It is obvious that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau does not accept responsibility for his many policy failures. This was evidenced in his interview with Edmonton podcast host, Ryan Jespersen, on February 21, 2024. Trudeau claimed that his unpopularity was due to “misinformation”, and “conspiracy theories”, which are “fooling” people. Trudeau seems to be under the impression that his policies are excellent, and that the problem is just the public failing to understand or appreciate them.

He is determined to “fix” this problem by way of Bill C-63, introduced in the House of Commons on February 26, 2024. This bill establishes the machinery to control social media. Even the left-wing Toronto Star has called this bill a “mess and a fatally flawed piece of overreaching legislation.” Trudeau, however, clearly wants to control what Canadians can know, say, and do, by throttling free speech and expression.

Bill C-63 is a Complex Bill

Bill C-63 is a complex and confusing bill consisting of several different components that are all bundled together in a single piece of legislation. It is quite possible that this bill will be used to interpret religious texts as unacceptable and thus illegal. It may also make illegal any objections to government policies, such as immigration, which may be interpreted as “racist”. Pro-life speech could also be interpreted as “hateful” for possibly denying women access to abortions or denying the transgendered their “medical” treatment.

Unnecessary Legislation

Bill C-63 is largely unnecessary legislation as there are already a number of laws on the books that address the problems of online child pornography and trafficking, and instances of revenge pornography, hate, and public incitement of hatred and genocide.   Further, the Criminal Code also currently contains prohibitions against harassment, sedition, and terrorism, including online activity advocating terrorism and counselling of these offences. The features that Bill C-63 brings to the table are new restrictions, penalties, and a huge bureaucracy to enforce the bill.

What is Behind This Legislation?

This monstrous legislation is another step towards establishing the surveillance-driven police state which Trudeau seems to admire. The bill’s many flaws, however, are covered up by a cloak of respectability by including provisions, such as protecting children from pornography and individuals from “revenge porn” (images of private sexual activities posted on the internet by one party without the consent of the other party). No reasonable person would object to these provisions. However, Bill C-63 goes far beyond reasonable provisions and is covering up other provisions that are alarming. Simply put, when the curtain of “respectability” is pushed aside, there is revealed a pit of tangled writhing serpents that will be slithering across the country when the bill is passed. These serpents will be used to strangle the freedom of speech, thought, expression and behaviour of Canadians. When the government, organizations or individuals are offended, they will personally bring complaints (as opposed to criminal charges under the Criminal Code laid by the police) to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to seek a remedy thanks to the re-introduction of Section 13 (s.13) to the Canadian Human Rights Act. There will be no need to prove that harm has occurred.

There are many such provisions in this bill, but referencing a few of them will provide an idea as to what is actually going on.

  1. Human Rights Commission to Determine Hate Crimes

In 1977, the Canadian Human Rights Act was amended to include s. 13 which attempted to address the then rising problem of Neo-Nazis, antisemitism, and hate speech. This provision became well-known in a number of high-profile cases. Ezra Levant, now of Rebel News, dared to publish cartoons of Muhammad which resulted in him losing years and money defending his action. Another case occurred when a group of Muslim students laid a complaint against Macleans magazine and well-known author and commentator, Mark Steyn, for a “hateful” article published therein. Mr. Steyn and the magazine eventually won this case, but at great cost of time and money.

S.13 was repealed by the Harper government in 2013.

Bill C-63 will reinstate s. 13, and its problems. It will put hate speech into the hands of the quasi-judicial Canadian Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which have a very left-wing, woke agenda.

The bill increases the penalty to a potential maximum of life imprisonment for anyone who “advocates or promotes genocide”.

Alarmingly, Bill C-63 relies on the Supreme Court of Canada’s open and subjective definition of “hatred” as articulated in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott that described hatred as “detestation” and “vilification” – but what do these terms actually mean?  This provision will lead to organizations and individuals making complaints to the Commission in order to seek to embarrass and impoverish their ideological foes. The complainant’s name, but not that of the alleged offender(s), may remain anonymous at the discretion of the Commission. The standard of proof is a “balance of probabilities”, not “beyond reasonable doubt” as required in criminal trials. There is no defence of truth permitted. Those found guilty are liable to penalties of up to $50,000, and can be required to pay the accuser up to $20,000. In addition to penalties under the Act, legal fees will also be assessed against the losing party.  Without doubt, this provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act will cause a chilling effect on free speech since it provides a huge incentive for vengeful parties to lay complaints.

  1. New Criminal Offence for Possibly Committing an Offence

Bill C-63 introduces a new concept in law, “pre-crime” sanctions, whereby it will be an offence if there is even the possibility of committing an offence without actually doing so. This provision is to be applied if the complainant “fears” that someone may commit a hate crime. That person may then ask a judge to impose conditions on the alleged offender.

These conditions could include requiring the offender to wear an electronic monitoring device, to remain in his home, refrain from going to specific public places, or to stay away from the person seeking the court order. An individual seeking the measures will have to provide evidence to the court, and the court order must be approved by a provincial attorney general.

The idea of “pre-crime, preventive restrictions” echoes too loudly the mentality of Nazi Germany’s Schutzhaft “protective custody” practice, wherein the Gestapo would arrest without warrant and incarcerate indefinitely, without specific charges or trial, people viewed to be “potentially dangerous” to the security of the state. This atrocity also echoes, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” of Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, who targeted the man then fabricated a suitable crime.

The real purpose of this provision in Bill C-63 is to provide a way for the federal government to replace the Emergencies Act which proved to be too politically risky since it required Parliamentary oversight, consent of the provincial premiers, and other legal restraints.

The Emergencies Act caused Trudeau a lot of problems and embarrassment when the Federal Court declared that its use to stop the Freedom Convoy was overreach, as it was contrary to the Charter of Rights, specifically freedom of speech, thought or opinion, and thus was unconstitutional. With this new bill, Trudeau need only bring an application before a single judge: undoubtedly, a carefully selected left-wing Liberal judge who will understand what is required. Thus, Trudeau’s problems with “unacceptable” people will be solved.

If the government had actually wanted to stop hateful speech, such as antisemitic comments, it could have simply expanded the current definition of antisemitism in the Criminal Code which now only prevents Holocaust denial. This limited definition of antisemitism does not encompass the abominable antisemitism displayed by the recent pro-Palestinian roving mobs of demonstrators. The current antisemitism provision in the Criminal Code cries out for amendment, but this has not been included in Bill C-63. (It is noted, that Trudeau has recently shown that he is not kindly disposed to Jews and Israel. His favoured groups are those in the LGBT, Muslim, and other “diverse” communities.)

  1. Huge Government Bureaucracy Created

The machinery to enforce Bill C-63 to obstruct our freedoms will be provided by a massive new bureaucracy, composed of three major elements: (1) a “Digital Safety Commission of Canada” comprised of three to five members; (2) a “Digital Safety Ombudsperson”; and (3) a “Digital Safety Office of Canada”—complete with Chief Executive Officer (CEO). It will also require unlimited staff, “accredited” researchers, who will have access to the inventories of electronic data, and designated “Inspectors” for verifying compliance with or punishing non-compliance with the Act.

In addition to this in-house bureaucracy, the CEO of the Digital Safety Office is authorized to enter into “contracts, memoranda of understanding or other arrangements, including contracts to engage the services of legal counsel or other persons having professional, technical or specialized knowledge to advise or assist the Commission or Ombudsperson.”  Given the expensive explosion in outsourcing under Trudeau and the Liberals, is there any reason to believe this authority to outsource won’t be abused by any CEO? The Canadian taxpayer will be paying huge salaries to this army of new government employees whose job will be to supervise and enforce compliance with the Act.

  1. Another New Offence Under the Criminal Code

In addition to introducing the new criminal offence of “the possibility of committing an offence” based on someone’s “fear”, Bill C- 63 also amends the Criminal Code by proposing a new expanded offence of hate motivated crime:

Offence motivated by “hate” committed under this Act or “any other Act of Parliament” based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life. [Emphasis added.]

Any other “Act of Parliament” includes the Canadian Human Rights Act, which contains such “offences.”  The effect of this provision is to cast a very broad, some might say “liberal”, net over behaviour and importing into “every Act of Parliament” a proscription against hatred punishable potentially with life imprisonment.

Laying the Foundation of a Police State

The conclusion drawn from the introduction of Bill C-63 is that it lays the foundation for a police state. In addition to establishing a new, substantial bureaucracy, Bill C-63’s extensive use of regulation to “fill in the regulatory details” means that Parliament under this Act is giving the Governor-in-Council, i.e. the Cabinet, which is in effect the Prime Minister, sweeping authority to determine how this new bureaucracy will operate.

The way to cure hatred, genocide and other such atrocities is not by the use of kangaroo courts such as the Human Rights Tribunals. The effective cure can only be found in applying the values of free inquiry and speech by a government that respects these values. The Trudeau government has displayed a remarkable failure in this regard, which is why Bill C-63 is a very serious danger to Canadians’ freedoms.

Action required

It is of critical importance that Canadians speak out against the madness created by this bill that undermines our fundamental rights.

Please write to your MP, regardless of party, and also write to Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre ( so that he will know that Canadians have strong objections to Bill C-63 and hopefully, he will oppose the bill in the House of Commons