Firstly, I don’t understand why you’re saying it “isn’t even law yet”

Because in common law jurdistictions, such as Canada, how laws are applied, used and their scope is equally as dependent on how the courts interpret and apply them, as is the wording of the laws. Most of the issues around C-51 are due to its ambiguous language. Those gaps are usually filled and defined by the courts.

So until we see how the courts interpret the proposed measures, and how they interpret the definitions, scope, actions....ect held within, its premature to be making definitive statements on the hypothetical application of the law.

It doesn’t matter if those hypotheticals are “extreme” or not.

It does, especially when those extreme hypothetical aren't being taken into consideration along side other more practical/realistic applications, or even more extreme conservative applications.... but rather being used as the base point for potential application.

We could take murder in the criminal code for example:

(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being (i) means to cause his death, or (ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;

You could take the position that based on this definition, abortion is murder in Canada, self defense is murder in Canada, removing someone from life support in murder in Canada, suicide is murder in Canada..... and under the definition they potentially could be, if the courts ever took an extreme and strict definition of the law. But are people out arguing against laws prohibiting murder in Canada because of a potential and far ended interpretation of them? No, rather these laws are applied in a rational and established norm.