Top Tweets for #BILLC63

Mike Martins

@1_mike_martins

3 months ago · Merritt

Canada this is Serious! Bill C63 is Back! #censorship #freedomofspeech #billc63 #mikemartins

Laura Love

@Panopticonomy

4 months ago

Andddd just like WE all and I fought against Vic Toews and his “if your not with us, you are for the child pornographers”, that horribly written Bill and Arif Virani’s more recent #BillC63 split bill “protect the children” aka mass government censorship debacle, WE CITIZENS will not allow Canadian policing to now literally be REWARDED with MORE LAWFUL ACCESS after the UNLAWFUL ACCESS that occurred in Project Southdown. #BillC22 will fail and it should. You don’t simply get rewarded for what appears as ongoing dirty policing and the very noticeable lack of Chief officer resignation at the largest metropolitan police force in Canada. Back to the drawing board boys! Are you guys okay over there? Seriously!? Bad timing. Reality: You all have a much DEEPER and more serious conversation about dirty police fingers on keyboards and in networked databases that you need to be but don’t seem to be having with ALL your members! How can you possibly believe that you should be rewarded with MORE access with no REAL action having been undertaken at TPS? TOP TO BOTTOM CLEAN OUT OR PLEASE DO SHUT UP!🤫

403

ruthko 🌻 💉12x 😷🖖 @ruthmkb

4 months ago

"Canada’s 2024 Online Harms Act would have forced large social media platforms to take responsibility for their content, but it failed to become law after Parliament was prorogued. What a loss." Cc: @MarkJCarney #BillC63 #cdnpoli https://t.co/p09ybHljPB

ruthko 🌻 💉12x 😷🖖 @ruthmkb

5 months ago

"Table the Online Safety Act. Pass it. Improve it over time. But stop delaying. Kids have been left to their own devices long enough. We are counting on you." #BillC63 #cdnpoli https://t.co/DBquSMIjFs

Saint Siméon @MacheCraie

7 months ago

@Nero This will be referenced as "Milo said KILL ALL POLITICAL PEOPLE" . ..AND THEY ARE RIGHT. We want those people dying a slow death in a jail cell, for until their body decides it's been too long and calls it. I might go to prison for this tweet because I am Canadian. #BillC63

168

wealthmoose

@wealthmoose

8 months ago

🇨🇦 Imagine thinking: “Let’s introduce amendments that could criminalize Bible passages… in December… before Christmas… and just see what happens.” 🎄📜💣 The Liberals really didn’t think this through. At all. #cdnpoli #BillC63 #RightsAndFreedoms #CdnEcon #Canada

Brian Lilley

@brianlilley

8 months ago

Hey, here's an idea... Let's introduce amendments to a Bill that could ban/criminalize parts of the Bible just before Christmas and see what happens. The Liberals really didn't think this through. https://t.co/ZoYPUTMdoo

227

721

48K

419

wealthmoose

@wealthmoose

8 months ago

@brianlilley Imagine thinking: “Let’s introduce amendments that could criminalize Bible passages… in December… before Christmas… and just see what happens.” 🎄📜💣 The Liberals really didn’t think this through. At all. #cdnpoli #BillC63 #RightsAndFreedoms #CdnEcon #Canada

102

Canada In Crisis

@canadaincrisis

12 months ago

The Censorship Blueprint: What Ottawa Isn’t Telling You About Bill C-63 #SeanFraser #MinisterofJustice #BillC63 #NotWorthTheCost #LPC #CDNPoli @SeanFraserMP 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 Bill C-63 creates extensive new duties for major social media “regulated services” (broadly, large websites/apps for sharing user content). It imposes a “duty to act responsibly” (requiring platforms to mitigate exposure to defined harms) and a “duty to protect children” (mandating age-appropriate design features). Platforms must submit public “digital safety plans” and keep extensive records of their compliance. They must also respond to flagged content: for example any user flagged image of child sexual abuse or non-consensual intimate content must be made inaccessible within 24 hours (with a review process). Enforcement is centralized in a new Digital Safety Commission. The Commission can order removals or behavioral changes by platforms and can impose administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) for violations. AMPs may reach “6 % of the person’s gross global revenue” or $10 million (whichever is higher). (For major companies, 6% of global revenue can be enormous.) The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates the Commission will require ~330 staff and cost about C$201 million over 2024 - 2029 (possibly offset by fines). In short, critics note platforms face heavy compliance costs and strict liability: they must build new moderation tools, age verification features, user-flagging systems, etc. and risk huge fines or injunctions if they miss anything. (The bill even lets the Commission accredit researchers to access platform data inventories, raising further operational and privacy burdens.) Criticism: Civil-society analysts warn that this regime will push platforms to “over moderate” content. Faced with 24 hour takedown deadlines and massive fines social media companies are likely to err on the side of removing anything remotely questionable to avoid enforcement action. Smaller services fear the cost of compliance and because the law sets very low evidentiary hurdles for Commission orders (balance of probabilities), platforms may effectively serve as extensions of government content control rather than independent arbiters. The requirement to keep extensive user data for Commission review is also seen as a potential privacy risk. 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐬 A major criticism is that Bill C-63 sweeps in a wide range of speech under “harmful content” and attaches harsh sanctions creating chilling effects on expression. The Act defines “harmful content” to include among other things, content that “foments hatred” or “incites violence” against protected groups. Part 2 of the bill amends the Criminal Code to dramatically increase penalties for hate propaganda: for example, “incitement to genocide” would carry a maximum life sentence and other hate crimes up to five years. Even more controversially, it creates a new preventative “peace bond” for hate propaganda or hate motivated offenses. Under this measure if a court finds “reasonable grounds” to fear someone might produce hate propaganda that person can be ordered (with no prior conviction) to post a pledge not to do so failing which the court can impose conditions like house arrest with electronic monitoring. Civil liberties groups warn that these provisions are very broad. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) notes the bill risks criminalizing a wide range of expression and even journalistic reporting, since hatred/violence definitions could be stretched to cover satire or political speech. In fact, commentators have quipped about extreme examples: one columnist asked whether a Shakespearean joke (“kill all the lawyers”) could now be deemed “genocidal” under the new law. CCLA warned that sentencing of life imprisonment for what could begin as a speech offense (incitement to genocide) is “draconian” and “undermines” the principles of proportionality. Likewise, Amnesty International cautioned that some amendments “could disproportionately affect free speech without effectively reducing online hate”. The charter statement for the bill itself acknowledges the free expression risk conceding the duties likely “engage freedom of expression”. Its authors justify this by arguing most targeted content lies “far from the core” of protected speech. But critics say the real issue is ambiguity: content falling just short of violent extremism (for example, inflammatory political rhetoric or unpopular ideas) might still be swept up. Conservative MPs echoed this worry. For instance, MP Larry Brock accused the Liberals of forcing Canadians into a “false choice between safety and free expression”. 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥 𝐋𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩𝐬, 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 Bill C-63 has drawn sharp criticism from many civil-society and legal experts. Rights advocates unequivocally oppose the broad punitive measures. The CCLA (Canada Civil Liberties Assoc.) described the bill as containing “overbroad violations of expressive freedom”, privacy and liberty. It warned that vesting a new commission with sweeping powers to investigate, regulate content and impose penalties with virtually no independent review makes the commission a “judge, jury, and executioner”. In particular, CCLA pointed out that the Bill grants regulators search powers over platforms (including remote “virtual” searches of data) without traditional warrant safeguards which it says poses “significant threats to privacy”. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association similarly urged Parliament to remove the criminal and Human Rights Act components. It welcomed the sections on child exploitation but said the hate speech amendments were “deeply alarming” and urged their removal. It also expressed concern that expanding the Human Rights Code to cover “online hate” complaints would overwhelm the Human Rights Commission. Legal scholars and observers have been wary. University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist noted that the bill’s definitions of harm (e.g. “incites violence” or “foments hatred”) remain very broad so there is real risk of overreach. He also highlighted the extraordinary power of the Digital Safety Commission, for example its authority to levy fines up to 6% of global revenue calling it a “big red flag” that demands clear oversight mechanisms. He expects the Human Rights Act amendments would trigger a flood of complaints. In summary, Geist commented that the government’s decision to tie together platform regulation with harsh criminal provisions was an “overreach and mistake” and that if the bill were to succeed, “it does need to be split” into parts. Journalists and policy analysts have largely echoed these concerns. The Democracy Fund, an advocacy group, warned that C-63 “is not about protecting you… it’s about censorship and social control,” urging that only well focused child protection measures should pass and flagging the risk of an “army of bureaucrats and citizen informers” policing speech. NDP and Bloc MPs also flagged the controversy: they proposed splitting the bill so that the child safety and platform duty provisions could pass separately from the hate speech and CRPA sections. In short, many observers (even those sympathetic to curbing online harms) see C-63’s Criminal Code and Human Rights amendments as misplaced and too constraining on free expression. 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 “𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥” 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬 A vocal minority of critics frame Bill C-63 in very stark terms, arguing it effectively creates a “thought police” regime. These commentators stress the preventive elements of the law. For example, Canadian columnist Marc Edge asked whether the bill would send him to jail for something he “might be thinking of saying”, comparing the new peace-bond powers to the “thoughtcrime” laws of Orwell’s 1984. Businessman Steve Forbes (via https://t.co/vveYWen7vX) likened it directly to Orwellian “thought policing,” noting that under the hate-speech peace bond a person could be subject to house arrest and monitoring on mere suspicion. The Conservative-leaning Fraser Institute likewise published a commentary warning the Act amounts to Big Brother control of speech, even claiming “the government can punish citizens when it suspects it won’t like what they might say”. The Independent Institute (a U.S. think-tank) went further, dubbing C-63 a “kangaroo court” system. Its author highlights the Commission’s reach: anonymous complaints can trigger investigations, and inspectors can “enter a residence without a warrant” to seize data. The article notes that under C-63, even “yet-to-be-charged” individuals can face house arrest with electric tagging if a judge finds reasonable grounds to fear they might commit hate propaganda. Such pieces warn that the Act’s balance of probabilities standard for these orders (lower than criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt”) and its strict takedown deadlines (24 hours) will encourage pervasive surveillance and pre-emptive suppression of speech. One wry critique circulated on social media notes that “Cuba, North Korea and other tyrannies are applauding” these pre-crime speech provisions. It should be noted these alarmist views are disputed. Proponents point out that C-63 still requires judicial authorization for searches (albeit electronically mediated), and any criminal punishments would follow normal trial procedures. The bill explicitly states platforms need not implement “unreasonable or disproportionately limiting” measures on users. Nevertheless, the intensity of such comparisons (Orwell’s 1984, “digital totalitarianism,” etc.) highlights how many see the legislation as a profound expansion of government control over online speech. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 By late 2024, Bill C-63 had not passed into law amid mounting controversy. In December 2024 the government announced it would split the bill into two: one focused on online platform duties (essentially Parts 1 and 4 of C-63), and a separate bill containing the new Criminal Code and Human Rights amendments. Amnesty International Canada and other groups welcomed this, saying it allows Parliament to address online harms while separately debating the freedom-of-expression issues. In practice, no bill progressed beyond second reading: Parliament was prorogued in January 2025 and C-63 died on the order paper. Justice Minister Sean Fraser later indicated any reintroduction would require substantial changes. Looking ahead, the fate of such regulation is uncertain. The Conservatives and opposition parties suggested they will propose their own online-safety measures. For example, Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner introduced a private member’s bill (C-412) focusing on minors’ data and online harassment of children. If some form of Online Harms Act is enacted in future, analysts project it would significantly increase content moderation by platforms. The 24 hour takedown requirement alone could lead to more “notice and takedown” removals as companies default to safety. On the other hand, since the bill as drafted was relatively narrow in scope (focusing on children and extreme content), its direct impact on everyday speech might be limited to those areas. In any case, the vigorous debate suggests that regulators will need to clarify the law’s definitions and safeguards. As GNI and others advise, the Act would join a global trend (e.g. the UK’s Online Safety Act) and will be closely watched: if passed, it could set a precedent for balancing online safety and free expression in Canada. Sources: Safiyya Ahmad · BC Civil Liberties Association · September 30, 2024 | Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) · February 28, 2024 | Anaïs Bussières McNicoll · Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) · December 17, 2024 | Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) · December 5, 2024 | The Democracy Fund · October 10, 2024 | The Democracy Fund · December 6, 2024 | Dwight Newman · Fraser Institute · March 1, 2024 | Jake Fuss, Alex Whalen · Fraser Institute · July 22, 2024 | Sabreena Delhon, Béatrice Wayne, Alex MacIsaac · Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP) · April 16, 2024 | Michael Geist · https://t.co/joANOPtDO5 · March 13, 2024 | Michael Geist · https://t.co/joANOPtDO5 · December 5, 2024 | Michael Geist · https://t.co/joANOPtDO5 · February 26, 2024 | Francis Crescia · Independent Institute · May 7, 2024 | Ryan Black, Morgan McDonald, Gavyn Backus · DLA Piper · March 4, 2024 | David Baxter · Global News · February 26, 2024 | Kyle Duggan, Anja Karadeglija · Global News (Canadian Press) · December 4, 2024 | Government of Canada · Canadian Heritage · February 26, 2024 | Government of Canada · Department of Justice · May 30, 2024 | Parliament of Canada (bill text) · February 26, 2024 | Government of Canada · Canadian Heritage (online heritage portal) · n.d. | Al Jazeera · February 27, 2024 | Blayne Haggart · CIGI · May 31, 2024 | Mandy Lau · https://t.co/ruC3TycEoe · April 28, 2025 | Tim Cushing · Techdirt · March 21, 2024 | Amnesty International Canada · December 4, 2024 | Amnesty International Canada · May 7, 2024 | OpenMedia · May 7, 2024 | Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) · December 4, 2024 | Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) · February 27, 2024 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑟: 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠, 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑠. 𝐼𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑜𝑘𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡, 𝑠𝑘𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑦. 𝑊ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑤𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠, 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑏𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑎 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑏𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑠 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡. 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑦 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦, 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠.

canadaincrisis's tweet photo. The Censorship Blueprint: What Ottawa Isn’t Telling You About Bill C-63
#SeanFraser #MinisterofJustice #BillC63 #NotWorthTheCost #LPC #CDNPoli @SeanFraserMP

𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬
Bill C-63 creates extensive new duties for major social media “regulated services” (broadly, large websites/apps for sharing user content). It imposes a “duty to act responsibly” (requiring platforms to mitigate exposure to defined harms) and a “duty to protect children” (mandating age-appropriate design features).

Platforms must submit public “digital safety plans” and keep extensive records of their compliance. They must also respond to flagged content: for example any user flagged image of child sexual abuse or non-consensual intimate content must be made inaccessible within 24 hours (with a review process).

Enforcement is centralized in a new Digital Safety Commission. The Commission can order removals or behavioral changes by platforms and can impose administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) for violations.

AMPs may reach “6 % of the person’s gross global revenue” or $10 million (whichever is higher). (For major companies, 6% of global revenue can be enormous.) The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates the Commission will require ~330 staff and cost about C$201 million over 2024 - 2029 (possibly offset by fines). In short, critics note platforms face heavy compliance costs and strict liability: they must build new moderation tools, age verification features, user-flagging systems, etc. and risk huge fines or injunctions if they miss anything. (The bill even lets the Commission accredit researchers to access platform data inventories, raising further operational and privacy burdens.)

Criticism: Civil-society analysts warn that this regime will push platforms to “over moderate” content. Faced with 24 hour takedown deadlines and massive fines social media companies are likely to err on the side of removing anything remotely questionable to avoid enforcement action. Smaller services fear the cost of compliance and because the law sets very low evidentiary hurdles for Commission orders (balance of probabilities), platforms may effectively serve as extensions of government content control rather than independent arbiters. The requirement to keep extensive user data for Commission review is also seen as a potential privacy risk.

𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐬
A major criticism is that Bill C-63 sweeps in a wide range of speech under “harmful content” and attaches harsh sanctions creating chilling effects on expression.

The Act defines “harmful content” to include among other things, content that “foments hatred” or “incites violence” against protected groups. Part 2 of the bill amends the Criminal Code to dramatically increase penalties for hate propaganda: for example, “incitement to genocide” would carry a maximum life sentence and other hate crimes up to five years.

Even more controversially, it creates a new preventative “peace bond” for hate propaganda or hate motivated offenses. Under this measure if a court finds “reasonable grounds” to fear someone might produce hate propaganda that person can be ordered (with no prior conviction) to post a pledge not to do so failing which the court can impose conditions like house arrest with electronic monitoring.

Civil liberties groups warn that these provisions are very broad. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) notes the bill risks criminalizing a wide range of expression and even journalistic reporting, since hatred/violence definitions could be stretched to cover satire or political speech. In fact, commentators have quipped about extreme examples: one columnist asked whether a Shakespearean joke (“kill all the lawyers”) could now be deemed “genocidal” under the new law. CCLA warned that sentencing of life imprisonment for what could begin as a speech offense (incitement to genocide) is “draconian” and “undermines” the principles of proportionality. Likewise, Amnesty International cautioned that some amendments “could disproportionately affect free speech without effectively reducing online hate”.

The charter statement for the bill itself acknowledges the free expression risk conceding the duties likely “engage freedom of expression”. Its authors justify this by arguing most targeted content lies “far from the core” of protected speech. But critics say the real issue is ambiguity: content falling just short of violent extremism (for example, inflammatory political rhetoric or unpopular ideas) might still be swept up. Conservative MPs echoed this worry. For instance, MP Larry Brock accused the Liberals of forcing Canadians into a “false choice between safety and free expression”.

𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥 𝐋𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩𝐬, 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬
Bill C-63 has drawn sharp criticism from many civil-society and legal experts. Rights advocates unequivocally oppose the broad punitive measures.

The CCLA (Canada Civil Liberties Assoc.) described the bill as containing “overbroad violations of expressive freedom”, privacy and liberty. It warned that vesting a new commission with sweeping powers to investigate, regulate content and impose penalties with virtually no independent review makes the commission a “judge, jury, and executioner”.

In particular, CCLA pointed out that the Bill grants regulators search powers over platforms (including remote “virtual” searches of data) without traditional warrant safeguards which it says poses “significant threats to privacy”. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association similarly urged Parliament to remove the criminal and Human Rights Act components. It welcomed the sections on child exploitation but said the hate speech amendments were “deeply alarming” and urged their removal. It also expressed concern that expanding the Human Rights Code to cover “online hate” complaints would overwhelm the Human Rights Commission.

Legal scholars and observers have been wary. University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist noted that the bill’s definitions of harm (e.g. “incites violence” or “foments hatred”) remain very broad so there is real risk of overreach. He also highlighted the extraordinary power of the Digital Safety Commission, for example its authority to levy fines up to 6% of global revenue calling it a “big red flag” that demands clear oversight mechanisms.

He expects the Human Rights Act amendments would trigger a flood of complaints. In summary, Geist commented that the government’s decision to tie together platform regulation with harsh criminal provisions was an “overreach and mistake” and that if the bill were to succeed, “it does need to be split” into parts.

Journalists and policy analysts have largely echoed these concerns. The Democracy Fund, an advocacy group, warned that C-63 “is not about protecting you… it’s about censorship and social control,” urging that only well focused child protection measures should pass and flagging the risk of an “army of bureaucrats and citizen informers” policing speech.

NDP and Bloc MPs also flagged the controversy: they proposed splitting the bill so that the child safety and platform duty provisions could pass separately from the hate speech and CRPA sections. In short, many observers (even those sympathetic to curbing online harms) see C-63’s Criminal Code and Human Rights amendments as misplaced and too constraining on free expression.

𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 “𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥” 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬
A vocal minority of critics frame Bill C-63 in very stark terms, arguing it effectively creates a “thought police” regime. These commentators stress the preventive elements of the law.

For example, Canadian columnist Marc Edge asked whether the bill would send him to jail for something he “might be thinking of saying”, comparing the new peace-bond powers to the “thoughtcrime” laws of Orwell’s 1984. Businessman Steve Forbes (via https://t.co/vveYWen7vX) likened it directly to Orwellian “thought policing,” noting that under the hate-speech peace bond a person could be subject to house arrest and monitoring on mere suspicion.

The Conservative-leaning Fraser Institute likewise published a commentary warning the Act amounts to Big Brother control of speech, even claiming “the government can punish citizens when it suspects it won’t like what they might say”. The Independent Institute (a U.S. think-tank) went further, dubbing C-63 a “kangaroo court” system.

Its author highlights the Commission’s reach: anonymous complaints can trigger investigations, and inspectors can “enter a residence without a warrant” to seize data. The article notes that under C-63, even “yet-to-be-charged” individuals can face house arrest with electric tagging if a judge finds reasonable grounds to fear they might commit hate propaganda. Such pieces warn that the Act’s balance of probabilities standard for these orders (lower than criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt”) and its strict takedown deadlines (24 hours) will encourage pervasive surveillance and pre-emptive suppression of speech.

One wry critique circulated on social media notes that “Cuba, North Korea and other tyrannies are applauding” these pre-crime speech provisions. It should be noted these alarmist views are disputed. Proponents point out that C-63 still requires judicial authorization for searches (albeit electronically mediated), and any criminal punishments would follow normal trial procedures. The bill explicitly states platforms need not implement “unreasonable or disproportionately limiting” measures on users. Nevertheless, the intensity of such comparisons (Orwell’s 1984, “digital totalitarianism,” etc.) highlights how many see the legislation as a profound expansion of government control over online speech.

𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤
By late 2024, Bill C-63 had not passed into law amid mounting controversy. In December 2024 the government announced it would split the bill into two: one focused on online platform duties (essentially Parts 1 and 4 of C-63), and a separate bill containing the new Criminal Code and Human Rights amendments. Amnesty International Canada and other groups welcomed this, saying it allows Parliament to address online harms while separately debating the freedom-of-expression issues.

In practice, no bill progressed beyond second reading: Parliament was prorogued in January 2025 and C-63 died on the order paper. Justice Minister Sean Fraser later indicated any reintroduction would require substantial changes. Looking ahead, the fate of such regulation is uncertain. The Conservatives and opposition parties suggested they will propose their own online-safety measures.

For example, Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner introduced a private member’s bill (C-412) focusing on minors’ data and online harassment of children. If some form of Online Harms Act is enacted in future, analysts project it would significantly increase content moderation by platforms.

The 24 hour takedown requirement alone could lead to more “notice and takedown” removals as companies default to safety. On the other hand, since the bill as drafted was relatively narrow in scope (focusing on children and extreme content), its direct impact on everyday speech might be limited to those areas.

In any case, the vigorous debate suggests that regulators will need to clarify the law’s definitions and safeguards. As GNI and others advise, the Act would join a global trend (e.g. the UK’s Online Safety Act) and will be closely watched: if passed, it could set a precedent for balancing online safety and free expression in Canada.

Sources: Safiyya Ahmad · BC Civil Liberties Association · September 30, 2024 | Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) · February 28, 2024 | Anaïs Bussières McNicoll · Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) · December 17, 2024 | Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) · December 5, 2024 | The Democracy Fund · October 10, 2024 | The Democracy Fund · December 6, 2024 | Dwight Newman · Fraser Institute · March 1, 2024 | Jake Fuss, Alex Whalen · Fraser Institute · July 22, 2024 | Sabreena Delhon, Béatrice Wayne, Alex MacIsaac · Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP) · April 16, 2024 | Michael Geist · https://t.co/joANOPtDO5 · March 13, 2024 | Michael Geist · https://t.co/joANOPtDO5 · December 5, 2024 | Michael Geist · https://t.co/joANOPtDO5 · February 26, 2024 | Francis Crescia · Independent Institute · May 7, 2024 | Ryan Black, Morgan McDonald, Gavyn Backus · DLA Piper · March 4, 2024 | David Baxter · Global News · February 26, 2024 | Kyle Duggan, Anja Karadeglija · Global News (Canadian Press) · December 4, 2024 | Government of Canada · Canadian Heritage · February 26, 2024 | Government of Canada · Department of Justice · May 30, 2024 | Parliament of Canada (bill text) · February 26, 2024 | Government of Canada · Canadian Heritage (online heritage portal) · n.d. | Al Jazeera · February 27, 2024 | Blayne Haggart · CIGI · May 31, 2024 | Mandy Lau · https://t.co/ruC3TycEoe · April 28, 2025 | Tim Cushing · Techdirt · March 21, 2024 | Amnesty International Canada · December 4, 2024 | Amnesty International Canada · May 7, 2024 | OpenMedia · May 7, 2024 | Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) · December 4, 2024 | Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) · February 27, 2024

𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑟: 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠, 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑠. 𝐼𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑜𝑘𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡, 𝑠𝑘𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑦. 𝑊ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑤𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠, 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑏𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑎 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑏𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑠 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡. 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑦 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦, 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠.

411

Laura Love

@Panopticonomy

12 months ago

A guy who tried to muzzle every single Canadian via the poorly conceived, written and totally failed #billc63 is teaching a course at @UofTLaw on Constitutional Law! LOL 😜

Arif Virani @viraniarif

about 1 year ago

Pleased to announce that this January I will take on the role of Distinguished Visiting Professor to teach a 1-week intensive course at my alma mater, the U of T Faculty of Law, on Constitutional Law and the role of the Minister of Justice & Attorney General of Canada! @UofTLaw

viraniarif's tweet photo. Pleased to announce that this January I will take on the role of Distinguished Visiting Professor to teach a 1-week intensive course at my alma mater, the U of T Faculty of Law, on Constitutional Law and the role of the Minister of Justice & Attorney General of Canada! @UofTLaw https://t.co/HtWgBHADuN

143

178

Laura Love

@Panopticonomy

about 1 year ago

Andddd here we have @MarkJCarney "strengthening", signing onto even more aligning Canada with unelected EU "leaders" like @vonderleyen and the goofy Fussies in Brussies. Canadians did NOT vote for this. Canadians overwhelmingly rejected the badly authored #BillC63

Mike Benz

@MikeBenzCyber

about 1 year ago

The sheer scale of Germany's assault on freedom of speech online is something that is hard for Americans to even process. Germany is also the key driver of EU policy & has the 3rd largest economy in the world, so its clampdown on domestic politics stops Europe-wide change.

845

15K

641

488

Doug Allewell aka Dougie @saanichman001

about 1 year ago

@KEriksenV2 Putting lipstick on a pig. #BillC63 Online Harms Act rebranded.

just an average guy @Notsoaveragetho

about 1 year ago

@govt_corrupt #BillC63 has been there waiting for approval Liberals sell it as "child's protection online" but is written so ambiguosly that the clear intetion is to use it to coherce freedom of speech & send u to prison for posting anything that the goverment deems "hateful". Just like in UK

Barbara Kay

@BarbaraRKay

about 1 year ago

A harrowing case of DEI-inspired mobbing and cancellation, exactly the kind of ANTI-free speech persecution we will see more of - lots more - when #BillC63 is resuscitated by the new gov and given final passage. https://t.co/TRliRdGfwe

517

Orlokk Noxx

@realOrlokkNoxx

about 1 year ago

If Carney bans X, I’ll leave the country If Carney restricts free speech I’ll leave the country Anyone else feeling this way? Censorship doesn’t belong in Canada @supernoworries @NicoleFromBC @Christy4Change #NoCensorshipInCanada #FuckBillC63 #BillC63

Chris Wick

@ChrisWickNews

about 1 year ago

Say it out loud: “A government that controls what you can say online controls what you can think.” This isn’t conspiracy — it’s Canadian policy now. #cdnpoli #BillC63 #FreeSpeech

377

TheVoiceofReason 🍁 @ManLogic4ya

about 1 year ago

Until the new revamped #BillC63 gets reintroduced by the same mp from the previous cabinet, or another crony. Id say we have a few years, unless it gets wiped again by election....

Western Standard @WesternStandard

about 1 year ago

Carney says Canada "believes in and practices free speech."

891

579

323K

Merlin M @Karmelmart

about 1 year ago

Poor Canadians, bye bye #FreeSpeech Welcome Censorship, digital ID and other scary things. For sure #BillC63 revival would be a priority for Carney #CanadaElection #CanadaElection2025

Reclaim The Net

@ReclaimTheNetHQ

over 1 year ago

Canada: Mark Carney Vows Internet Speech Crackdown if Elected, Citing Online “Pollution” of Misogyny, Conspiracies https://t.co/wkwqcmgDIJ

209

Alex Mason @CoinXndr

over 1 year ago

This is why conspiracy theories, lies, & social media manipulation tactics are used by #PierrePoilievreIsMAGA. True to form he targets under educated citizens. It's ethically bankrupt. #BillC63 needs to be revisited & laws around #Media for politicians revisited. #NeverPoilievre

CoinXndr's tweet photo. This is why conspiracy theories, lies, & social media manipulation tactics are used by #PierrePoilievreIsMAGA. True to form he targets under educated citizens. It's ethically bankrupt. #BillC63 needs to be revisited & laws around #Media for politicians revisited. #NeverPoilievre https://t.co/KefDAtp4hw

Laura Love

@Panopticonomy

over 1 year ago

Speaking of this new reality. I wonder what new form the multi-headed, censorship monster known as @viraniarif's #BillC63 will take if @MarkJCarney gets elected!? DON'T LET IT HAPPEN CANADA!! Defend your freedom to express yourself. LFG!

@amuse

over 1 year ago

CENSORSHIP: The agency that silenced many of us here on 𝕏 is no more. Secretary Rubio has notified Congress that he has eliminated all full-time staff positions and 100+ contractors at the State Department's CFIM formerly known as the Global Engagement Center - the State Department's Censorship Agency.

amuse's tweet photo. CENSORSHIP: The agency that silenced many of us here on 𝕏 is no more. Secretary Rubio has notified Congress that he has eliminated all full-time staff positions and 100+ contractors at the State Department's CFIM formerly known as the Global Engagement Center - the State Department's Censorship Agency.

25K

47M

191

The Cause Project @thecauseproject

over 1 year ago

Are you worried about #CommunistCanada under @MarkJCarney He will impose #BillC63 and #DigitalID which tracks how and where we spend every penny. Carney doesn’t believe in Pipelines (but Canadians want pipelines). @JonFraserTF https://t.co/opktvCeWJM

thecauseproject's tweet photo. Are you worried about #CommunistCanada under @MarkJCarney He will impose #BillC63 and #DigitalID which tracks how and where we spend every penny. Carney doesn’t believe in Pipelines (but Canadians want pipelines). @JonFraserTF https://t.co/opktvCeWJM https://t.co/RbessDhIsa

OGGY…. of The North 🇨🇦🇬🇧 @OGGY_North

over 1 year ago

During the Debates, I want to hear @PierrePoilievre’s answer whether or not he is in favour of vaccine mandates for measles and other communicable diseases. If the answer is no, that should disqualify him with Canadians voters. His anti-science pandering is dangerous.

491

347

43K

377

Top Tweets for #BILLC63

Last Seen Hashtags on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users