Connect with us


Former human rights tribunal chair speaks out against Trudeau’s ‘Online Harms’ bill


6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

‘If this passes, God help us, because I don’t know where it will go,’ former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal David Thomas warned of Trudeau’s ‘Online Harms’ bill.

A former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has warned that the Trudeau government’s proposed “Online Harms” bill could have a devastating impact on speech in the nation.

During a March 13 interview with independent media outlet True North, lawyer and former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal David Thomas blasted Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which could jail Canadians for “hate speech,” warning Canadians to be careful what they post online.  

“What we are likely to see right away is a chilling effect,” Thomas explained, adding that the proposed legislation will have “a big impact on free political discourse in this country and I think that’s what we should all be concerned about immediately.”  

“If this passes, God help us, because I don’t know where it will go,” he lamented.  

Appointed in 2014 for a seven-year term, Thomas is the former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the body tasked with adjudicating violations of the Canadian Human Rights Act.  

“The reason I am speaking out right now is that nobody who is on the tribunal is free to speak, they’re like judges sitting on the bench,” he revealed.   

“That’s why I think it’s important for somebody with inside knowledge to convey these concerns about this legislation,” Thomas continued.  

He explained that the “vagueness” of the proposed legislation means that “that nobody really knows” what would be considered “hate speech.” He warned it would cause uncertainty and fear across Canada. 

Thomas described the Online Harms Act as “an incredibly damping piece of legislation, which I think, of course, will infringe on our Charter rights to freedom of expression.” 

Thomas further warned that if the bill is passed, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal will be overrun with the number of cases against Canadians for “hate speech.” 

“To adjudicate these cases themselves takes years. When someone lodges a complaint when they get a final decision, it would not be surprising if it took three to five years or even longer,” he predicted.   

“That’s a terrible thing, especially for an administrative tribunal which is supposed to be delivering access to justice to the public,” Thomas lamented.  

Bill C-63, introduced a few weeks ago, will create the Online Harms Act and modify existing laws, amending the Criminal Code as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act, in what the Liberals claim will target certain cases of internet content removal, notably those involving child sexual abuse and pornography. 

However, the bill also seeks to punish “hate speech” and increase punishments for existing hate propaganda offenses in a substantial manner. 

Penalties for violations of the proposed law include $20,000 fines and jail time, including life in prison for what it deems the most serious offenses.  

According to the proposed legislation, the bill would not only punish those who committed a “hate crime” but also those suspected of committing one in the future.   

“A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit; (a)an offence under section 318 or any of subsections 319(1) to (2.‍1); or (b) an offence under section 320.‍1001,” the text of the bill reads.  

Thomas is not alone in his concerns over the legislation. Increasingly, prominent Canadians and even Americans have begun commenting on Trudeau’s authoritarian rule over Canada, particularly his restricting of internet speech. 

Earlier this week, tech mogul Elon Musk called the proposed legislation “insane” as the new law would “allow judges to hand down life sentences for ‘speech crimes.’” 

In late February, prominent Canadian anti-woke psychologist Jordan Peterson warned the new bill would undoubtedly lead to his criminalization. 

Similarly, a top constitutional lawyer warned LifeSiteNews that the legislation will allow a yet-to-be-formed digital safety commission to conduct “secret commission hearings” against those found to have violated the law, raising “serious concerns for the freedom of expression” of Canadians online. 

Additionally, Campaign Life Coalition recently warned that Bill C-63 will stifle free speech and crush pro-life activism. 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author


Canadian hospice society provides ‘Guardian Angels’ to protect patients from euthanasia

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Delta Hospice Society’s ‘Guardian Angels’ are ‘friendly visitors on a mission … to ensure patients are getting proper health care, palliative care and to avoid them from being pressured into euthanasia or MAiD.’

The Delta Hospice Society (DHS), one of Canada’s only fully pro-life hospices, is actively seeking patients in the healthcare system so that one of its “Guardian Angels” can be assigned to them to ensure they are not “pressured” into state-sponsored euthanasia.

“Our launch of Guardian Angels is now at the point where we need clients,” DHS president Angelina Ireland told LifeSiteNews. “We are looking for patients inside the healthcare system who would like an Angel, those within hospital, hospice, long-term care, palliative care wards, or people with a chronic or terminal illness.”

Ireland said that the patients or their loved ones can “reach out to us and request one of our Angels.”

“They are ‘friendly visitors on a mission.’ The mission is to ensure patients are getting proper healthcare, palliative care and to avoid them from being pressured into euthanasia or MAiD,” she said.

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), as it has been coined by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, became legal in 2016. In February, after pushback from pro-life, medical, and mental health groups as well as most of Canada’s provinces, the federal government delayed its planned expansion of MAiD to those suffering solely from mental illness to 2027.

The number of Canadians killed by lethal injection since 2016 stands at close to 65,000, with an estimated 16,000 deaths in 2023 alone, and many fear that because the official statistics are manipulated the number may be even higher.

Indeed, a recent Statistics Canada update admitted to excluding euthanasia from its death totals despite it being the sixth-highest cause of mortality in the nation.

Last year, the DHS launched a national “Guardian Angels” initiative. This program aims to help ill and vulnerable Canadians stuck in the healthcare system have a personal advocate on their side to champion the “sanctity of life” over euthanasia.

This new initiative is a “national health care advocacy program that partners our compassionate, trained volunteer health advocates, with people navigating the increasingly challenging healthcare system.”

The DHS also recently launched a Do Not Euthanize (DNE) National Registry that it says will help “defend” vulnerable citizens’ lives from “premature death by euthanasia.”

DHS says hard work and ‘trust in God’ are pivotal in helping to again offer programs

Ireland told LifeSiteNews that it has been a difficult three years since DHS was evicted from its two buildings after the Fraser Health Authority, one of five publicly funded healthcare regions in British Columbia, canceled the lease. However, since that time, “patience and trust in God” has meant that the DHS can “again offer programming consistent with our commitment to protecting and providing Palliative Care,” such as its Guardian Angels program.

“While we have been shut out of the medical system and not allowed to have a hospice facility, we have developed programs to help protect people from ‘MAID,’” thus giving them the best chance to access proper healthcare inside a predatory system, Ireland told LifeSiteNews.

“Our Do Not Euthanize Advance Directive has been highly successful, and we have given out upwards of over 8,000 DNEs across the country, with requests coming daily. Our new National Registry and customized DNE Wallet Cards are also extremely popular, and we are trying to keep up with demand.”

As it stands now, DHS is currently operating out of a small office after its Irene Thomas Hospice and the Supportive Care Centre were taken by the Fraser Health Authority. DHS was given no compensation for its assets, which Ireland says has an estimated value of $9 million.

The Irene Thomas Hospice site is now run by the government, complete with euthanasia.

Ireland observed that the demand for its DNE program “confirms for us what we already knew.”

“Our people want nothing to do with the government’s euthanasia program,” she said.

“We beg everyone to protect themselves inside of the healthcare system by ordering a DNE and a wallet-sized card. ‘Do Not Euthanize’ (DNE) Advance Directive & Wallet Cards – Delta Hospice Society.”

For those wanting more information on the DHS’s Guadian Angels program, visit

Continue Reading


ArriveCAN charges dropped, shielding the controversial program from constitutional scrutiny

Published on

News release from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms 

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that City of Mississauga prosecutors have withdrawn five charges against four Canadians who refused to comply with ArriveCAN requirements at the Toronto Pearson International Airport.

The withdrawn charges include those against Elim Sly-Hooten of British Columbia. After arriving in Toronto from the Netherlands, Mr. Sly-Hooten felt that his personal medical information should remain private and chose not to disclose his vaccination status via ArriveCAN. In response, Peel Regional Police and Public Health Agency of Canada personnel detained him. Under pressure and without counsel, Mr. Sly-Hooten broke down and revealed his vaccination status. He received a $5,000 ticket for violating the Quarantine Act and was ordered to quarantine in his home for 14 days.

With help from the Justice Centre, Mr. Sly-Hooten launched a constitutional challenge against ArriveCAN, citing his right to liberty, his right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, his right to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention, and his right to counsel after arrest and detention – all protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Prosecutors also withdrew tickets against Mark Spence, Aaron Grubb, and Evan Kraayenbrink. Like Mr. Sly-Hooten, each were charged for choosing not to provide information via ArriveCAN and were ordered to quarantine for 14 days. Prosecutors have withdrawn the charges because they believe it is not in the public interest to expend further resources on a trial. This outcome follows a similar pattern of ArriveCAN-related charges being dropped before their trials in what appears to be an attempt to shield the controversial program from constitutional scrutiny. In other words, charges are being dropped before the merits of constitutional challenges to ArriveCAN can be heard by the courts.

Beside the constitutional question, ArriveCAN has been dogged by bad publicity since its implementation. Canada Border Services Agency launched ArriveCAN in April 2020 in response to the World Health Organization’s declaration of a global pandemic. Since then, ArriveCAN has cost Canadians an estimated $59.5 million (not counting in-house costs), according to the Auditor General of Canada in her February 12, 2024 performance audit report.

ArriveCAN was mandatory for all air, land, and marine travellers between November 2021 and October 2022. During that time, the program erroneously ordered 10,000 Canadians to quarantine in a significant breach of the Privacy Act, according to a 2023 report from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. The program violated many of the rights and freedoms protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lawyer Chris Fleury stated, “This outcome is bittersweet for each of our clients. It is positive for each of them personally. On the other hand, they were deeply interested in seeking a determination of the constitutionality of the irrational and unscientific decision forcing unvaccinated Canadians to quarantine. The federal government has again escaped accountability for Covid policy decisions that breached Canadians’ Charter rights.”

Continue Reading