Crime
Online Harms bill could see Canadians face house arrest based on citizen complaints: Constitutional lawyer

From LifeSiteNews
Constitutional lawyer Marty Moore has warned LifeSiteNews that under the proposed Online Harms Act, courts could impose restrictions on Canadians under threat of jail if there is ‘fear’ the accused may commit a ‘hate crime’ in the future.
A top constitutional lawyer has told LifeSiteNews that the most “shocking” part of the Trudeau government’s proposed “Online Harms Act” is that it could allow provincial courts to impose house arrest on Canadians over a “fear” that they may commit a “hate crime” in the future.
“Possibly the most shocking part of this Bill is the addition of section 810.012 to the Criminal Code,” Marty Moore, who serves as the Litigation Director for Charter Advocates Canada, which is fully funded by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), told LifeSiteNews.
“Under this new provision, a person can assert to a provincial court that they ‘fear’ someone will promote genocide or antisemitism, and that provincial court is empowered to jail a person for one year (two years if they have previously been convicted of such an offense) if they refuse to agree to court-imposed conditions.”
Moore noted that the “court-imposed conditions” could be the mandated wearing of an ankle monitor, having a curfew, or not communicating with certain people.
Similar pre-crime punitive tactics may also be carried out against Canadians for other so-called “hate” offenses unrelated to antisemitism or genocide, something Justice Minister Arif Virani, who introduced Bill C-63 into Parliament Monday, continues to defend.
“[If] there’s a genuine fear of an escalation, then an individual or group could come forward and seek a peace bond against them and to prevent them from doing certain things,” Virani said Wednesday, arguing that such tactics “would help to de-radicalize people who are learning things online and acting out in the real world violently – sometimes fatally.”
If passed, Bill C-63 will create the “Online Harms Act” and modify existing laws, including the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act, in what the Liberals under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau claim will target certain already illegal internet content such as child sexual abuse and pornography.
However, the proposed law also seeks to target broadly defined “hate speech,” leading many Canadians to worry the bill is a trojan horse being used to usher in political censorship.
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. The bill even includes a provision that allows the Commission to withhold the identity of the accuser from the accused, effectively paving the way for Canadians to have to defend themselves against anonymous complaints.
Moore, as reported by LifeSiteNews on February 27, previously said that the “Online Harms Act” will allow a new “Digital Safety Commission” to conduct “secret Commission hearings” against those found to have violated the new law, which raises “serious concerns for the freedom of expression” of Canadians online.
According to the bill’s text, Canadians could soon face life imprisonment for certain “hate crimes,” in addition to other years-long prison terms and hefty fines for online posts the government deems as “hate speech” on the basis of gender, race and other categories.
Bill gives overly ‘broad definition’ to the term ‘hateful content’
In additional comments to LifeSiteNews about Bill C-63, Moore warned that the bill gives a broad definition to the term “harmful content.”
“The definition of ‘content that incites violence’ could capture someone encouraging minor property damage in a context where it ‘could cause’ a person to do something that ‘could’ interfere with an ‘essential service, facility or system,’” Moore told LifeSiteNews.
“Similarly, the definition of ‘content that incites violent extremism or terrorism’ could capture expression that encourages minor property damage in the course of political protest designed to pressure government on a particular issue, if the expression ‘could cause’ a person to do something that ‘could cause’ a ‘serious risk to the health or safety of the public,’” he added.
Moore observed that given Canadians recent experience in dealing with COVID mandates and lockdowns, which “literally banned protests on the basis that they could cause a risk to the health or safety of the public,” it is not hard to see how “these provisions” in Bill C-63 could be used to “censor expression advocating for civil disobedience and, other than minor property damage, peaceful protest.”
To enforce the proposed law, the bill calls for the creation of a 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. It will also put forth a regulatory function in a five-person panel “appointed by the government,” whose task will be monitoring internet platform behaviors to hold people “accountable.”
Moore told LifeSiteNews that Canadians have already seen government “grossly abuse Canadians’ rights and freedoms in the name of preventing harm and ensuring safety (COVID mandates).” He noted that this bill could give a commission of unelected officials a “concerning” amount of “reach” into “Canadians’ lives.”
In addition to Moore, Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre has also indicated the proposed law may be dangerous, saying earlier this week that the federal government is merely looking for clever ways to enact internet censorship laws.
On Tuesday in the House of Commons, Poilievre came out in opposition to the Online Harms Act, saying that if the Trudeau government’s goal is to protect children, he should be enforcing criminal laws rather than censoring opinions online.
2025 Federal Election
Liberal MP Paul Chiang Resigns Without Naming the Real Threat—The CCP

Dan Knight
After parroting a Chinese bounty on a Canadian citizen, Chiang exits the race without once mentioning the regime behind it—opting instead to blame “distractions” and Donald Trump.
So Paul Chiang is gone. Stepped aside. Out of the race. And if you’re expecting a moment of reflection, an ounce of honesty, or even the basic decency to acknowledge what this was really about—forget it.
In his carefully scripted resignation statement, Chiang didn’t even mention the Chinese Communist Party. Not once. He echoed a foreign bounty placed on a Canadian citizen—Joe Tay—and he couldn’t even bring himself to name the regime responsible.
Instead, he talked about… Donald Trump. That’s right. He dragged Trump into a resignation about repeating CCP bounty threats. The guy who effectively told Canadians, “If you deliver a Conservative to the Chinese consulate, you can collect a reward,” now wants us to believe the real threat is Trump?
I haven’t seen Donald Trump put bounties on Canadian citizens. But Beijing has. And Chiang parroted it like a good little foot soldier—and then blamed someone who lives 2,000 miles away.
But here’s the part you can’t miss: Mark Carney let him stay.
Let’s not forget, Carney called Chiang’s comments “deeply offensive” and a “lapse in judgment”—and then said he was staying on as the candidate. It wasn’t until the outrage hit boiling point, the headlines stacked up, and groups like Hong Kong Watch got the RCMP involved, that Chiang bailed. Not because Carney made a decision—because the optics got too toxic.
And where is Carney now? Still refusing to disclose his financial assets. Still dodging questions about that $250 million loan from the Bank of China to the firm he chaired. Still giving sanctimonious speeches about “protecting democracy” while his own caucus parrots authoritarian propaganda.
If you think Chiang’s resignation fixes the problem, you’re missing the real issue. Because Chiang was just the symptom.
Carney is the disease.
He covered for it. He excused it. He enabled it. And now he wants to pose as the man who will stand up to foreign interference?
He can’t even stand up to it in his own party.
So no, we’re not letting this go. Chiang may be gone—but the stench is still in the room. And it’s wearing a tailored suit, smiling for the cameras, and calling itself “leader of the Liberal Party.”
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
2025 Federal Election
RCMP Confirms It Is ‘Looking Into’ Alleged Foreign Threat Following Liberal Candidate Paul Chiang Comments

Sam Cooper
The confirmation followed a day of escalating pressure on Canadian law enforcement after The Bureau revealed that the UK-based human rights organization Hong Kong Watch sent a formal letter to RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme, calling for a criminal investigation into Chiang’s reported remarks.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police confirmed late Monday it is actively reviewing the controversy surrounding Liberal MP Paul Chiang’s alleged remarks that appeared to endorse delivering a political rival to a foreign government in exchange for a bounty.
In a statement sent to The Bureau, the RCMP said: “Foreign actor interference, including instances of transnational repression, continues to be a pervasive threat in Canada. The RCMP takes all such reports and allegations seriously and — in close partnership with intelligence, law enforcement and regulatory agencies — dedicates significant resources to combatting and investigating criminal activity related to foreign interference in Canada’s democratic processes.”
“The RCMP is looking into the matter,” the statement continued, “however no specific details can be provided at this time.”
The confirmation followed a day of escalating pressure on Canadian law enforcement after The Bureau revealed that the UK-based human rights organization Hong Kong Watch sent a formal letter to RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme, calling for a criminal investigation into Chiang’s reported remarks. The comments, made during a January meeting with Chinese-language journalists, suggested that Conservative candidate Joe Tay could be brought to the Chinese Consulate in Toronto to claim a bounty placed on him by the Hong Kong police under Beijing’s National Security Law.
The organization alleged the remarks could constitute “counselling to commit kidnapping” under Canada’s Criminal Code. In their letter, Hong Kong Watch also referenced the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act, which prohibits attempts to coerce or intimidate individuals for the benefit of a foreign state.
While the RCMP’s statement did not confirm the launch of a formal investigation, it emphasized that if “criminal or illegal activities occurring in Canada [are] found to be backed by a foreign state, it is within the RCMP’s mandate to investigate this activity.”
The RCMP said it does not typically disclose information related to ongoing investigations unless charges are laid. Nor will it confirm which individuals may be under protective watch.
Earlier Monday, Tay confirmed that he contacted the RCMP over concerns for his personal safety even before Chiang’s comments became public. Chiang, a former police officer and Liberal candidate in Markham–Unionville, has apologized for the remarks, calling them a “terrible lapse in judgment.”
Meanwhile, more than 40 Hong Kong diaspora organizations based in Canada and abroad issued a joint statement condemning Chiang’s remarks and calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney to remove him as a candidate. Carney told reporters in Toronto that Chiang still has his “confidence,” and described the incident as a “teachable moment.”
The RCMP said its “overarching priority is the safety and security of the public,” and encouraged anyone who feels threatened online or in person to report such incidents to their local police. In cases of immediate danger, individuals are urged to call 911.
The statement also pointed to the existence of protective mechanisms for election candidates, including through Elections Canada and the federal government.
More to come
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Joe Tay Says He Contacted RCMP for Protection, Demands Carney Fire MP Over “Bounty” Remark
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Hong Kong-Canadian Groups Demand PM Carney Drop Liberal Candidate Over “Bounty” Remark Supporting CCP Repression
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Poilievre To Create ‘Canada First’ National Energy Corridor
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Alcohol tax and MP pay hike tomorrow (April 1)
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Chinese Election Interference – NDP reaction to bounty on Conservative candidate
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
China Election Interference – Parties Received Security Briefing Days Ago as SITE Monitors Threats to Conservative Candidate Joe Tay
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Fixing Canada’s immigration system should be next government’s top priority
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
Are the Jays Signing Or Declining? Only Vladdy & Bo Know For Sure