Bill C-63: A Blueprint for Censorship
Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, has sparked intense debate among legal experts and civil rights organizations.
Critics argue it is a veiled attempt to stifle free expression, with severe penalties—including life imprisonment—for dissenting opinions online.
The bill, championed by Arif Virani, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, has drawn support from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), a foreign interest organization and advocacy agent representing the Jewish Federations of Canada (UIA). CIJA aims to equate criticism of Zionism with anti-Semitism, labelling dissent as hate speech. As I explain in my article, at the core of this matter lies a systematic manipulation of identity and ideology.
This legislation is more than just overreach—it’s a blueprint for censorship. It threatens to transform Canada into a nation where citizens live in fear of expressing opinions that deviate from government-endorsed narratives. Supporters of the bill argue that it aims to combat genuine online harm, but experts contend that its vague language and sweeping powers could be weaponized against legitimate criticism.
As debate intensifies, many are raising questions about the balance between combating hate and safeguarding freedom of expression in a democratic society. Is Bill C-63 a necessary step toward protecting vulnerable communities, or does it risk undermining the very freedoms it seeks to defend?
Legal Experts Raise the Alarm
Kristopher Kinsinger’s Concerns
Kristopher Kinsinger, a Guelph-based lawyer and adjunct lecturer at Redeemer University, has voiced strong opposition to Bill C-63.
“Numerous civil liberty organizations and legal scholars have expressed alarm over what they describe as the bill’s draconian restrictions on expression, which will discourage legitimate political speech,” Kinsinger stated. “Critics contend that the law places unjustifiable limits on freedom of expression, which is constitutionally guaranteed by Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
He criticized the bill’s provision that could classify any federal offence as a hate crime, carrying penalties of up to life imprisonment. “To say that this is a radical provision would be understatement,” he emphasized. Read more here.
Or here: https://thehub.ca/2024/05/06/kristopher-kinsinger-the-liberals-have-no-good-justification-for-their-thought-crime-law/
BCCLA: Risk of Life Sentence and Wrongful Convictions
The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), a prominent organization dedicated to promoting and defending civil liberties and human rights in Canada, raised alarms in an article published in September 2024 about the bill’s proposed changes, particularly Part 2, which introduces a new hate-motivation offence carrying penalties of up to life imprisonment.
“Part 2 of Bill C-63 would introduce a new hate-motivation offence, which could create penalties up to life imprisonment for any crime or federal offence if found to be motivated by hate. This means spray-painting racist words on a wall could be considered as bad as murder and worse—at least, more harshly punishable—than sexual assault,” the BCCLA warned.
They also underscored the risk of wrongful convictions.
“Innocent people are willing to plead guilty to an offence that carries a lesser penalty rather than risk life imprisonment,” they warned. “Academic research shows that these types of wrongful convictions have already occurred in Canada. With its new potential for life imprisonment for any hate-motivated crime or federal offence, Part 2 of Bill C-63 risks drastically increasing the potential for wrongful convictions in Canada.”

Moreover, the BCCLA underscored the punitive nature of the criminal process itself. “Nor is it accurate to say that a person can simply prove their innocence at trial with no harm done. The criminal law process is hugely expensive, stressful, and disruptive to people’s lives,” the article emphasized.
The BCCLA called on Parliament to sever Part 2 of the bill to prevent such outcomes. The association also announced a forthcoming deep dive into the bill’s new proposed penalties for “hate propaganda” and “hate motivation” offences, set to shed more light on these contentious provisions. Read here.
Or here: https://bccla.org/2024/09/whats-in-bill-c-63-why-are-we-alarmed/
CCF: Defending Constitutional Freedoms
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), a non-partisan charity dedicated to protecting constitutional rights, has expressed deep concerns about Bill C-63.
Christine Van Geyn, the CCF’s Litigation Director, has been outspoken about the bill’s impact on free expression. Despite the proposed plan to split sections of the Online Harms Act, the CCF remains deeply concerned about its impact on free expression.
In a video released on March 4, 2024, she explained how the Bill would limit constitutionally-protected expression.
In the video here, on December 9, 2024, she gives an update describing how the approval of the bill is being split into two parts that will now proceed separately.
Expert Analysis by Professor Dwight Newman
Professor Dwight Newman, KC, a constitutional law scholar at the University of Saskatchewan, has critically analyzed Bill C-63. With over 200 publications and citations in at least 14 Supreme Court decisions, Newman’s insights carry significant weight.
His analysis highlights the bill’s potential to undermine freedoms protected under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Read more here.
Or here: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/ottawas-online-harms-bill-actually-threatens-marginalized-communities
Safeguarding Democratic Freedoms
As debate over Bill C-63 intensifies, it is imperative to safeguard free expression and ensure government policies align with constitutional values. The concerns raised by experts and advocacy groups underscore the need for vigilance in preserving the rights and freedoms that define Canadian democracy.