A series of bills currently before Parliament raise serious concerns about the future of free speech in Canada, including Bills C-2, C-8, and C-9.

Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, would subject Canadians to a new Authorized Access to Information Act that would empower government officials to conduct warrantless searches and violate privacy. Bill C-8, the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act, would empower federal cabinet ministers to kick individual Canadians off the internet, without notice, warning, due process, or court approval. Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, would see Canada become more like the United Kingdom, where thousands of citizens are criminally charged over their social media commentary.

As dangerous as these three bills are, none compare to the Online Harms Act, formerly Bill C-63. The Online Harms Act died with the April 2025 election, but the government continues to efforts to bring it back.

When introducing the Online Harms Act in February 2024, the government said it’s necessary for protecting children from online harms. And who could possibly disagree with this goal?

However, before Canadians allow themselves to be stampeded into accepting severe restrictions on their privacy and on their freedom of expression, it is important to understand that the Criminal Code already prohibits harming children online.

For example, showing pornography to a child (online or offline) is a crime. Asking a child to take a naked photo of himself or herself (online or offline) is a crime, as is threatening to release such photo after its creation. Section 423 of the Criminal Code prohibits intimidating children and adults, both online and offline, while section 264.1 prohibits uttering threats. Producing, possessing and distributing child pornography are already crimes. Inciting, inviting or counselling a child (online or offline) to engage in sexual touching is prohibited by section 152 of the Criminal Code. Section 153 prohibits sexual exploitation, while Section 162.1 prohibits the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

Additionally, the Criminal Code prohibits corrupting children (Section 172), luring children (Section 172.1), indecent exposure (Section 173), obtaining sexual services from a minor (section 286.1), extortion (Section 346), harassing communications (Section 372), and criminal harassment (Section 264) which includes bullying.

All of these Criminal Code sections apply to both online and offline behaviour.

Perhaps we need better, stronger, and more effective law enforcement to protect children. We don’t need more laws.

Further, while the Criminal Code can deter and punish those who harm children online, no law can be an effective substitute for parental care, guidance, and supervision. Parents are the front line of defence for their children. Parents have both the right and the duty to protect their children by implementing safeguards on children’s access to the internet, including social media.

Under the guise of protecting children from online harms, the Online Harms Act would give new powers to the federal cabinet to create censorship regulations for every social media service in Canada, without input from, or approval by, Parliament. The Online Harms Act would create a Digital Safety Commission to enforce compliance with these new censorship regulations. Hundreds of Digital Safety Commission bureaucrats would enforce new restrictions on speech, with the power to impose massive fines on companies who failed to do the federal cabinet’s bidding.

The Online Harms Act would give new powers to judges to restrict the freedom of Canadians not accused (and not convicted) of any crime, based on a neighbour merely fearing that someone will promote genocide, hatred, or anti-Semitism. The Online Harms Act would empower the court to order an innocent Canadian to wear an ankle bracelet, obey a curfew, stay at home, refrain from communicating with designated persons, and surrender her or his legally owned firearms. In other words, a citizen who has not committed any crime can be subjected to court-ordered restrictions on her liberty, just because someone fears that she might commit a speech crime in future. A person’s failure to agree to the court’s restrictions could result in a prison term up to two years.

For the existing Criminal Code offence of advocating for genocide, the Online Harms Act would raise the maximum penalty from five years in jail to life imprisonment, for words alone.

The Online Harms Act would give the Canadian Human Rights Commission new powers to prosecute and punish Canadians over offensive, non-criminal “discriminatory” speech. The act would provide endless opportunities for a new army of deeply offended busybodies to file thousands of complaints—including anonymous complaints—against their ideological opponents or other fellow citizens. Those found guilty by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal would be required to pay as much as $50,000 to the government, plus up to $20,000 to the person designated as the victim of the speech crime. The victim need not demonstrate having suffered any actual loss or damage, apart from feeling offended.

The Online Harms Act uses children as a prop to launch an aggressive assault on freedom of expression in Canada. Everyone agrees with protecting children. This important goal can be achieved by enforcing the existing Criminal Code provisions, and by parents guiding their children’s access to social media and the rest of the internet.