Media
Trudeau’s ‘online harms’ legislation includes life imprisonment for ‘hate speech’
Justice Minister Arif Virani
From LifeSiteNews
While the government claims the bill is intended to protect kids, Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre said Liberals are looking for clever ways to enact internet censorship laws.
Details of new “online harms” legislation to regulate the internet have emerged, revealing that the bill could lead to more people jailed for life or fined $20,000 for posts that the government defines as “hate speech” based on gender, race, or other categories.
Bill C-63 is titled “An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.”
It was introduced by Justice Minister Arif Virani in the House of Commons today and passed its first reading in the afternoon.
The new bill 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 under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau claim will target certain cases of internet content removal, notably those involving child sexual abuse and pornography.
According to the Trudeau government, Bill C-63 aims to protect kids from online harms and crack down on non-consensual deep-fake pornography involving children and will target seven types of online harms, such as hate speech, terrorist content, incitement to violence, the sharing of non-consensual intimate images, child exploitation, cyberbullying and inciting self-harm.
Virani had many times last year hinted a new Online Harms Act bill would be forthcoming.
While the Trudeau government claims the bill is being created to protect kids, Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leader Pierre Poilievre said the federal government is looking for clever ways to enact internet censorship laws.
During a February 21, press conference, Poilievre said that Trudeau is looking to in effect criminalize speech with he does not like.
“What does Justin Trudeau mean when he says the word ‘hate speech?’ He means speech he hates,” Poilievre said.
Thus far, Poilievre has not commented on the full text of Bill C-63.
As part of the new bill, the Trudeau Liberals are looking to increase punishments for existing hate propaganda offenses in a substantial manner.
The Online Harms Act will also amend Canada’s Human Rights Act to put back in place a hate speech provision, specifically Section 13 of the Act, that the previous Conservative government under Stephen Harper had repealed in 2013 after it was found to have violated one’s freedom of expression.
The text of the bill, released Monday afternoon, reads that the Canadian Human Rights Act will be amended to add a section “13” to it.
This section reads, “It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
“In this section, hate speech means the content of a communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination,” the bill reads.
A “Clarification – hate speech” in the bill reads, “For greater certainty, the content of a communication does not express detestation or vilification, for the purposes of subsection (8), solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”
Earlier Monday, details of the bill were released to the media in a technical briefing.
“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 technical briefing reads.
“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.”
For now, the law will affect all social media platforms as well as live-streamed video services, notably Meta and Google (YouTube).
Bill creates three ‘Digital Safety’ positions to enforce rules and let anyone file ‘complaints’
Bill C-63 mandates the creation of the Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office.
The ombudsperson along with the other offices will be charged with dealing with public complaints regarding online content as well as put forth a regulatory function in a five-person panel “appointed by the government.” This panel will be charged with monitoring internet platform behaviors to hold people “accountable.”
Bill C-63 also includes text to amend Canada’s Criminal Code and Human Rights Act to define “hatred” as “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. (contenu fomentant la haine).”
Most worryingly, the new bill will allow it so that anyone can file a complaint against another person with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for “posting hate speech online” that is deemed “discriminatory” against a wide range of so-called protected categories, notably gender, race, those, or other areas.
If a person is found guilty of violating the Human Rights Act by going against what the government deems to be hate speech, they face fines of $20,000 along with being mandated to take down any postings online, notably on social media.
Many aspects of Bill C-63 come from a lapsed bill from 2021.
In June 2021, then-Justice Minister David Lametti introduced Bill 36, “An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act and to make related amendments to another Act (hate propaganda, hate crimes and hate speech).”
It was blasted as a controversial “hate speech” law that would give police the power to “do something” about online “hate.”
It was feared that it would target bloggers and social media users for speaking their minds.
Bill C-36 included text to amend Canada’s Criminal Code and Human Rights Act to define “hatred” as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain (haine).”
If passed, the bill would theoretically allow a tribunal to judge anyone who has a complaint of online “hate” leveled against them, even if he has not committed a crime. If found guilty, the person would be in violation of the new law and could face fines of $70,000 as well as house arrest.
Two other Trudeau bills dealing with freedom as it relates to the internet have become law, the first being Bill C-11, or the Online Streaming Act, that mandates Canada’s broadcast regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), oversee regulating online content on platforms such as YouTube and Netflix to ensure that such platforms are promoting content in accordance with a variety of its guidelines.
Trudeau’s other internet censorship law, the Online News Act, was passed by the Senate in June 2023.
The law mandates that Big Tech companies pay to publish Canadian content on their platforms. As a result, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, blocked all access to news content in Canada. Google has promised to do the same rather than pay the fees laid out in the new legislation.
Critics of recent laws such as tech mogul Elon Musk have said it shows “Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada.”
Energy
National media energy attacks: Bureau chiefs or three major Canadian newspapers woefully misinformed about pipelines
From the Fraser Institute
These three allegedly well informed national opinion-shapers are incredibly ignorant of national energy realities.
In a recent episode of CPAC PrimeTime Politics, three bureau chiefs from three major Canadian newspapers discussed the fracas between Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney. The Smith government plans to submit a proposal to Ottawa to build an oil pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s north coast. The episode underscored the profound disconnect between these major journalistic gatekeepers and the realities of energy policy in Canada.
First out of the gate, the Globe and Mail’s Robert Fife made the (false) argument that we already have the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (TMX), which is only running at 70 per cent, so we don’t need additional pipelines. This variant of the “no market case” argument misunderstands both the economics of running pipelines and the reality of how much oilsands production can increase to supply foreign markets if—and only if—there’s a way to get it there.
In reality, since the TMX expansion entered service, about 80 per cent of the system’s capacity is reserved for long-term contracts by committed shippers, and the rest is available on a monthly basis for spot shippers who pay higher rates due largely to government-imposed costs of construction. From June 2024 to June 2025, committed capacity was fully utilized each month, averaging 99 per cent utilization. Simply put, TMX is essentially fully subscribed and flowing at a high percentage of its physical capacity.
And the idea that we don’t need additional capacity is also silly. According to S&P Global, Canadian oilsands production will reach a record annual average production of 3.5 million barrels per day (b/d), and by 2030 could top 3.9 million b/d (that’s 500,000 b/d higher than 2024). Without pipeline expansion, this growth may not happen. Alberta’s government, which is already coordinating with pipeline companies such as Enbridge, hopes to see oilsands production double in coming years.
Next, Mia Rabson, Ottawa deputy bureau chief of the Canadian Press, implied that Smith’s proposal is not viable because it comes from government, not the private sector. But Rabson neglected to say that it would be foolish for any company to prepare a very expensive project proposal in light of current massive regulatory legislative barriers (tanker ban off B.C. coast, oil and gas emission cap, etc.). Indeed, proposal costs can run into the billions.
Finally, Joel-Denis Bellavance, Ottawa bureau chief of La Presse, opined that a year ago “building a pipeline was not part of the national conversation.” Really? On what planet? How thick is the bubble around Quebec? Is it like bulletproof Perspex? This is a person helping shape Quebec opinion on pipelines in Western Canada, and if we take him at his word, he doesn’t know that pipelines and energy infrastructure have been on the agenda for quite some time now.
If these are the gatekeepers of Canadian news in central Canada, it’s no wonder that the citizenry seems so woefully uninformed about the need to build new pipelines, to move Alberta oil and gas to foreign markets beyond the United States, to strengthen Canada’s economy and to employ in many provinces people who don’t work in the media.
X-post by former PMO chief of staff Norman Spector, who noticed something was up concerning how the Prime Minister’s team got its message out
Press Gallery members denied access to Carney’s Egypt photo opportunity dutifully repeat anonymous, unverified claims elevating the Prime Minister’s importance
Last week, the Parliamentary Press Gallery (PPG) and I had something in common.
We were both dismayed.
They, because they weren’t invited to join Prime Minister Carney on his last-minute trip to Egypt for a photo opp; Me because most of them didn’t seem all that interested in looking into the circumstances of the PM’s hasty departure and instead allowed themselves to be played in the most appallingly obvious manner.
Peter Menzies is a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.
Subscribe to The Rewrite.
What got the PPG’s knickers twisted was that they weren’t invited to accompany Carney when he departed Ottawa in a rush to get to the Egyptian resort of Sharm El Sheikh, a popular spot on the Red Sea for the world’s glitterati. It took PPG President Mia Rabson a couple of days to issue a statement, but she made it clear the PPG disapproved:
“The Parliamentary Press Gallery was not informed in advance of the Prime Minister’s trip to Egypt to participate in the Middle East Peace Ceremony on Oct. 12 -13,” she wrote. “The Gallery is disappointed and dismayed at the exclusion of Canadian media from the event and expresses in no uncertain terms that this must never happen again.
“It is unprecedented that Canadian media be entirely excluded from a Canadian prime minister’s foreign trip.”
The only reporting I could find on this was in Politico, where it was recorded that the PMO had posted this notice: “6:30 p.m. The Prime Minister will depart for Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, to attend the signing of a Middle East peace plan. Closed to media.”
What first caused my jaw to drop and to become, like Rabin, disappointed and dismayed, were the stories left unpursued. On the morning of Oct. 12, Canada was not listed as among the countries invited to join in the “peace summit” associated with the ceasefire deal reached between Israel and Hamas. If it had been, the prime minister may not have had to charter a private jet because the usual Royal Canadian Air Force planes and crews were, as City News’s Glen MacGregor reported, unavailable.
There are two lines of journalistic inquiry there, neither of which appears to have been of interest. The first is: how can Canada’s military be so poorly equipped that there isn’t at all times a fully-equipped aircraft and crew on standby and is this an issue that will be addressed in the future? The second is: how did we wind up getting invited to the peace summit? Comments by US President Donald Trump indicate that we weren’t initially considered important enough to be on site but phoned to ask if we could join the party. (The Line – which doesn’t accept government subsidies – noticed.)
Trump, in remarks to media said: “You have Canada. That’s so great to have, in fact. The president called and he wanted to know if it’s worth – well he knew exactly what it is. He knew the importance. Where’s Canada, by the way? Where are you? He knew the importance of this.”
What was pursued, at least in comments online by journalists, was Trump’s inability to identify Carney by his correct title. (In an exchange that followed, Carney sarcastically thanked Trump for elevating him and, in response, was told “at least I didn’t call you governor.” Ha ha.)
Everyone is free to make their own decisions, but if Canada had to call Trump to ask to be invited, Canadians need to know if that means we are in the president’s debt. Trump, after all, seems like the sort of guy who keeps score.
Readers will notice a new DONATE button has been added.
This allows you to buy The Rewrite a cup of coffee or, if you are feeling generous, wine, but doesn’t constitute a subscription.
Please consider making use of it and help us save journalism from bad journalism.
Share
But it’s what followed that really got creepy. While Canadian reporters were not allowed to accompany the prime minister to Egypt, someone who says he or she was on the plane started phoning around to tell reporters what happened. And they went for it. The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and Politico all reported unverified statements emanating from a single, unnamed source. The Globe’s Robert Fife reported that “a senior government official” said that while Carney and others thought they were just in Egypt for a photo opp, during a four hour wait for Trump to arrive from Israel “Mr. Carney had back-and-forth conversations with a group of leaders.”
Fife wrote that “The Globe and Mail is not identifying the official so they could speak candidly.”
Tonda MacCharles of the Toronto Star also quoted a “senior Canadian government official” who “spoke confidentially to provide background information on what was discussed at the leaders-only talks.” Said official was buzzing about the dynamism of the occasion and the ever so important role the boss played at the photo opp.
“Imagine the G20 without the talking points and pomp and circumstance. We all came out of it, staffers, like ‘wow that was a useful meeting,’” the anonymous source told MacCharles, whose report, similar to Fife’s, did not indicate that any efforts whatsoever had been made to verify the claims of the “official” with even a second anonymous “official.”
The Globe report expanded on how Carney’s attendance in Egypt was all part of a broader strategy, that he is well-known and liked in the region and how the invitation “was not a surprise” because Carney has “sought” to “act as a go-between Arab states and Washington.”
That doesn’t exactly appear consistent with the source’s concession that Carney’s office “first heard of the invitation on social media” but, whatever.
MacCharles and Fife tried to add greater context to their reports (the former doing the better job, in my view) but while The Free Press’s Rupa Subramanya wondered what all the fuss was about and Brian Mulroney’s former chief of staff Norman Spector (see frame grab above) smelled a rat, my conclusion is that what we have here is unacceptable.
The Prime Minister departed the country unaccompanied by even a single representative of the nation’s press. Upon his return, neither Carney nor any “officials” held a news conference to explain what took place. Instead, targeted media got fed what could be (I’ll use the polite term) pure fantasy. Two of Canada’s leading news organizations, apparently confusing themselves with stenographers, then – and without noting any attempts whatsoever at verification – dutifully passed it all along to their readers on …. faith.
Compare what took place here to what the Associated Press has to say about the use of anonymous sources in politics:
“No one wants news that’s built on unnamed, unaccountable sources and facts seemingly pulled from the air. Politicians and members of the public sometimes have cited such journalism as a reason for the fall in trust in the media….
“Reporting with loose attribution or anonymous sourcing can be dismissed as fake by the skeptical reader or politician. On the other hand, a report filled with verifiable facts attributed to named and authoritative sources of information is impossible to dispute.”
When all was said and done, the coverage of the Prime Minister’s visit to Egypt was denied to journalists and replaced with unchallenged reports from the leader’s staff, just like it’s done in tin pot dictatorships. And not a peep from the nation’s heavily subsidized journalism community.
Not a frickin’ peep.
(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)
Readers will notice a new DONATE button has been added. This allows you to buy The Rewrite a cup of coffee or, if you are feeling generous, wine, but doesn’t constitute a subscription. Please consider making use of it and help us save journalism from bad journalism.
Subscribe to The Rewrite.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Click here to help choose Alberta’s new licence plate design
Disabled Canadians increasingly under pressure to opt for euthanasia during routine doctor visits
Petition threatens independent school funding in Alberta
Busting five myths about the Alberta oil sands
-
Agriculture1 day agoFrom Underdog to Top Broodmare
-
City of Red Deer2 days agoCindy Jefferies is Mayor. Tristin Brisbois, Cassandra Curtis, Jaelene Tweedle, and Adam Goodwin new Councillors – 2025 Red Deer General Election Results
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoIs The Latest Tiger Woods’ Injury Also A Death Knell For PGA Champions Golf?
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta’s licence plate vote is down to four
-
Health1 day agoSovereignty at Stake: Why Parliament Must Review Treaties Before They’re Signed
-
Business1 day ago$15B and No Guarantees? Stellantis Deal explained by former Conservative Shadow Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoCanada’s justice minister confirms ‘hate crimes’ bill applies to online content
-
RCMP1 day agoPolice arrest thieves using garage-door openers to access homes in Vanier, West Park, Anders Park, and Evergreen