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.
Crime
Despite recent bail reform flip-flops, Canada is still more dangerous than we’d prefer
Our Criminal Justice System Is Changing
58 percent of individuals sentenced to community supervision had at least one prior conviction for a violent offence. 68 percent of those given custodial sentences were similarly repeat offenders. In fact, 59 percent of offenders serving custodial sentences had previously been convicted at least 10 times.
Back in 2019, the federal Liberals passed Bill C-75, “An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts”. Among other things, the law established a Principle of Restraint that required courts to minimize unnecessary pre-trial detention. This has been characterized as a form of “catch and release” that sacrifices public safety in general, and victims’ rights in particular on the altar of social justice.
I’m no lawyer, but I can’t see how the legislation’s actual language supports that interpretation. In fact, as we can see from the government’s official overview of the law, courts must still give serious consideration to public safety:
The amendments…legislate a “principle of restraint” for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention, that bail conditions are reasonable, relevant to the offence and necessary to ensure public safety, and that sureties are imposed only when less onerous forms of release are inadequate.
So unlike in some U.S. jurisdictions, Canadian courts are still able use their discretion to restrict an accused’s freedom. That’s not to say everyone’s always happy with how Canadian judges choose to use such discretion, but judicial outcomes appear to lie in their hands, rather than with legislation.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Arguably, C-75 did come with a “soft-on-crime” tone (in particular as the law relates to certain minority communities). But even that was mostly reversed by 2023’s Bill C-48, which introduced reverse onus for repeat offenders and required judges to explicitly consider the safety of the community (whatever that means).
Nevertheless, the system is clearly far from perfect. Besides the occasional high-profile news reports about offenders committing new crimes while awaiting trials for previous offences, the population-level data suggests that our streets are not nearly as safe as they should be.
As far as I can tell, Statistics Canada doesn’t publish numbers on repeat offences committed by offenders free while waiting for trial. But I believe we can get at least part of the way there using two related data points:
- Conviction rates
- Repeat offender rates
Between 2019 and 2023, conviction rates across Canada on homicide charges for adults averaged 42 percent, while similar charges against youth offenders resulted in convictions in 65 percent of cases. That means we can safely assume that a significant proportion of accused offenders were, in fact, criminally violent even before reaching trial.
We can use different Statistics Canada data to understand how likely it is that those accused offenders will re-offend while on pre-trial release:
58 percent of individuals sentenced to community supervision (through either conditional sentences or probation) had at least one prior conviction for a violent offence. 68 percent of those given custodial sentences were similarly repeat offenders. In fact, 59 percent of offenders serving custodial sentences had previously been convicted at least 10 times.
Also, in the three years following a term of community supervision, 15.6 percent of offenders were convicted for new violent crimes. For offenders coming out of custodial sentences, that rate was 30.2 percent.
In other words:
- Many – if not most – people charged with serious crimes turn out to be guilty
- It’s relatively rare for violent criminals to offend just once.
Together, those two conclusions suggest that public safety would be best served by immediately incarcerating all people charged with violent offences and keeping them “inside” either until they’re declared innocent or their sentences end. That, however, would be impossible. For one thing, we just don’t have space in our prisons to handle the load (or the money to fund it). And it would also often trample on the legitimate civil rights of accused individuals.
This is a serious problem without any obvious pull-the-trigger-and-you’re-
- Implement improved risk assessment and predictive analytics tools to evaluate the likelihood of re-offending.
- Improve the reliability of non-custodial measures such as electronic monitoring and house arrest that incorporate real-time tracking and immediate intervention capabilities
- Improve parole and probation systems to ensure effective monitoring and support for offenders released into the community. (Warning: expensive!)
- Optimize data analytics to identify trends, allocate resources efficiently, and measure the effectiveness of various interventions.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
Crime
RCMP Bust B.C. Fentanyl Superlab Linked to Mexico and Transnational Exports
Sam Cooper
In a remote mountainous area of British Columbia, federal police have dismantled the largest fentanyl laboratory ever discovered in Canada. This western province has become a critical front in the Five Eyes battle against the production and distribution of deadly synthetic narcotics trafficked globally by networks involving Chinese and Iranian state-sponsored mafias and Mexican cartels.
In a groundbreaking discovery, the RCMP located the superlab in Falkland—a village of 946 residents nestled in the rugged terrain between Calgary and Vancouver—using Phenyl-2-Propanone (P2P) to manufacture methamphetamine. This production method, primarily employed by Mexican cartels, stems from the precursors and scientific expertise Mexican cartels have gathered from elite Chinese criminals since the early 2000s, according to U.S. enforcement sources.
David Teboul, Commander of the RCMP Federal Policing program in the Pacific Region, underscored the significance: “Manufacturing methamphetamine using P2P had not been seen in Western Canada until now,” he said. “The P2P manufacturing method has been the primary method used by Mexican cartels to produce methamphetamine for years.”
Demonstrating the destructive power of the cartels involved, the RCMP seized a staggering cache of illicit substances and weapons. Officers confiscated 54 kilograms of fentanyl, massive amounts of precursor chemicals, 390 kilograms of methamphetamine, 35 kilograms of cocaine, 15 kilograms of MDMA, and 6 kilograms of cannabis. The superlab was described as the largest and most sophisticated of its kind, capable of producing multiple types of illicit drugs.
“To put things into context,” Teboul said, “the over 95 million potentially lethal doses of fentanyl that have been seized could have taken the lives of every Canadian at least twice over.”
A large portion of the product was destined for other countries.
During the investigation, RCMP officers learned of several large shipments of methamphetamine prepared for international export. They intercepted 310 kilograms of methamphetamine before it could leave Canada, preventing a significant quantity from reaching global markets—a critical point as Canada faces pressure from its allies over its role in the global fentanyl and methamphetamine trade.
Teboul noted that the RCMP collaborated with its Five Eyes enforcement partners—an intelligence alliance comprising Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Although Teboul did not provide specific details, this cooperation underscores the international scope of the transnational investigation.
The first suspect, Gaganpreet Singh Randhawa, was identified and arrested during raids. He is currently in custody and faces multiple charges, including possession and export of controlled substances, possession of prohibited firearms and devices, and possession of explosive devices. More arrests are expected, Teboul said.
The scale of this criminal network echoes the power and violence fueling gang wars that have rocked British Columbia, putting innocent lives at risk during high-powered shootouts in Vancouver. Investigators seized a total of 89 firearms, including 45 handguns, 21 AR-15-style rifles, and submachine guns—many of which were loaded and ready for use. The searches also uncovered small explosive devices, vast amounts of ammunition, firearm silencers, high-capacity magazines, body armor, and $500,000 in cash.
British Columbia has been grappling with an influx of synthetic opioids like fentanyl, significantly exacerbating the opioid crisis across Canada. The province has witnessed a surge in overdose deaths, prompting law enforcement to intensify efforts against drug production and trafficking networks. Experts highlight weaknesses in Canadian laws and a lack of federal oversight at the Port of Vancouver, which have been exploited by transnational crime and money laundering organizations from China, Iran, and Mexico.
This significant bust comes at a time when Canada is under increased scrutiny from international allies over its role as a hub for the export of fentanyl and methamphetamine. The superlab takedown appears to align with serious concerns raised by lawmakers in Washington about how Canada and Mexico are being used by transnational crime organizations to distribute fentanyl worldwide.
A recent U.S. congressional report argues that the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) strategy relies less on overt military actions and more on covert tactics, including trafficking of fentanyl and leveraging money laundering, aimed at exploiting vulnerabilities across social, economic, and health domains.
“Fentanyl precursors are manufactured in China and shipped to Mexico and Canada. For precursors that arrive in Mexico, Chinese transnational mafias work with Mexican cartels to smuggle and distribute fentanyl in the United States on behalf of the CCP,” the report states. “The DEA confirmed Chinese transnational crime leaders hold government positions in the CCP and indicated that Chinese transnational crime organizations are dedicated to the CCP.”
“The public deserves to know about the CCP’s role in fentanyl production and how the Party is using fentanyl as a chemical weapon to kill Americans,” the report adds. It recommends that Washington publicly “blame the CCP as much as the DEA and its partners currently blame the Sinaloa Cartel” for fentanyl trafficking and urges the government to “educate international allies about CCP chemical warfare” and encourage them to condemn Chinese transnational crime.
According to congressional investigations, Beijing is actively incentivizing the export of fentanyl and methamphetamine worldwide. The report alleges that Chinese criminal organizations, including Triads led by individuals with official positions in the CCP, are working alongside Mexican cartels to generate profit to fund interference operations in America.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
They Are Scrubbing the Internet Right Now
-
National2 days ago
Trudeau government introduces bill that could strip pro-life pregnancy centers of charity status
-
COVID-192 days ago
Dr John Campbell urges a complete moratorium on mRNA vaccines
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
Jeff Bezos Is Right: Legacy Media Must Self-Reflect
-
National2 days ago
Liberal Patronage: $330 Million in Questionable Allocations at Canada’s Green Tech Agency
-
Catherine Herridge1 day ago
CBS News insider says the network knew the Hunter Biden Laptop was verified
-
Economy2 days ago
Ottawa’s new ‘climate disclosures’ another investment killer
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
‘He’s Willing To Hit Them Hard’: American Adversaries Pull Out The Stops To Derail Trump’s White House Bid