Ezra Levant breaks down what Canada’s Online Harms Act could mean for free speech in Canada

Canada’s proposed Bill C-63, otherwise known as ‘The Online Harms Act’, has garnered a lot of press attention in recent weeks. The bill contains sweeping measures designed to protect Canadians from various negative online behaviours, including hate speech, incitement to violence, content promoting terrorism, and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. It is also meant to specifically shield children from sexual exploitation online. Introduced to Parliament in November of 2023, it currently has the backing of both the federal Liberal and New Democratic parties.

Ezra Levant

However, the Online Harms Act is not without its opponents. The federal Conservatives have come out against it, citing concerns about free speech. Encapsulating this view, Ezra Levant, a well-known media personality and staunch critic of the Trudeau government, sees the bill as an inherent threat to the freedom of expression of all Canadians, dubbing it “the worst ever seen in the free world.”

Some of the components of Bill C-63 are more contentious than others. For instance, few quibble with the aspects designed to protect minors from predatory behaviour on the internet and social media. On the other hand, the bill’s detractors point to several extraordinary and largely unprecedented measures as too repressive for a modern democratic society. Among these are the establishment of a Digital Safety Commission, a body imbued with governmental authority to issue takedown orders, compel the production of evidence, and hold hearings, as well as the implementation of Mandatory Digital Safety Plans, which force online service providers to submit measures for preventing loosely defined “harmful content” and reporting statistics on flagged and removed content to the aforementioned commission.

Levant, who is the founder and CEO of right-wing news outlet Rebel News, as well as the host of one of its flagship talk shows, took to the social media platform X to argue his points about Bill C-63, writing on February 29, 2024 that the bill “describes the legal process and the various things the judge can order (house arrest, ankle bracelet, blood samples, no contact list, no alcohol, etc.). Essentially, it’s a restraining order, but for ‘hate speech’. And the powers it lists are astonishing.”

Seemingly supporting Ezra Levant’s point, some of the penalties outlined in The Online Harms Act specify that victims of hate speech could be compensated with up to $20,000 from offenders, while offenders could be fined up to $50,000 from the government. Additionally, should the bill be passed by Parliament, stand-alone hate crimes would be added to the Criminal Code of Canada, with potential sentences for this offence including life imprisonment.

According to those espousing Levant’s viewpoint, one of the most problematic facets of the bill is its lack of clear definition for terms such as “hate speech” and “harmful content”. Some scholars claim this absence of specificity could open the door to government overreach and abuse of prosecutorial discretion. This ambiguity, they argue, could lead to overly broad interpretations that infringe on the freedoms of individual Canadians. Critics fear that without precise definitions of “hate speech” and “harmful content” – concepts central to Bill C-63’s stated purpose – it could be misused to target and silence legitimate forms of expression should it become law.

Raising even more eyebrows in the legal community, the bill also introduces a provision that could lead to severe preemptive measures based on the fear of potential hate crimes or propaganda. Under this clause, individuals could face severe consequences if someone simply fears that they might engage in hate speech or post harmful content sometime in the future. Essentially, Bill C-63 allows the government to detain individuals who have not yet committed any crimes. Moreover, the bill permits anyone, including non-citizens, to lodge complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, a body composed of government-appointed members rather than judges. This broad scope for public complaints raises even more concerns about misuse.

In a conversation with noted Canadian academic and media commentator Jordan Peterson, Ezra Levant broke down some of the bill’s possible real-world implications. ”If someone watches one of your YouTube videos or reads one of your tweets about, say, transgender athletes changing in the girls’ change room, and as a result is ‘likely’ to have hard feelings towards trans people, that’s hate speech,” he explained. “And they don’t have to be the ‘victim’. There doesn’t have to be a victim at all – remember it’s a future crime. They only have to show that your tweet or video is ‘likely to’ cause one person to have hard feelings about another person.”

Levant’s concerns are echoed by many who fear that the bill could stifle legitimate discourse in a country long-accustomed to relatively unfettered speech, online and otherwise. Indeed, the bill’s broad definitions and preemptive measures might serve to create a chilling effect, potentially criminalizing speech that is controversial but not necessarily harmful. This environment of uncertainty and fear could silence dissenting voices and curtail open debate on important issues.

In a telling response, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association issued a press release calling for “substantial amendments” to The Online Harms Act, stating that in their initial assessment of the document, they determined it “includes overbroad violations of expressive freedom, privacy, protest rights, and liberty.”

Often highly critical of the Canadian media landscape when it comes how it deals with the Trudeau government’s actions, Ezra Levant said in another posting on X, “I predict that, in the days ahead, the story (of Bill C-63) will be better covered by American and British news outlets than by Canadian news outlets.” He further asserted, “Several major Canadian media outlets had the story but refused to run it.”

This content is a joint venture between our publication and our partner. We do not endorse any product or service in the article.