinet can simply designate a social media service as regulated, regardless of the number of its users.
New censorship powers for Canadian Human Rights Commission
The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, will give the Canadian Human Rights Commission new powers to prosecute and punish offensive but non-criminal speech by Canadians if, in the subjective opinion of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, they deem someone’s statement to be “hateful.” The Online Harms Act will empower Canadians offended by non-criminal expression to file complaints against their fellow citizens.
Those who are prosecuted by the Human Rights Commission cannot defend themselves by establishing that their supposedly “hateful” statement is true, or that they had reasonable grounds for believing that their statement was true.
Those found guilty by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can be required to pay as much as $50,000 to the government, plus up to $20,000 to the person(s) designated as “victims” by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. These significant financial penalties will discourage or eliminate necessary discussion on controversial but important issues in our society.
Advocates for censorship often stress the fact that human rights prosecutions are not criminal. It is true that those found guilty of violating vague speech codes by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal do not suffer the consequences of a criminal record. However, those who are prosecuted for expressing their beliefs face the difficult choice of having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal bills or having to issue an abject apology. Regardless of whether they choose to defend themselves against the complaint or not, they may still be ordered to pay up to $20,000 to the offended party or up to $50,000 to the government, or up to $70,000 to both.
Many Canadians will continue to exercise their Charter-protected freedom of expression, but many will self-censor to avoid the risk of being prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Anonymous complaints: no right to face one’s accuser
The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, will allow complaints to be filed against Canadians in secret, such that the citizen who is prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission loses the ancient and well-founded right to face and question one’s accuser. This repudiates centuries of common law tradition requiring the legal process to be public and transparent.
The pretext for eliminating this necessary and long-standing legal protection is that some complainants might be subjected to “threats, intimidation or discrimination.” This ignores the fact that threats and intimidation are already Criminal Code offences, and any illegal discrimination can be addressed by way of a new and separate complaint. Those filing complaints about expression should be accountable for their decision to do so; this is an inherent and necessary component of both criminal and civil legal proceedings.
No need to establish that someone was harmed
If the Online Harms Act is passed into law, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will not even require a victim in order to prosecute a citizen for what she or he has said. For example, a man in Vancouver can file an anonymous complaint against a woman in Nova Scotia who made disparaging online remarks about a mosque in Toronto, regardless of whether that mosque’s members were harmed, or even offended, by the post. No actual victims are required for the Canadian Human Rights Commission to find guilt or to impose penalties. Nor does a victim need to prove that he or she suffered loss or damage; feeling offended by alleged “hate” is all that is needed to become eligible for financial compensation.
Conclusion
For reasons set out here above, the Online Harms Act will harm freedom of expression in Canada if it is passed into law. Many Canadians will self-censor to avoid being prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Canadians who do not self-censor, by practicing courage and by continuing to exercise their Charter-protected freedom of expression, will still see their online expression removed from the internet by the operators of social media websites and platforms. These operators will seek to avoid running afoul of Mr. Trudeau’s new regulations. Everyone will live in fear of the Digital Safety Commission.
The Justice Centre urges all Members of Parliament to vote against this legislation.
Alberta
It’s On! Alberta Challenging Liberals Unconstitutional and Destructive Net-Zero Legislation

“If Ottawa had it’s way Albertans would be left to freeze in the dark”
The ineffective federal net-zero electricity regulations will not reduce emissions or benefit Albertans but will increase costs and lead to supply shortages.
The risk of power outages during a hot summer or the depths of harsh winter cold snaps, are not unrealistic outcomes if these regulations are implemented. According to the Alberta Electric System Operator’s analysis, the regulations in question would make Alberta’s electricity system more than 100 times less reliable than the province’s supply adequacy standard. Albertans expect their electricity to remain affordable and reliable, but implementation of these regulations could increase costs by a staggering 35 per cent.
Canada’s constitution is clear. Provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over the development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy. That is why Alberta’s government is referring the constitutionality of the federal government’s recent net-zero electricity regulations to the Court of Appeal of Alberta.
“The federal government refused to work collaboratively or listen to Canadians while developing these regulations. The results are ineffective, unachievable and irresponsible, and place Albertans’ livelihoods – and more importantly, lives – at significant risk. Our government will not accept unconstitutional net-zero regulations that leave Albertans vulnerable to blackouts in the middle of summer and winter when they need electricity the most.”
“The introduction of the Clean Electricity Regulations in Alberta by the federal government is another example of dangerous federal overreach. These regulations will create unpredictable power outages in the months when Albertans need reliable energy the most. They will also cause power prices to soar in Alberta, which will hit our vulnerable the hardest.”
Finalized in December 2024, the federal electricity regulations impose strict carbon limits on fossil fuel power, in an attempt to force a net-zero grid, an unachievable target given current technology and infrastructure. The reliance on unproven technologies makes it almost impossible to operate natural gas plants without costly upgrades, threatening investment, grid reliability, and Alberta’s energy security.
“Ottawa’s electricity regulations will leave Albertans in the dark. They aren’t about reducing emissions – they are unconstitutional, ideological activist policies based on standards that can’t be met and technology that doesn’t exist. It will drive away investment and punish businesses, provinces and families for using natural gas for reliable, dispatchable power. We will not put families at risk from safety and affordability impacts – rationing power during the coldest days of the year – and we will continue to stand up for Albertans.”
“Albertans depend on electricity to provide for their families, power their businesses and pursue their dreams. The federal government’s Clean Electricity Regulations threaten both the affordability and reliability of our power grid, and we will not stand by as these regulations put the well-being of Albertans at risk.”
Related information
- Conference Board of Canada socio-economic Impacts of Canada’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan – (April 2025)
- Alberta Electric System Operator’s position on Canadian Energy Regulations
Alberta
Alberta’s future in Canada depends on Carney’s greatest fear: Trump or Climate Change

Oh, Canada
We find it endlessly fascinating that most Canadians believe they live in a representative democracy, where aspiring candidates engage in authentic politicking to earn their place in office. So accustomed are Canada’s power brokers to getting their way, they rarely bother to cover their tracks. A careful reading of the notoriously pliant Canadian press makes anticipating future events in the country surprisingly straightforward.
Back in December, when Pierre Poilievre was given better than 90% odds of replacing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau—and Mark Carney was still just an uncharismatic banker few had heard of—we engaged in some not-so-speculative dot-connecting and correctly predicted Carney’s rise to the top spot. Our interest was driven by the notoriously rocky relationship between Ottawa and the Province of Alberta, home to one of the world’s largest hydrocarbon reserves, and how Carney’s rise might be a catalyst for resetting Canada’s energy trajectory. In a follow-up article titled “The Fix Is In,” we laid out a few more predictions:
“Here’s how the play is likely to unfold in the weeks and months ahead: Carney will be elected Prime Minister on April 28 by a comfortable margin; [Alberta Premier Danielle] Smith will trigger a constitutional crisis, providing cover for Carney to strike a grand bargain that finally resolves longstanding tensions between the provinces and Ottawa; and large infrastructure permitting reform will fall into place. Protests against these developments will be surprisingly muted, and those who do take to the streets will be largely ignored by the media. The entire effort will be wrapped in a thicket of patriotism, with Trump portrayed as a threat even greater than climate change itself. References to carbon emissions will slowly fade…
In parallel, we expect Trump and Carney to swiftly strike a favorable deal on tariffs, padding the latter’s bona fides just as his political capital will be most needed.”
The votes have barely been counted, yet the next moves are already unfolding…
“Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says she’ll make it easier for citizens to initiate a referendum on the province’s future in Canada, after warning that a Liberal win in Monday’s election could spur a groundswell of support for Alberta separatism. Smith said on Tuesday that a newly tabled elections bill will give everyday Albertans a bigger say in the province’s affairs.
‘(We’re giving) Albertans more ways to be directly involved in democracy, and to have their say on issues that matter to them,’ Smith told reporters in Edmonton.
If passed, the new law would dramatically lower the number of signatures needed to put a citizen-proposed constitutional referendum question on the ballot, setting a new threshold of 10 per cent of general election turnout — or just over 175,000, based on Alberta’s last provincial election in 2023.”
“US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is looking to make a trade deal and will visit the White House within the next week. Trump said he congratulated Carney on his election victory when the Canadian leader called on Tuesday.
‘He called me up yesterday – he said let’s make a deal,’ Trump told reporters at the White House after a televised Cabinet meeting.”
Remember where you read it first.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
NDP Floor Crossers May Give Carney A Majority
-
Alberta12 hours ago
It’s On! Alberta Challenging Liberals Unconstitutional and Destructive Net-Zero Legislation
-
Alberta2 days ago
Premier Danielle Smith hints Alberta may begin ‘path’ toward greater autonomy after Mark Carney’s win
-
Business1 day ago
China’s economy takes a hit as factories experience sharp decline in orders following Trump tariffs
-
Automotive1 day ago
New federal government should pull the plug on Canada’s EV revolution
-
Mental Health1 day ago
Headline that reads ‘Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court’ a sign of the times in Canada
-
Business1 day ago
Scott Bessent says U.S., Ukraine “ready to sign” rare earths deal
-
Alberta2 days ago
Preston Manning: Canada is in a unity crisis