Russ Harvey Consulting - Computer and Internet Services

Dangerous Canadian Legislation

Poorly executed laws that restrict freedoms

Canadian Legislation Listing | Dangerous Legislation
Erosion of Freedom of Speech | Creeping Authoritarianism
Current Legislation | Prior Legislation

All trademarks, company names or logos are the property of their respective owners.

Canadian flag waving in front of the Parliament Building on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.
It should alarm every Canadian that the primary use the Liberals have made of their new, backroom, bribe-bought majority has been to ram through legislation that censors the internet, spies on citizens, and lays the groundwork for a virtual surveillance state.
— Aaron Gunn, MP for North Island-Powell River
Privacy is about government not being able to see what citizens are doing.
— Journalism Professor Sean Holman
Tyrants silence their opposition. Be very wary of governments "moderating content", no matter what noble justifications they have for doing so.
— Naomi Brockwell

 

Canadian Legislation

Governments are increasingly turning to legislating their way out of compliance with the Charter instead of addressing the underlying causes of serious public policy problems. Every person in Canada should be alarmed by this cavalier approach toward their constitutional rights.
— CCLA Executive Director, Howard Sapers

Current Legislation

Legislation being debated or passed by the current 45th Parliament:

Older Legislation

Significant legislation from previous sessions:

Return to top

Dangerous Legislation Restricts Online Content

Eroding Freedom of Speech | Rise of Antisemitism | The Reconciliation Industry | Creeping Authoritarianism

The Liberal government has passed or is working on a series of very dangerous laws that restrict freedom of speech on the Internet and elsewhere. When combined with the failure of the mainstream news media to hold the government to account, democracy is not being served. Much legislation is dangerous to our privacy, civil rights and freedom of speech because it permits widespread surveillance of citizens just like in China and Russia.

Poilievre says Carney is pushing Canada toward a surveillance state, citing:
  • C-11 (algorithm control)
  • C-22 (state-linked data access)
  • C-9 (labelling religious text as "hate")
  • C-8 (removing internet access)
— Juno News

This legislation is even more dangerous when viewed from the Liberal government's illegal and undemocratic actions during their suppression of the Freedom Convoy protests about COVID restrictions followed by their ignoring the hate-filled and violent antisemitic protests on our streets in the last few years.

In Canada, public debate about the merits of Christianity typically takes place without accusations of "Christophobia." It should be no different for Islam, or for other religions, or for various belief systems in general. Opponents of socialism are quite capable of criticizing this ideology without reference to "plutophobia," the irrational fear of wealth and money. Accusing ones opponents of being "phobic" is an ad hominem attack, suggesting that the opponent suffers from a mental illness. In other words, those deemed "homophobic" or "Islamophobic" or "transphobic" are mentally ill, and therefore not worth listening to.

 

The free society is harmed when Canada's federal, provincial, and municipal governments start using their coercive power to take sides in public debates. Canadians should be free to debate the merits (or lack of merit) of every religion and every belief system, without their police forces devoting limited resources to monitoring what citizens are saying on Facebook, Instagram, and X. Let's not become more like the United Kingdom, where thousands of citizens have been warned by police, or criminally charged, over their social media comments.
— John Carpay

Dangerous Liberal Conflicts of Interest

Many of the Liberal Cabinet Ministers have serious conflicts of interest and/or are clearly ignorant about the subjects of their portfolios and related legislation. It turns out that Canada's conflict of interest rules for MPs are a cruel joke, providing no guardrails — absolutely toothless and meaningless.

Carney lied about his conflicts of interest during the election, stating that he held nothing but cash and personal real estate, only to reveal in July that he has investments in over 560 companies including at least 103 serious conflicts of interest. While calling for Canadians to invest in Canada, he owned shares in only 3 Canadian companies out of 567.

A screen capture of a Miro Board showing Carney's investments.
Carney's investment portfolio charted. Credit: Moose on the Loose.

Many of Canada's “new” ventures are tied to Brookfield, the company that Carney chaired right up to his selection as the new Liberal leader to replace Trudeau. Carney's “blind trust” was further compromised because Brookfield's executives have direct access to the Prime Minister's Office. Everywhere that Carney travels, Brookfield is actively working to develop new contracts. It looks like Carney's MOUs are mostly about Brookfield. Brookfield purchased stock in a mine and in condos right before Carney deemed they should be bailed out by the taxpayer. Criminal abuse of power.

 

Return to top

The Erosion of Rights & Freedom of Speech

Canadian citizens have seen the erosion of many rights and the masking of government's machinery to obtain the truth via freedom of information requests. The government has given us little reason to expect that the rights of Canadian citizens will be respected while enforcing these dangerous pieces of legislation any more than they were respected during their creation.

The ability to hold the government to account and to freely debate issues is critical to a democracy. Canadian mainstream media spends more time criticizing the opposition even though Liberals have been in power since 2015. Holding the government to account should be expected of the mainstream media.

Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are protected under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that protection exists precisely for this: citizens scrutinizing the governments they pay for. It covers reporting, commentary, and satire alike. Satire is centuries older than this country, and it has survived because it does a job nothing else does. It lets the governed laugh at the governing, and power has never answered it with anything but force or better behaviour.

 

Democracies do not need their critics to be quiet. They need their governments to answer them.

 

Parliament has an official Opposition whose entire job is to challenge the government every day it sits.
— BC Politics Watch

Things have not improved under Mark Carney's leadership. The same faces are in Cabinet and the government continues to pursue legislation dangerous to our rights, privacy and freedom of speech. Since Carney obtained his questionable majority though bribery and floor-crossings, committees have been shut down and cameras turned off while debate was denied. Governments should be responsive to citizens' concerns rather than legislating blind submission.

Just over a year ago, the Carney government got off to a poor start on privacy with a pair of bills that left me asking, "What is with this government and privacy?" Bill C-2, the border measures bill introduced in June 2025, buried lawful access provisions unrelated to the border, including a warrantless information-demand power astonishing in its breadth that stood in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court of Canada's privacy jurisprudence in decisions such as Spencer. The provisions attracted such a backlash that the government eventually removed them and reintroduced the border measures on its own. Days later, it introduced Bill C-4, an "affordability measures" bill that buried an exemption shielding federal political parties from provincial privacy law and made it retroactive to the year 2000. In other words, the instinct from the outset was to bury privacy-invasive measures in unrelated legislation and hope that few Canadians would notice.

 

The treatment of the Privacy Commissioner is particularly revealing, since a fundamental right to privacy means little without an independent regulator with the power and the standing to defend it. During the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-22, the committee invited the RCMP and CSIS, the agencies that lobbied for the new powers to guide MPs through the amendments, yet Liberal MPs have blocked efforts to ask Commissioner Philippe Dufresne to return to explain his recommended changes. The same disregard is evident in Bill C-34, where the government included a mandatory requirement to consult the Privacy Commissioner on the guidelines and regulations that will define age verification, only for officials to describe a plan that will bring the ban into force without the mandatory consultations.

 

The government's underlying attitude toward privacy may be the most telling of all. Bill C-25 moved to shut down meaningful study, restricting the committee's examination to three days in what appears to be a calculated bet that few Canadians would pay attention to a set of embarrassingly weak privacy rules. And on Bill C-22, when Conservative MP Jacob Mantle pressed the privacy implications of the bill during clause-by-clause, Liberal MP Sima Acan this week responded that the bill "has nothing to do with the privacy of people and their information," a statement that, after months of hearings on mandatory metadata retention, weakened encryption, and warrantless access to personal information, is difficult to describe as anything other than ill-informed and suggests a government that does not conceive of privacy the way most Canadians do.
— Michael Geist June 2026

The privacy of one's home is a very basic freedom. Recent legislation and judicial decisions in Canada (particularly in British Columbia) have seen these rights weakened both in respect to fee-simple ownership and protection against unwarranted police intrusion onto their property.

On March 20, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R v Singer, ruling 5-4that homeowners extend an "implied license" to police to enter onto their property without warrants for investigative purposes.

 

The "implied license" is an exception to the normal rule against trespass that assumes property owners extend permission to people to approach their doors to knock and communicate with the occupier, unless they've shown a clear intention otherwise. The implied license is based on social norms and customs that assume we waive our right to treat people as trespassers when they come onto our property for purposes such as delivering fliers or just dropping by for coffee.

 

The main question for the Supreme Court was whether the RCMP could rely on the implied license to enter onto a property for the purposes of furthering an investigation, rather than obtaining a warrant, without violating the right protected by section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be secure against unreasonable searches.

 

"There is something illogical in suggesting a homeowner would license police to come onto their properties for the purposes of investigating whether or not they have committed a crime," he said. "The result is that homeowners who wish to avoid police entering their property without warrants must now put up 'No Trespassing' signs."
— Canadian Constitution Foundation

The Rise of Antisemitism

"Antisemitism has been permitted to fester for too long within unions, school boards, professional associations, university campuses, and workplaces. Leaders must take a hard look within, ensure that antisemitism is well understood within their organizations, and implement real consequences for those that violate those norms.
— Michael Geist

In the meantime, governments at all levels have ignored rising antisemitism and increased attacks on both Jewish temples. Instead, they passed “Islamophobia” legislation denying the ability to criticize Islam. When the government formed an antisemitism panel, two of the members appointed were Muslim extremists calling for the death of Jews.

For more than two and a half years, antisemitism in Canada has moved from the margins to a daily feature of Jewish life. Synagogues have been shot at, including several Toronto-area congregations this spring…. Jewish schools now operate with police at the doors, community events screen attendees and withhold their locations from public disclosure, protesters target Jewish residential areas, and many Canadian Jews have quietly taken the mezuzahs off their doorposts or tucked a Star of David out of sight. Despite antisemitism rates that have attracted increasing global attention, leadership prepared to directly confront Canada's antisemitism problem has too often been lacking.
— Michael Geist

Muslims are never criticized by our governments for hate speech. Unlike their attacks on the relatively-peaceful Freedom Convoy, the government has done little to address those blocking our streets while “praying” or calling for genocide and terrorism. Police are more likely to arrest Jews walking in their own neighbourhood “to protect the peace.”

Victoria, Canada — Muslim scholar and preacher Sheikh Younus Kathrada gave an extremist sermon to children at the Muslim Youth of Victoria praising kids who want to kill for Islam. He also led a prayer asking for Allah to curse and destroy Jews.
— Andy Ngo
Pro-Hamas radicals hijacked what should have been a solemn day of mourning — the two-year anniversary of the Hamas terror attacks in Israel. Across Canada, demonstrations were held to mark the date. I was covering the protests in Montreal, where things took a disturbing turn. Concordia University cancelled classes, locked its doors, and private security stood guard as hundreds of protesters flooded the campus. It's still unclear how many were actually students.

 

Things rapidly devolved into chaos. Masked agitators chanted genocidal slogans, set off flares and smoke bombs, all while police stood by and watched. What's most alarming is how authorities handled these protests. Crimes were committed in plain sight, yet police stood down, turning their scrutiny on journalists like us instead.

 

When pro-Hamas mobs block streets, fire flares, and shout for "intifada," it's tolerated. But when independent reporters show up to film it, we're the ones threatened with arrest.
— Rebel News

Christians Also Under Attack

Christians also are under attack by our governments. Parks Canada and cities across Canada have turned down or revoked permits to perform for Sean Feucht, a Christian ministry from the U.S. based upon unnamed “safety concerns.” Montreal fined a church $2500 and sent police to the church that hosted his Christian worship service. During that service smoke bombs were tossed onto the platform, a dangerous act ignored by the police present in the building.

"Safety" and "security" are the most common excuses to shut down speech, and publicly funded venues have no right to prioritize or discriminate against events based on their political views.
— OneBC
As a civil liberties lawyer I am deeply concerned with what has been happening with the @seanfeucht concerts across Canada. While park officials have discretion to revoke permits for legitimate safety issues, it is unclear that the decisions here are guided by safety or if that is a pretext to cancel a concert on the basis of its content.

 

Even more troubling is the fine for the Montreal church Église MR. The church hosted a worship service and was fined for failing to obtain a permit, which ought not to have been required. From my outside observations, the performance in the church was a free worship service open to all, using typical sound equipment used in any church service.

 

Canada is a democracy with protections for freedom of expression and religion. If you do not like a particular performance you are free not to attend. But it is deeply disturbing to watch politicians argue to shut down worship services at churches because they disagree with a particular message.
— Christine Van Geyn
At Rebel News, we did what the Montreal police should have done. We launched a reward campaign to identify and track down the thug who thought he could get away with attacking Sean Feucht's Christian worship service with incendiary smoke bombs.

 

Not only did we find him — but what we uncovered may expose one of the most alarming national security breaches in recent Canadian history.

 

The alleged smoke bomber is Gabriel Lepage, an employee of the Longue-Pointe military base in Montreal, working directly under the Department of National Defence.
— Rebel News

Nothing is said about missing permits for radical Islamics on our streets calling for the destruction of Israel and the West while harassing others, burning flags and firing smoke bombs. An Islamic supremacy conference with the theme “defeat of all non-Muslim world powers” was booked in Mississaugua, Ontario. Other such events supporting radical Islam are still happening.

The Reconciliation Industry

Perhaps one of the most telling examples is the war against Christians is when Trudeau told Canadians (and the world) that churches had committed genocide in the Residential Schools based simply upon the long ago memories of children. So far this has resulted in 132 Christian churches burned or vandalized:

Map
Credit Juno News

Frances Widdowson's video, Kamloops Mass Grave Deception, shows how ground penetrating radar used to claim there is 215 graves is misleading — claims the First Nations refuse to examine even after receiving millions of taxpayer dollars for that very purpose. Making a Killing: Reconciliation, Genocide, and Plunder in Canada — “exposing the massive scandal behind the taking of wealth, land, and power from the Canadian public to benefit indigenous tribes.”

The BC NDP have repeatedly called it's citizens “uninvited guests” both inside the Legislature and elsewhere. Citizens have been banned from BC parks giving First Nations exclusive access. Now the government is removing “Provincial” from the park names “because it isn't inclusive” — unnecessary spending for virtue signalling at a time when BC is experiencing repeated credit downgrades.

UNDRIP in British Columbia

The NDP took a United Nations declaration and made it law in BC. Courts have since required all legislation to be viewed under the lens of this undemocratic law, essentially giving less than 5 percent of BC's population an effective veto on everything. First Nations in Alaska and Washington state have since used this legislation to demand that they be consulted in the approval of mines, forestry and other business within British Columbia.

Fee-Simple Ownership Threatened

Premier Eby's back room deals with First Nations in British Columbia starting with the Queen Charlotte Islands (renamed Haida Gwaii on June 3, 2010). Details are hidden from the public resulting in uncertainty around fee simple ownership of property in British Columbia. The protection of property rights were again undermined by a court decision to award the Cowichan Band on Vancouver Island a section of the river front in Richmond based upon their historical use as a fishing camp during the summer. At least two other First Nations had the same claim. Finally, Carney signed a secret deal with the Musqueam Nation giving them undisclosed control of BC's largest city and threatening fee-simple property ownership.

The federal government has been engaged in Indigenous land claim negotiations — including those with the Musqueam Nation — affecting Metro Vancouver and surrounding territories, home to over 2 million Canadians. The contents of related settlements and ongoing agreements have not been publicly disclosed, and no parliamentary debate has been held on the scope of these negotiations or their implications for private property rights. A 2025 B.C. Supreme Court ruling on Cowichan Tribes' title in Richmond, opposed by Musqueam, highlighted overlapping claims where federal involvement remained opaque. Canadians with homes, businesses, and generational equity in the affected area have received no transparency on what is being negotiated in their backyard.
— Carney Watch
And right now, February 20, 2026, the federal government quietly signed three agreements with Musqueam that recognize Aboriginal title over huge chunks of Burnaby, Vancouver, Richmond, New West the land my house sits on and they're still keeping the full, unredacted text SECRET.

 

No maps. No clauses. No details on what "shared decision-making" actually means for development permits, mortgages, or my goddamn property rights. Just a fluffy press release buried like it was nothing.

 

This was deliberate sabotage of two million property owners. They hid the details so there wouldn't be instant chaos because if regular people actually saw what they signed, they would be frothing at the mouth, marching down Kingsway with pitchforks. They knew it. That's why they did the Friday afternoon dump and ghosted every journalist asking for the documents. MSM has yet to cover the story
— Marc Nixon
In what the National Post has accurately described as an "intolerable veil of secrecy," the federal government has signed multiple agreements with the Musqueam covering a vast area of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, home to approximately 3.1 million Canadians. The agreements were negotiated in secret without any public input. This lack of transparency negates democracy and accountability. Laws based on race or ancestry are the path to conflict and division, not reconciliation. Reconciliation can only succeed when all Canadians are equal before the law, regardless of ancestry or ethnicity.
— Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

During a visit to British Columbia Carney claimed to have spoken with First Nations about the pipeline to the West coast. In fact, he'd met with a non-profit organization funded in part by U.S. environmental groups with the sole purpose of impeding development in British Columbia.

Return to top

Creeping Authoritarianism

The rights of citizens are threatened by a new authoritarianism that would be comfortable in China or Russia. A Canada-based journalist, spoke about “creeping authoritarianism” in a disturbing indictment of the Liberal government's attacks on freedom of speech:

I'd like all of you to think of me as a time traveler from the not too distant future coming back to the present to offer you a glimpse of what could lie ahead for America:
  • I live in a time in which in the name of fairness you can't share the stories you write for my news publication on social media.
  • I live in a time in which in the name of the common good you can be kicked out of your bank and online payment system simply for expressing the wrong political views.
  • I live in a time in which in the name of social justice you can commit a serious crime but get a more lenient sentence if you happen to be the right skin color.
  • I live in a time in which in the name of safety you can be arrested for exercising your right to peaceful protest if you happen to be protesting the wrong thing.
Of course I'm not a real time traveler. I just live in Canada. Americans and perhaps those in this chamber surely think Canadians are too nice. We're too polite to embrace this sort of proto authoritarianism. But it's more accurate to say that our niceness made us susceptible to the new authoritarianism undermining the foundations of our liberal democracy.
— Rupa Subramanya, The Free Press
Surveillance infrastructure, once built, rarely contracts. Recent history during the Freedom Convoy shows mission creep from targeted threats to broad domestic control, risking abuse by future governments — especially if already well-developed cross-platform digital identity and digital currency systems become fully adopted.

 

This report warns of a fundamental reordering of state-citizen relations, akin — in kind, though not yet in degree — to those of authoritarian regimes. Canadians face a red alert: stay informed, resist digital ID/central bank digital currency adoption, demand that Members of Parliament defeat or amend these bills, and defend privacy as the shield of a free people. Failure to act risks permanent loss of the private sphere without which true freedom is quickly extinguished.
— Justice Centre for Constitutional Reform

The Freedom Convoy — Government Overreach

A primary example of overreach based upon criticism of government policies is the use of the Emergencies Act during the 2022 Freedom Convoy. Courts later ruled that the Emergencies Act was unjustified yet the Liberal government continues to appeal that decision and to persecute those involved.

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act in 2022, Canadians first realised how vulnerable was their long-standing "reasonable expectation of privacy," enshrined in part in the Charter section 8 right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Canadians' privacy was breached when the Government of Canada ordered financial institutions to freeze the bank accounts of donors to the Freedom Convoy, who had committed no crime and were afforded no opportunity to defend themselves.

 

This compelled disclosure of financial transactions was later ruled illegal by the Federal Court (2024) and the Federal Court of Appeal (2026).

 

The illegal use of the Emergencies Act only exposed an already advanced framework of social monitoring. In addition to the Government of Canada's invasion of Canadians' financial privacy, it was also revealed that the Public Health Agency of Canada had quietly tracked the movements of more than 33 million cellphones for almost a year during Covid, and that the RCMP had conducted unauthorized experiments with facial recognition technology in 2019.
— Justice Centre for Constitutional Reform

“Mischief” Results in Severe Consequences

The Freedom Convoy's challenges to our government's authority resulted in Tamara Lich and Chris Barber being charged with mischief — a charge that seldom saw any jail time for environmental protestors or anyone else in Canada. In this case the Prosecution asked for seven or eight years. Compare this to the disruptive and noisy anti-Israeli protests on streets in cities across Canada which have been ignored since the slaughter of over 1200 Jews in Israel on October 7, 2023.

In the end, the sentences were reduced. Given the current judicial environment where criminals often walk free or face minimal sentences — sometimes even for serious crimes — the fact that the government lashed out against someone that challenged their authority in actions dangerously close to that of a dictatorship.

The federal court decision of Justice Heather Perkins-McVey sentenced [Tamara Lich] to an 18-month conditional sentence (74 days credit for time served, 12 months house arrest, allowed out once per week for five hours) and [Chris Barber] to an 18-month conditional sentence (13 months house arrest), ending a long battle of legal uncertainty and government overreach.

 

It's concerning that so much public time and resources were devoted to pursuing harsh penalties against peaceful protestors while real criminals continue to threaten Canadian communities. For instance, the government spent over $21 million on legal costs related to the Emergencies Act challenge, funds that could have been better utilized in addressing actual threats to public safety.

 

As power continues to centralize in Ottawa, civil society must remain vigilant and hold government accountable. Freedom is preserved not through silence, but through courage, conviction, and moral strength.
— Dr. Leslyn Lewis

Lich and Barber were essentially political prisoners and, unlike criminals including repeat offenders, were not immediately released on minimal bail. The government reportedly spent $12 million in their prosecution because Trudeau's Liberal government didn't like being challenged with their pandemic lockdowns which were later determined to be excessive and ineffective in preventing the spread of COVID.

Donor Debanking: A Disturbing Precedent

Donating even a few dollars to the Freedom Convoy resulted in you being de-banked, setting a very disturbing precedent. Combined with any requirement for age verification (currently justified by “protecting the children”) and a central bank digital currency, this could result in the sorts of “social scores” used in China to restrict access to your own funds and movements, including the expiration of your savings if they aren't used within a prescribed timeframe. This ensures that you never can save enough to free yourself from government dependency and restrictions.

Social scores in China affect where you live, what you earn and your ability to travel among other things. Choices that the government doesn't approve mean you're treated like a criminal. Similar language has been used by governments in Canada including the use of unelected tribunals to issue fines or remove your ability to work in your profession based upon arbitrary social constructs rather than competency or failure to perform your duties properly.

The government spent millions to try to justify their draconian use of force and the Emergencies Act which subsequently has twice been declared illegal by the courts. This sets a dangerous precedent for any legislated use of either a digital currency or any legislation which provides easier access to such dangerous tools.

Compare this to the unrestricted hate filling our streets weekly with the antisemitic pro-Hamas protests where the police ignored the violent actions by the protestors calling for Intifada in shopping centres and Jewish neighbourhoods. The police in Toronto delivered coffee and donuts to protestors blocking streets, actions far different than the brutal attacks seen against the Freedom Convoy.

When examining the contents of pending legislation — like Bill C-2, C-8, C-9 and Bill C-22— the government overreach is clearly dangerous, especially when viewing how the UK government is jailing people for “mean” social media posts using Islamophobia as the justification. Freedom of expression is at risk everywhere in the West.

It's Worse Under Carney's Leadership

Liberal “soft on crime” polices has criminals repeatedly released dozens or hundreds of times, including those charged with serious crimes. Often witnesses are still providing their statements while the accused are released, usually on very minimal terms.

Unfortunately, this has only gotten worse under Carney's leadership. We continue to see two-tiered policing where violent Islamic demonstrators are tolerated on our streets while peaceful pro-Israeli protests are disbanded. The Liberals brought in “catch-and-release justice” where criminals are quickly released even after committing additional crimes while out on bail.

Carney does not like to be held accountable and quickly moved to hide certain uncomfortable decisions of Parliamentary committees as soon as his government obtained a questionable majority (the first time in Canada's history that a majority was obtained by floor crossings outside of an election).

The last decade has seen far too many Liberal scandals swept under the rug as funds are wasted on foreign aid and on projects beneficial to Liberal insiders. The PrescribeIT scandal saw $300 million spent without results (a repeat of the ArriveCan scandal). Meanwhile, Canadians visit food banks, wait hours in emergency rooms and are offered MAiD instead of treatment.

Carney's Views on Privacy Disturbing

Carney provides a very disturbing view of personal privacy in his book, Values: Building a Better World For All. Notice how he describes Western democracies like Canada:

Western society is morally rotten, and it has been corrupted by capitalism. This requires rigid controls of personal freedoms, industry and corporate funding. This is not a promise to make the lives of ordinary people better but temporarily worse. This will be a world of severely constrained choice, less flying, less meat, more inconvenience and temporarily more poverty. Assets will be stranded, gasoline cars will be unsellable and inefficient properties will be un-rentable.
— Mark Carney [emphasis mine]

Does that sound like the Canada you want to live in? It sounds more like China's dictatorship. Carney, just like Trudeau before him, is flying everywhere — but wants you to endure 15-minute cities with limited mobility, higher prices and fewer freedoms. He wants us to have less meat, yet billed taxpayers for $962,633.24 in in-flight catering and related fees over 79 travel days — “enough to feed a family of 4 for 55 years” according to Poilievre.

Mark Carney's top 5 airplane catering expenses in 1 year.
  1. Greece, UAE, South Africa, and Spain $158,986.43
  2. Rome $93,780.18
  3. London $52,610.23
  4. Brussels $49,043.76
  5. Mexico $33,903.37
All while telling Canadians that they need to make sacrifices.
— @MichelleLA1981

This is exactly what you can expect from Carney's “new government” which retains most of Trudeau's cabinet. Any change from the “lost Liberal decade” is unlikely. Carney has distain for the media, refusing to answer unscripted questions (often caught outright lying). Worse, Carney is following the U.K.'s footsteps into the destruction of free speech:

In recent years, Britain has become a poster child among western democracies for political censorship. The U.K.'s Free Speech Union reports that police make 30 arrests per day, 12,000 annually, for offensive online messages. Laws like the Communications Act 2003 and the Public Order Act 1986 have been wielded to silence jokes and political debate.

 

Police in England and Wales also record "non-crime hate incidents." No crime is required. A mean tweet can result in a police visit and a permanent record accessible by certain employers. The result: logged tweets from journalists, teenage Snapchat spats, and routine political or social commentary.

 

The U.K. is well down the wrong path, and Canadians should be concerned that Prime Minister Carney is following. On Sept. 19, the Carney government tabled Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act. It makes five changes to the Criminal Code — each one troubling for free expression.
— National Post

Freedom of Information Requests Blocked

In Canada, privacy has been used as a shield against accountability. Governments have thwarted FOIA requests.
— Journalism Professor Sean Holman

It has become much more difficult to obtain information from governments about their activities. freedom of information requests (FOI) have been blocked, become subject to fees or simply delayed unreasonably.

The Liberal government has blocked access to critical information about its illegal activities, including for the official opposition and police. Unfortunately, this is not confined to the federal government. Blocking FOI requests is also practiced by provincial and municipal governments either by limiting the number of requests or by setting significant fees for “researching” FOI requests.

The flood of complaints landing on [the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for B.C.] desk is not abuse by high-volume applicants. It is the direct result of an NDP government that treats Freedom of Information like an inconvenience and transparency like a threat. When one citizen has seven active files, it means seven separate instances where information was withheld, delayed, or buried. That is not a problem with the requester. That is a problem with the government.
— John Rustad

Democracy or Dictatorship?

Trudeau refused to release the names of eleven traitors to Canada related to foreign interference while serving as MPs. He also refused the Speaker's order to release details related to conflicts of interest related to SDTC, effectively shutting down the House of Commons and resulting in Trudeau's prorogation of Parliament at a critical time of negotiation with the United States.

House of Commons Speaker Greg Fergus ruled that the Trudeau government defied the authority of Parliament by refusing to hand over documents pertaining to Sustainable Development Technology Canada and its gross misconduct.

 

The ruling comes after an opposition motion demanded the Trudeau government hand over all documents pertaining to SDTC and the misuse of government funds to benefit companies, in which its board directors executives had conflicts of interest.

 

Beyond rare exceptions for the sake of national security, the House of Commons has the absolute power to compel the government to produce any documents pertaining to the House's business.
— True North

We're seeing the same refusal to respond to demands by Parliament to release information by the Carney government, including missing or undocumented funds. They also refused to release a budget in a timely manner after the election, making the budget “a spending report.” When the government demands its citizens be transparent while they are not, you have a dictatorship. We are one of the few countries without an effective Foreign Agent Registry to identify those working in Canada to promote foreign interests. Liberals continue to drag their feet on this issue critical to Canadian sovereignty.

Undisclosed MOU with China

Carney's 2026 undisclosed “Memorandum of Understanding” with China including cooperation with Chinese police is very disturbing given the history of Chinese “police stations” across Canada (reportedly exerting pressure on Canadians of Chinese dissent using threats against family living in China). Chinese interference in Canadian elections has included targeting Conservative candidate Joe Tay by Paul Chianga in the 2025 elections with an invitation to take Tay to a Chinese consulate. By ignoring this blatant foreign influence, Carney has weakened democracy in Canada.

These are policies that were never revealed in Carney's pre-election debates or position statements yet we're seeing significant shifts in foreign relationships and massively increased spending without even the protection of a budget. Carney sold himself as the tough negotiator that could get a deal with Trump by July yet after a year we see no sign of any progress on CUSMA. Too many Canadians are unaware because our mainstream media doesn't cover these events or presents a positive slant in coverage.

Return to top

Current Legislation

 

Bill C-2: Strong Border Act

Bill C-2: An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures

Bill C-2 Isn't Gone

Unfortunately, many of these provisions, including the ability to open letter mail and enlisting electronic services providers in spying were resurrected in other legislation. The Bank of Canada is currently investigating digital currency which would enable significant controls over what you could do with your own money, including removing your access to it just like the debanking that occurred to those providing a donation to the Freedom Convoy.

The government reacted to the petition to stop Bill C-2 with Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, 2026.

In response to pressure from the Canadian Constitution Foundation and other groups, the federal government has stripped the most controversial, privacy-violating provisions from its border security bill, C-2 in creating a new, scaled-back version, Bill C-12. Specifically, these five parts of Bill C-2 do not appear in the new C-12:
  • Provisions that would enlist financial institutions in snooping;
  • New powers for Canada Post to open letter mail without proper safeguards;
  • New powers to allow police to demand subscriber information without warrants;
  • New powers to potentially enlist electronic service providers in spying; and
  • A ban on cash transactions over $10,000.
While the CCF is encouraged to see the Carney government remove these sections from the new border security bill, we maintain the government should commit to formally withdrawing Bill C-2 so they do not resurface at a later time.
— CCF Update

Bill C-2 is supposed to deal with the “northern border” issues that concern the United States government. However, there are dangerous anti-privacy clauses embedded in this legislation. Bill C-2 contains provisions that threaten fundamental rights and freedoms protected under Canadian and international law.

A primary reason for the threats to sovereignty have been related to the fact that Canada hasn't enforced our borders. A massive amount of the precursors for fentanyl are coming into North America via Vancouver's port where less than 1% of the shipping is inspected. Combined with lax policing, Chinese drug cartels have made deals with Canadian gangs and banks. This not only threatens Canadian sovereignty, but also our relationship our largest trading partner. Shifting our trade from the U.S. to Europe and Asia will only bring in a fraction of the trade we've experienced over the last decades — and that's assuming that we can make profitable deals.

Bill C-2, Ottawa's so-called "Strong Borders Act," promises to secure Canada's frontiers with new surveillance powers, sweeping ministerial discretion, and higher penalties. But as veteran Canadian investigators know, the bill misses the point. It is an omnibus solution that expands the state's reach online, while leaving untouched the very legal choke points that have made Canada a permissive financial platform and fentanyl laboratory for cartels, Triads, and state-linked terror networks.

 

Canada wasn't always so overwhelmed by lethal foreign gangs. What happened? Overly permissive immigration rules and porous borders explain part of the story, but the deeper problem lies in the laws that have steadily eroded enforcement power since the early 1990s.

 

Instead of enabling prosecutions against transnational traffickers of humans, narcotics, and weapons, unintended consequences from misguided jurisprudence surrounding Canada's Charter of Rights now ensure these cases almost always collapse, or are simply avoided by the Crown.
— Sam Cooper, The Bureau

Under the Liberals undocumented immigrants have crossed the border illegally into Canada, particularly in Quebec. Criminal checks or other due diligence is no longer done even on immigrants coming in through regular channels. Immigration officials are unable to tell us if those whose permits have expired have left Canada even after acknowledging many failed to fulfill the requirements of the permit such as attending school.

Bill C-2 was supposed to be about protecting our borders. However, the Liberals have admitted that the promised 1000 new border police have never materialized. Given the focus on cash restrictions and unwarranted information collection, you have to wonder if the legislation has anything to do with protecting our borders at all. The Liberals can't be trusted to tell the truth.

Why Bill C-2 Is Dangerous

Bill C-2 is surveillance legislation hidden in a “border” bill. It provides police with massive abilities to intercept, catalogue and examine all of our communication. Without privacy and freedom of speech (sure to be attacked using C-2) there can be no democracy. Mark Carney will get his wish for a country that emulates China.

Bill C-2 would circumvent private encrypted messaging, undermining security for millions of Canadians. If passed, it hands sweeping new powers to police, CSIS, and even "peace officers" could demand information from ISPs, online forums, doctors, and others to piece together a detailed picture of your life and associations, all without a warrant, and even share this sensitive information with U.S. agencies.
— OpenMedia

The government justifies all these dangerous attacks on personal freedom are based upon criminal use of these networks — a misdirection from the actual purpose of the bill. Criminals use many otherwise legal resources:

Criminals have used telephones and mobile phones since they were invented. Drug smugglers use airplanes and boats, radios and satellite phones. Bank robbers have long used cars and motorcycles as getaway vehicles, and horses before then.

 

And while terrorism turns society's very infrastructure against itself, we only harm ourselves by dismantling that infrastructure in response — just as we would if we banned cars because bank robbers used them too.
— Bruce Schneier
Police and CSIS, the Canadian intelligence service, will be able to find out whether you have an online account with any organization or service in Canada. They can demand to know how long you've had it, where you've logged in from, and which other services you've interacted with, with no warrant required.
— EFF
[T]he key takeaway is that Bill C-2 is far from just a border bill. The government and law enforcement are running back the warrantless access playbook by inserting extensive lawful access provisions in an unrelated bill. This approach should be roundly rejected. If there is a case for lawful access, it should be debated on its own merits, in its own bill, and with its own study.
— Michael Geist
The concern is that the new powers in the bill allow police to conduct potentially invasive searches without probable cause and in some cases without a warrant, thereby failing to strike a reasonable balance between state interests and personal privacy.
— Tech Policy
Law enforcement has been notoriously bad at documenting and disclosing their use of disclosure requests. However, the larger telecom and Internet companies release annual transparency reports that disclose lawful access requests. For example, last year Rogers released information involving 160,036 customers pursuant to a court order or warrant. There were a further 98,550 disclosures involving emergency situations (the data raises questions about what problem Bill C-2 is trying solve).
— Michael Geist
Lawful access had traditionally focused solely on telecom and Internet providers. The problem is that the information demand power in Bill C-2 is not limited to telecom service providers. The bill includes a definition for an "electronic service provider" and a "core provider" but those definitions are not used in the section that establishes the information demand power. Rather, they apply to new requirements for those providers to support law enforcement by granting access to their networks.

 

The information demand power applies literally to anyone who provides services to the public
— Michael Geist
While Bill C-2 does not explicitly state that it is paving the way for new and expanded data-sharing with the United States or other countries, the legislation contains references to the potential for "agreement[s] or arrangement[s]" with a foreign state, and references elsewhere the potential that persons in Canada may become compelled by the laws of a foreign state to disclose information. Other data and surveillance powers in Bill C-2 read like they could have been drafted by U.S. officials.
— Kate Robertson, The Citizen Lab
First, the scope of the information that can be demanded without a warrant extends far beyond yes/no basic information. The information demand power actually includes whether the person provides or has provided services to any subscriber or client, or to any account or identifier.

 

There is no definition or obvious limitation on the services in question or the person who provides them — it could be a telecom provider, physician, hospital, library, educational institution, or financial institution. It is critical to emphasize that this is not limited to communications services.

 

If served with the appropriate form, anyone who provides services is required to confirm whether they have provided services to any subscriber, client, account, or identifier. They must also disclose whether they have any information about the subscriber, client, account or identifier as well as advise where and when they provided the service. On top of that, they must advise when they started providing the service and list the names of any other person that may have provided other services.
— Michael Geist

Bill C-2 limits cash transactions to $10,000:

Offence — cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more

 

77.5 (1) Every person or entity that is engaged in a business, a profession or the solicitation of charitable financial donations from the public commits an offence if the person or entity accepts a cash payment, donation or deposit of $10,000 or more in a single transaction or in a prescribed series of related transactions that total $10,000 or more.
— Bill C-2

While the limits of $10,000 cash sounds significant, this could affect charity events where deposits of large amounts of accumulated cash, each of much lower amounts, were involved. There is also nothing to prevent future governments from lowering the minimum, even to the point where cash essentially becomes illegal in Canada.

Bill C-2 Resources

Return to top

Bill C-8: The Cyber Security Act

Bill C-8: An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts

While no one was looking Bill C8 was approved in the Senate.

 

Welcome to Canada. If the government decides your SPICY meme was a threat, kiss your internet goodbye. Guess who decides if you're allowed to stay on the internet or not? Gary Anandasangaree.
— Marc Nixon

Bill C-8 is a Resurrected Bill C-26

Bill C-8 is essentially a repeat of the flawed Bill C-26 and provides for dangerous overreach into Canadians' privacy without some changes noted in OpenMedia's September 28, 2022 letter about Bill C-26.

Robbie Grant, a privacy and data protection lawyer with McMillan LLP, said Bill C-8 is "almost verbatim" a copy of Bill C-26, with only a few inconsequential changes likely made to improve the efficiency of the legislation. "It's the same bill back from the dead," he said. "The fact that it's almost identical in terms of language means the government is likely hoping this can be quickly passed," Mr. Ahmad said.
— The Globe and Mail

Bill C-8 Contains Glaring Flaws

Bill C8:
  • Terminates Essential Services
  • Undermines privacy
  • Lacks guardrails to prevent abuse
  • Has no justification
  • — Matt Strauss
The Canadian Constitution Foundation is concerned about the civil liberties implications of the Carney government's proposed cyber security bill, Bill C-8, which would allow the minister of industry to secretly order telecommunications service providers like Telus, Bell and Rogers to stop providing services to individual Canadians.

 

According to the bill, the government would be able to shut down phone and internet access if it has "reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation." These orders would remain secret indefinitely, with the minister required only to present an annual report to Parliament on the number of orders made and their opinion on their necessity, reasonableness and utility.

 

The CCF fears this law could be weaponized to silence critics of the government at the whim of the minister, under the guise of vaguely posing some kind of "threat" to Canada's telecom system. CCF Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn said that the government cannot be trusted with such a power unless proper safeguards are in place.

 

"You may think that the idea of the government cutting off political dissidents from the necessities of life sounds far-fetched, but that's exactly what happened during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa," she said. "The federal government ordered banks to freeze hundreds of bank accounts without any judicial authorization, cutting protesters off from their money in the middle of a very cold winter."
— Canadian Constitution Foundation
On Thursday, CCF Counsel Josh Dehaas was in Ottawa with other free speech advocates for the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to talk about the problems with Bill C-8…. View Josh's entire testimony by clicking here — he begins speaking at 12:27:17.
— Jessica Goddard, via email November 1, 2025

Bill C-8 Contains Glaring Flaws

The main problem is that Bill C-8 contains glaring flaws that could permanently break Canadian privacy. Yet it's moving rapidly through Parliament, and could be passed without fixing its massive gaps in accountability and transparency.

 

The bill gives the government power to compel companies to weaken encryption, which compromises the very foundation of securing your online activities from banking to personal communications. It also lets officials issue secret orders that never expire with no oversight, no checks, and no avenue for challenge.

 

It could also require ISPs, banks, and other companies to hand over huge amounts of our user data, without strong safeguards to prevent misuse for non-cybersecurity purposes. Safeguards proposed by civil society groups during C-26 were only partially adopted, and Bill C-8 still carries major gaps in oversight, transparency and privacy protection.

 

Bill C-8 is basically a copy of C-26, which nearly passed before being sidelined by a typo. With so much political support already lined up, the government could push it through quickly without real debate or scrutiny.
— OpenMedia

Carney's Digital Emergencies Act

MP Matt Strauss outlines several of the serious issues with Bill C-8 in the current Parliament. He notes that the Liberals have learned nothing from their previous attempt with failed Bill C-26 including the failure to respect Canadian Constitutional rights.

Marc Nixon called Bill C-8 "Carney's digital Emergencies Act" referencing Trudeau's abuse of the Act to deal with political criticism by the Freedom Convoy.

Northern Perspective's coverage of the Conservatives hammering government officials about the Bill's sweeping powers includes relevant observations. Little protection is written into the Bill against the potential for the Liberals (or any future government) to secretly target individual Canadians without warrant or respect for their Charter rights:

 

Bill C-8 Resources

Return to top

Bill C-9: Combatting Hate Act

Bill C-9: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places)

Bill C-9 Raises Free Speech Concerns

Conservatives called Bill C-9 the Combatting Freedom of Expression Act as the Liberals supported by the Bloc pushed it through without debate. Essentially, this legislation will allow the government to prosecute for language they don't like because the definitions contained in the bill are so vaguely described. “Trust us” is not how legislation should be tabled.

The Canadian Constitution Foundation is deeply concerned by the Carney government's passage of Bill C-9. The Combatting Hate Act represents a significant threat to the freedoms Canadians have historically enjoyed and expect their governments to protect. Parliament passed it despite objections from tens of thousands of alarmed citizens, including over 30,000 who wrote to their members of Parliament using the CCF's letter-writing campaign.

 

Bill C-9 will expand Canada's hate speech laws and strip away longstanding protections for religious expression, pushing more Canadians toward self-censorship precisely when contentious issues demand frank and open debate. That is where this law leads.

 

Most people do not need to be prosecuted to change what they say. The possibility of being hauled in front of a judge for speaking their mind is enough.

 

Ordinary Canadians whose beliefs fall outside the mainstream, and who can least afford a prolonged legal battle, will bear the greatest burden of Bill C-9. They are often the first casualties when governments lose confidence in the principles of individual liberty.

 

The CCF will watch closely how Bill C-9 is interpreted and enforced, and will remain vigilant in defending constitutional rights and freedoms. Despite Parliament's apparent lack of confidence in Canadians' ability to engage with controversial ideas, we are committed to defending their right to do so.
— Christine Van Geyn, CCF Executive Director
When they ban hate speech, they ban speech that they hate.

 

We've got Tamara Lich and Chris Barber having been found guilty of mischief, which is a very minor crime in the criminal code. You have people getting lower penalties for manslaughter in some cases. So it's weaponized because you also saw that when there were some Aboriginal protesters in Winnipeg protesting against residential schools and they vandalized a statue of Queen Victoria at the legislature grounds in broad daylight with police watching and nobody was charged.

 

And so we've got this double standard right now which is very troubling where if you are deemed to be protesting for the correct cause so to speak you're not going to get prosecuted even if you commit a crime. But if it's the incorrect cause like Tamara Lich and Chris Barber protesting against vaccine passports in Ottawa while they're going to prosecute you very very aggressively and seek jail time.

 

So if you see that double standard in place already for prosecutions as we do, what do you think is going to happen on speech? You know, it's not going to be feminist, Aboriginal, LGBTQ, climate change. It's not going to be people making extreme comments on those issues. They're not going to have to worry about getting prosecuted. It'll be conservatives, Christians, libertarians, classical liberals. Those are the people whose speech is going to be targeted.
— John Carpay

“Hate Crimes” Poorly Defined

Allowing the government to choose which crimes are hate crimes based upon anything but a well-defined standard is dangerous. We've Already seen local police hassling Jews and reporters while protecting violent Islamic protesters on the street.

Several cities including Toronto have ceremonially raised the Islamic terrorist flag, supposedly in support of Palestine while allowing the Canadian flag to be burned by groups whose only interest in Canada seems to be to subvert our culture. This is the result of a decade of Trudeau's policy of destroying Canadian identity. Carney state that “Muslim values were Canadian values.”

The UK Experience

In the UK, like Canada, mass immigration has resulted in the failure to assimilate and a push for Islamophobia legislation at the expense of traditional English values. The latest UK scandal saw Henry Nowak, a white man, allowed to die in handcuffs because a Sikh man had accused him of racist slurs:

As Henry Nowak lay bleeding to death in the middle of a residential street in Southampton, his wrists were chained together by handcuffs. Police officers, who he thought were coming to his aid, had fallen for the lies of his attacker, Vickrum Digwa, a 23-year-old Sikh man who claimed the 18-year-old had racially abused him.

 

Digwa had in fact stabbed Mr Nowak, a finance student, five times with an 8in ceremonial knife.

 

As the teenager, unable to breathe as his lungs filled with blood, begged officers for help, they ignored his pleas and placed him under arrest. He died less than an hour later.

 

Digwa, 23, told officers who arrived on the scene that the teenager had shouted racist abuse at him before punching him and knocking his turban off.

 

The trial has prompted serious questions about the impact anti-racism initiatives are having on the mindset of officers on the front line.
— The Telegraph
Canada may be moving toward stricter enforcement of online speech, with social media posts potentially leading to jail time (just like in the UK). The proposed Bill C-9 would remove the need for Attorney General approval for hate speech charges and lower the threshold for what counts as "hatred," making it easier for police to arrest anyone with controversial views without oversight. Recent cases suggest courts are increasingly treating social media as "public," which means offensive — but non-violent — posts could result in criminal charges. Read the full article in The Hub by Josh Dehaas to understand what Bill C-9 could mean for Canadians and online expression.
— Jessica Goddard, via email November 1, 2025

The Liberal Spin

Will Greaves, Victoria MP, stated in his Spring 2026 newsletter that Bill C-9 “Speeds up justice. It removes a requirement for Ministerial approval before hate crime prosecutions can proceed — cutting political delay out of the process.” This is a very dangerous approach because it means that the threshold for prosecution has been lowered without adequately defining hate speech. Hate is very subjective and this will result in hate speech being defined as “speech they hate.” Fortunately, this requirement has since been restored.

Bill C-9 Resources

Return to top

Bill C-12: Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

Bill C-12: An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures

Bill C-12 is Bill C-2 Revised

Bill C-12 was launched to remove some of the threats to personal freedoms contained in Bill C-2, but the Liberals had not yet cancelled that older legislation.

Bill C-12 revises a number of previous legislation, all grouped under protection of Canada's borders:

Already Canada is seeing two-tiered justice where your immigration status or colour of your skin can result in reduced sentences for crimes. While most Canadian citizens are expected to pay for extended medical services like hearing aids, glasses, in-home care and massages or purchase extended medical coverage, recent immigrants are provided this coverage from day one — even those whose immigration claims have been rejected.

Removes Bill C-2 Ban on Cash, Warrantless Seizures

The Carney government introduced a new, less controversial version of its national and border security bill on Wednesday, omitting some contentious search powers. However, the government has not abandoned the original, more debated version of the legislation.

 

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree introduced Bill C-12, similar to the "Strong Borders Act" (C-2), but without sections granting broad law enforcement powers (like opening mail or demanding subscriber information without a warrant) or restricting cash payments/donations over $10,000.

 

This new bill proposes major changes to Canadian border security, data collection, anti-money laundering rules, the asylum system, and the Canadian Coast Guard.

 

Anandasangaree anticipates quick parliamentary support and committee debate for Bill C-12, after removing contentious parts from C-2, which will be debated separately, according to the National Post.
— Rebel News

Bill C-12 Resources

Return to top

Bill C-15: Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

Bill C-15: An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget received royal assent on Thursday, March 26, 2026

Bill C-15 is an extremely dangerous piece of legislation that revises 30 pieces of previous legislation and would allow the Carney government to exempt any person or company from almost any law.

The CCF is concerned that a provision in Bill C-15 would give federal ministers the power to exempt any individual or business from almost any law for up to six years, seriously threatening the rule of law in Canada.

 

Section 12 of Bill C-15, the budget implementation act, states that a minister can exempt any individual, business or other organization from any existing law or regulation other than the Criminal Code, with very few limits.

 

Ministers would be allowed to create these exemptions so long as they assert that the exemptions are in the public interest, would enable certain goals like "testing a new regulatory regime" aimed at "innovation, competitiveness or economic growth," the benefits in their view outweigh the risks, and measures will be taken to protect health, safety and the environment.

 

Unlike most orders and regulations, which must be published in the Canada Gazette within 30 days, the minister would only be required to notify the public about the decision "as soon as feasible."

 

The minister would be allowed to keep secret any information about the order that the minister decides would be "inappropriate" to make public.

 

Some examples of the risks section 12 poses include that it could:
  • Allow the government to enter into contracts with individuals where doing so would otherwise violate the Conflict of Interest Act;
  • Prevent citizens and journalists from seeking documents under the Access to Information Act;
  • Let mining companies avoid their obligations to prevent corruption under the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act; and
  • Allow preferred companies to ignore the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
CCF Counsel Josh Dehaas said that the proposal poses a serious risk to the rule of law because it violates the principle that laws are created in advance by democratically elected representatives in Parliament — not the executive.

 

"Section 12 would allow Prime Minister Carney and his ministers to act like dictators, greenlighting exemptions to laws for their friends and preferred corporations whenever its convenient for them to do so," he said.

 

"Ministers shouldn't be able to pick and choose who needs to follow the law and who gets a free pass," he added.

 

Baron called the proposal "part of a concerning pattern."

 

"Much like we saw with Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act, the government has decided some companies will have to follow the onerous rules set out in laws like the Impact Assessment Act while others will get a free pass," Baron added.
— Canadian Constitution Foundations

Return to top

Bill C-16: Protecting Victims Act

Bill C-16: An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures)

While Bill C-16 is presented as a solution to trial delays, it enables the government to further delay prosecution which could result in significant jail time even for someone that is found innocent. This is even more alarming when considering the sorts of legislation the government is tabling, including pending legislation that clearly could be used to stiffle dissent.

CCLA Strongly Opposes Bill C-16

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association strongly opposes Bill C-16 announced today by the Minister of Justice. The legislation would overturn nearly 40 years of Supreme Court precedent holding that a stay of proceedings is the remedy for unconstitutional trial delay, removing the strongest constraint requiring the justice system to run on time.

 

"The federal government's proposal to gut the s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried in a reasonable time is unconstitutional and punts the hard work of resolving delay," said Shakir Rahim, Director of the Criminal Justice Program. "Governments have been on notice of the Jordan decision for a decade. Yet they have failed to ensure the justice system is properly funded and run to ensure timely trials. The solution to that is not to water down our Charter rights, but for governments to step up and do their job."

 

"Bill C-16 would keep the accused, complainants, and communities in legal limbo for even longer. Under Jordan, the state already has 18 months in provincial court or 30 months in superior court to complete a prosecution. The government is trying to legalize proceedings routinely running over two and a half years in length," added Rahim. "Even a person who will be ultimately acquitted of their charges could spend years of their life behind bars with no end in sight."

 

"This bill is part of a troubling broader picture. Governments are increasingly turning to legislating their way out of compliance with the Charter instead of addressing the underlying causes of serious public policy problems. Every person in Canada should be alarmed by this cavalier approach toward their constitutional rights," added CCLA Executive Director, Howard Sapers.
— Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Return to top

Bill C-22: An Act respecting lawful access

The purpose of this Act is to ensure that electronic service providers can facilitate the exercise of authorities to access information that are conferred on authorized persons.

They told us it was about safety and fighting crime. What they're actually building is more state control with zero meaningful accountability.
— Jay Gen Xer

Bill C-22 has been amended on June 18th:

Bill C-22 calls for the retention of your online activity for six months (down from the original one year and much less than the two years called for by the police) “just in case” it is needed later. Meanwhile Carney has told federal government employees to delete emails after only two weeks to avoid exposure. In the UK thousands have been sent to jail for “mean posts” while they release actual criminals early because of overcrowding. Bill C-22 endangers free speech and personal privacy, especially when combined with the push for age verification.

Bill C-22 amendments explained. Bottom line: the Bill remains a significant expansion of state surveillance powers.

 

March 12 version of Bill C-22: https://parl.ca/Content/Bills/…

 

June 18 version of Bill C-22: https://parl.ca/Content/Bills/…

 

Image showing changes in Bill C-22 from March 12/2026 to Jun3 18, 2026.
— Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Bill C-22 proposes a new lawful access regime which would make it easier for police and intelligence agencies to intercept private communications or personal data as part of their investigations.

 

Lawful access is one of the most intrusive powers afforded to police and intelligence agencies. Creating such a regime for the digital age in Canada has been the subject of fierce debate for decades.
— National Post

Bill C-22 Rushed Through the House

Bill C-22, the lawful access bill, passed the House of Commons [June 18th] with the government invoking a single motion to approve several bills without further debate or individual votes as MPs raced for home for the summer. Bill C-22 will now head to the Senate, where it can expect a rougher ride when study begins in the fall. Rather than use the final days of the House session to answer the privacy, security, and oversight concerns raised by the Privacy Commissioner, academics, technology companies, and civil society groups, the government spent the time ensuring it would not have to, rushing the bill through committee, cutting off debate, and maligning critics with tactics that they once decried when in opposition.

 

The final days of Bill C-22 in the House marked a genuine abrogation of democratic norms. The government moved a motion to shut down the clause-by-clause study in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, preventing the committee from adjourning until the bill had been pushed through. That led to a session that stretched past midnight, as MPs were barred from introducing new amendments and left to vote on amendment after amendment without any discussion, debate, or even public disclosure of the contents of the amendments. By the end of the committee session, no one could have known the contents of the bill that MPs had duly approved and sent back to the House for final approval. As noted, once back in the House, there was no further debate, discussion or even a vote. Just a motion that said the deal was done.
— Michael Geist

Bill C-22 Provides Warrantless Access

Concerns about Bill C-22's sweeping surveillance powers continue to grow.

 

Major privacy-focused companies are threatening to leave Canada if it passes: Signal, DuckDuckGo, Proton, Windscribe, NordVPN, Apple, and Meta are among those warning that C-22 threatens encryption — the very foundation of your online privacy.

 

The Public Safety Minister has promised amendments, but we testified before the House of Commons SECU committee and said it plainly: light amendments won't fix a fundamentally broken bill.

 

Bill C-22 is designed to be maximally flexible for the government and minimally protective for you. It could compel companies to build backdoors into their systems, break encryption, and give Cabinet the power to reinterpret any term in the legislation by regulation. And the government's argument that Canada should align with allies like the US? The US has no mass metadata retention requirement — and CALEA, the law they're pointing to, is both far more limited, and itself a cautionary tale for exactly the kind of security vulnerabilities C-22 would introduce here.

 

If Bill C-22 passes, it could force tech companies to allow police to eavesdrop through your mobile phones, laptops or smart speakers. Every electronic service provider we rely on — not just ISPs, but cloud storage, social media platforms, and potentially hardware manufacturers — could be forced to install backdoors for police, CSIS, and other security agencies. It will also force service providers to store up to a year of every Canadian's online activity, including your browsing history, GPS travel history, and digital footprint.

 

This is a defining moment for your privacy rights. We must halt Bill C-22 before mandated systemic vulnerabilities become law for every service we depend on.
— OpenMedia
Much of the discussion around the new lawful access bill (Bill C-22) has focused on provisions that improved upon Bill C-2, notably the decision to scrap the warrantless information demand power by requiring judicial oversight for access to subscriber information. Yet despite that improvement, there remain serious privacy concerns with the government's latest iteration of lawful access. Buried in the second half of Bill C-22 is a provision granting the government the power to require "core providers" to retain categories of metadata, including transmission data, for up to one year. This is mandatory metadata retention that would require telecom and electronic service providers to store information about the communications of all their users, regardless of whether those users are suspected of anything. It is one of the most privacy invasive tools a government can deploy and the international experience suggests that there are major privacy risks.

 

The entire approach is a fundamental shift in the relationship between Canadians and their communications providers, under which the default is retention of data about everyone rather than preservation of data about specific suspects. European courts have repeatedly struck down similar blanket retention requirements as disproportionate. If the government doesn't fix these rules, Canadian courts might well do the same.
— Michael Geist

Repeating the Same Assumptions About US Compliance

The Liberal government is repeating the same mistaken assumptions that US companies will fold expressed by Trudeau's government prior to the passing of the Online News Act:

The pattern will be familiar for anyone who lived through the Online News Act. Supporters of then-Bill C-18 dismissed warnings from Meta and Google that the bill's mandated payments for news links were unworkable and that they would comply by blocking the links in Canada. Witnesses confidently told Senate committees that the companies were bluffing and that, "when legislated to do so, they will come to the table." But by the end of summer 2023, Meta had stripped news links from Facebook and Instagram, an approach that continues to this day.
— Michael Geist

The Most Dangerous of the Liberal Bills

Of all the dangerous legislation passed by the Liberals, Bill C-22 is the most dangerous. Both domestic and foreign interests are weighing in heavily against its passing.

The government's plans for lawful access have gone off the rails. In recent days, Signal has warned it would pull out of the Canadian market rather than comply with Bill C-22. Windscribe, the Toronto-headquartered VPN provider, has said it would relocate its headquarters out of Canada and NordVPN has warned it would consider following suit. Apple and Meta have both raised public concerns about the bill's effect on encryption and cybersecurity. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Cybersecurity Advisors Network, civil liberties groups, and a long line of legal and security experts have all called for changes. The chairs of the U.S. House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs Committees have written to Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree warning that the bill threatens U.S. national security and the integrity of cross-border data flows. Even the bill's own oversight body, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, has told the SECU committee it does not have the access it needs for effective oversight. If the government thought it could push through the bill largely unnoticed, it has been proven painfully wrong as there are now trade frictions with the U.S., the prospect of leading companies exiting the Canadian market, and weaker cybersecurity protections for ordinary users.
— Michael Geist

Google has now told the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that Bill C-22's requirement for metadata retention and secret ministerial orders violate international law.

Recommendation: Bill C-22 should be amended to clarify that regulations and ministerial orders should not be permitted to dictate changes to products or services, including changes affecting existing functionality or mandating additional functionality.
— Google

Read more from Law Professor Michael Geist to understand the reasons that Bill C-22 cannot be allowed to pass:

Stop Bill C-22. Stop surveillance in Canada.

Bill C-22, introduced in Parliament on March 12, is surveillance legislation.

 

This legislation will give government and law enforcement new powers to order electronic service providers, such as Google, X, Meta, Rogers, Telus, or Bell, to hand over your data.

 

If passed into law, Bill C-22 will allow the government to:
  • order companies to develop capacity for organizing and extracting your data for law enforcement review
  • order companies to install devices that feed your information to government and law enforcement
  • order companies to retain your data for up to one year
  • issue orders in secret.
And, the government is trying to lower the legal threshold for accessing Canadians' information.

 

Ottawa is building a machinery of surveillance, but privacy is the shield of a free people.

 

Stop Bill C-22 so that it does not become law in Canada.
— Justice Centre

Demand the defeat of Bill C-22.
Sign the JCCF petition

 

OpenMedia Bill C-22 Petition

Stop the Surveillance State: Stop Bill C-22.

The government just introduced Bill C-22 — a sweeping surveillance proposal that would force collection of vast quantities of Canadians' private data, on every digital service and device we use. Internet providers, messaging services, and other online services will be obligated to store a year's worth of metadata about who we're talking to and where we're travelling, build surveillance backdoors to access that data into their services, and even hand foreign governments a faster path to that information. This isn't about catching criminals. It's a framework for mass surveillance that leaves every Canadian exposed.
— OpenMedia

Tell your MP: the surveillance state will not take root in Canada.
Say NO to Bill C-22!

Bill C-22 Resources

Return to Top

Bill C-34: An Act to enact the Digital Safety Act and the Digital Safety Commission of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Bill C-34: An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures

"[June 10, 2026] our government reintroduced some of the best parts of Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, in new legislation," said OpenMedia Executive Director Matt Hatfield. "Unfortunately, that step forward is marred by new provisions that threaten to require a face scan or ID requirement for dozens of services Canadians use every day, from gaming, to cloud storage, to your local community message boards. Canadians have shown again and again we don't believe you should have to show your face or upload ID to live an ordinary online life. Our government needs to listen to them."

 

Bill C-34 also includes a Canadian adaption of Australia's controversial social media ban for young people under 16. Early reports from Australia's e-safety commissioner have suggested that 70% of young people are continuing to access social media despite the ban, with no reduction in cyberbullying or image abuse complaints.
— OpenMedia

Bill C-34 lets government agents enter "any place" and take "any thing."

 

Bill C-34: Few Details, But “Trust Us”

Bill C-34 leaves key decisions to Cabinet and an unestablished Digital Safety Commission. The Liberals ask us to trust them, but a government that sides with terrorists in Gaza and dictatorships like China rather than democracies like Israel and the United States is hardly one to be trusted with unlimited powers.

Free societies do not write governments blank cheques of power. Elected representatives should vote on specific powers. They should not delegate major legislative and policy decisions to future regulators. Yet, as privacy expert and law professor [Michael Geist] states, "Bill C-34 punts 50 key decisions to cabinet and a Digital Safety Commission that does not yet exist."

 

Which chatbot services and social media platforms will be affected? What counts as "significant psychological or physical harm"? What are adequate age verification and estimation requirements? Canadians do not have answers. Parliament does not know. And yet Ottawa is asking your Members of Parliament to support the legislation.

 

If Parliament cannot know the scope of the powers it is creating, they cannot assess the impact that Bill C-34 will have on Canadians' civil liberties. That is reason enough to defeat the Bill.
— Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

Law professor Michael Geist has weighed in on the dangers of these elements:

The government's plan to address online safety was introduced…with Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, featuring an under-16 social media ban, pornography age verification, AI chatbot rules, and platform regulation that I argued amount to an everything-all-at-once approach built on a "trust us" bet. My initial guide to the bill highlighted many key issues, but this follow-up examines just how much has been left for later. In many respects, Bill C-34 is best understood as version 1.0 of the Safe Social Media Act with a framework that establishes institutions, sets penalty ceilings, and fixes the age of 16 in the statute. But the bill leaves nearly everything that will determine how the law actually works, including which services are covered, when the ban applies and to whom, what counts as adequate age verification, and what design features platforms must build, to what amounts to a version 2.0 that will be developed later through multiple regulatory processes.

 

The actual count is remarkable: the Digital Safety Act contains 19 distinct decision points reserved for the Governor in Council and a further 31 separate heads of regulation-making power are handed to the new Digital Safety Commission under Section 126(1) alone. That is 50 key issues to be decided after the bill becomes law and that does not include the Commission's guideline powers, procedural rules, case-by-case adequacy determinations and exemption rulings, or the seven additional cabinet decisions under the Digital Safety Commission of Canada Act, starting with the appointments needed to bring the Commission into existence. In other words, much of how the law will function is left to the DSC that does not yet exist, has no members, no chair, no staff, and even no funding model, since the cost-recovery charges that will finance it are also left to future cabinet regulation.
— Michael Geist

The Digital Safety Commission

Canada's Privacy Commissioner is being replaced with the Digital Safety Commission created with Bill C-34.

The Digital Safety Commission of Canada will be a super-regulator of the Internet, with greater influence over the daily lives of Canadians than perhaps any other regulator in the country. The breadth of its influence can't be overstated: it will set the standards that millions of Canadians must satisfy to verify their age in order to use social media services. It will establish what platforms must do about harmful content, including the removal of certain material. It will determine whether the age-gating requirement may be lifted for any given service. It will both regulate the platforms and advocate for their users, dual roles that raise obvious fairness concerns. And it will exercise investigative and adjudicative powers, complete with penalties, hearings, and formal, law-enforcement-style investigations. Yet despite all those powers, it will not be bound by the rules of evidence, will be free to conduct its hearings in secret, and, at least in the beginning, will be capable of operating as a one-person body in which the Commission and its Chair are one and the same individual.
— Michael Geist

US Opposition Threatens CUSMA Talks

Canada is in the midst of trade talks related to renewing the critical CUSMA that has protected Canada from most of the US tariffs. Carney promised during the election to obtain a trade deal by July 2025 but has failed to do so. The loss of CUSMA would be extremely damaging to Canada's future since trade elsewhere is incapable of replacing that one trading partner.

The U.S. submission came in response to the UK's "Growing up in the online world" consultation, its own examination of social media age limits, design restrictions, and age verification. The response should put the Canadian government on alert, given it suggests that the Digital Safety Act could face intense opposition from the U.S. The U.S. position, quoted directly from the submission, includes:
  • Encouraging "healthy options" rather than outright bans — platforms should be incentivized to offer age-appropriate alternatives (e.g., chronological feeds instead of algorithmic ones, chatbot "study modes," grayscale modes, usage-time limits) that parents can optionally enable.
  • Age assurance is especially complex for ages 13-16. Technical methods developed to distinguish minors from adults cannot simply be repurposed for younger thresholds. We assess that parental attestation may be the most practical path forward for this age range.
  • We favor narrowly targeted requirements primarily with respect to pornographic and adult commercial content (e.g., online gambling, tobacco sales, alcohol sales), rather than broad social media bans.
  • Most content should remain accessible by default, including political speech. We believe an open internet is essential to the preservation of free speech and most content should be accessible by default unless the provider knows or has reason to know the user is a child.
  • We have concerns about regulations that impose disproportionate compliance burdens on American companies or that apply to one platform but not similar services.
  • We strongly oppose regulations that require or create conditions that compel platforms to collect government-issued IDs (e.g., driver's licenses, passports), which create serious privacy and security risks, encourage surveillance systems vulnerable to abuse, and chill freedom of speech.
  • Phased implementation with adequate time to develop technological standards is essential: Rushing age assurance frameworks risks creating systems that harm privacy and free speech. There needs to be time to develop, assess, and deploy technological approaches that do not result in unintended consequences.
It is difficult to reconcile the U.S. position with Canada's plans. The Canadian plan will include a social media ban and will likely require the use of age-verification technologies and the submission of government IDs. Moreover, the government is anxious to move quickly, which runs counter to recommendations to take the necessary time to develop technological approaches that avoid unintended consequences. And in case there was any doubt, the U.S. will oppose regulations that place "disproportionate" compliance burdens on U.S. companies.
— Michael Geist

Reject Bill C-34

Urge your Member of Parliament to reject Bill C-34, the so-called Safe Social Media Act.

Bill C-34 will violate the privacy of all Canadians, undermine parental authority, damage freedom of expression and access to information, and grant the federal Cabinet broad authority to regulate the internet in the future. While Bill C-34 has noble aims, such as protecting children from online harms, this legislation threatens the civil liberties of all Canadians.

Sign the JCCF petition

 

Bill C-34 Resources

Law professor Michael Geist has a series of informative posts about Bill C-34, including the following:

Return to top

Bill S-209: Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act

An Act to restrict young persons' online access to sexually explicit material.

This enactment makes it an offence for organizations to make pornographic material available to young persons on the Internet. It also enables a designated enforcement authority to take steps to prevent pornographic material from being made available to young persons on the Internet in Canada.
— Bill S-209, First Reading
While admirable in aim, the execution of these laws poses significant threats to everyone's online privacy. It's not simply a matter of hiding your porn habits from prying eyes. Allowing sites to collect PII with little to no restrictions is a direct threat to the safety of many users, and it is a big win for businesses that deal in this data.

 

Considering that these restrictions are often trivial to bypass with a VPN or proxy, I question whether these laws will truly improve the safety of children. What I can say for certain is that there will be lasting consequences to user privacy if countries and states continue down this path of censorship.
— PCMag

Better But Still Has Technological Challenges

Bill S-209 replaces controversial Bill S-210 which died when the spring 2025 election was called. While there are improvements, challenges remain including the demand for age verification using “protecting the children” as an excuse while ignoring that this legislation will essentially require everyone to verify their age on most websites, locking down the Internet.

Bill S-209 is better than its predecessor as it seeks to exclude search and other incidental distribution, adopts a new standalone definition for pornographic materials, and sets a higher bar for the technology itself. Yet many concerns remain: the bill still envisions court ordered website blocking, including blocking access to lawful content by those entitled to access it. In fact, the bill expressly states that the effect of the blocking may "have the effect of preventing persons in Canada from being able to access material other than pornographic material made available by the organization." Orders that knowingly block lawful content is certain to raise Charter of Rights challenges.

 

Moreover, there are still uncertainties about enforcement as well as about what is included and what isn't (other bills rely on percentages for greater certainty). Bill S-209 still relies on technologies that raise both privacy and accuracy concerns and gets the government into the business of evaluating those technologies as well as determining what constitutes commercial distribution, particularly for free sites. The last bill raced through the House without extensive hearings, though it is apparent that some of the concerns raised in the public sphere were heard. This time, there must be extensive studies in both the House and Senate with a deeper understanding for implications, amendments, and alternatives.
— Michael Geist

Faulty Age Verification Technology

Bill S-209 will require government-approved identification to even visit such sites — opening yourself to identity theft and enabling the government tracking of every webpage you visit. It does add age estimation possibilities, but there may be issues there as well.

It became known that Facebook was behind a significant push in the United States to embed age verification into all operating systems — something that would greatly improve their ability to identify and create profiles to sell to advertisers and a direct conflict of interest. Governments around the world are suddenly all pushing this requirement.

Defence — age verification or age estimation
7 (1) It is not a defence to a charge under section 5 that the organization believed that the young person referred to in that section was at least 18 years of age unless the organization implemented a prescribed age-verification or age-estimation method to limit access to the pornographic material made available for commercial purposes to individuals who are at least 18 years of age.
— Bill S-209, First Reading

More about age verification and the flaws of this dangerous process.

Digital IDs

By placing all the IDs of citizens in one location, it threatens everyone's privacy. A single data breach would not only end privacy but result in everyone's government ID being useless. This has already happened in France and India.

If we accept as normal and unavoidable that everything in our lives can be aggregated, sold, or even leaked in the event of a hack, then we lose so much more than data. We lose the freedom to be human. We deserve better. You deserve better.
— Apple CEO, Tim Cook

A whistleblower has raised concerns about the security of the UK government's digital ID:

"We have proved it can be compromised": A testing team was able to access sensitive areas undetected. If this were happen as part of a real attack, a whistleblower says this could have widespread repercussions for everyday people.
— ITV News

Bill S-209 could also be used to push through the universal electronic ID proposed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) to be used as a tool to control citizens. Tying metadata to a digital ID would remove any hint of privacy and provide a bonanza for corporate and government spying. Every site that you visit, every comment you make online, every link that you click would become traceable (just like in China where your “social score” determines where you live, what you earn and if you're able to travel).

Privacy safeguards are unclear. To verify age, Canadians may need to upload identification or personal data to a verification provider chosen by the site they're dealing with, not them. Bill S-209 lacks strong rules on what happens to our data once it enters those vendors' hands. Who keeps our ID scans, and for how long? What happens if they leak or sell our data? Without clear regulations, the risk of major data leaks is significant.
— OpenMedia

While Bill S-209 claims to be protecting children from porn, the promoters are much less vocal about the fact that many other sites will be affected. This legislation has all the earmarks of being designed to force adults to identify themselves on regular sites like social media using age verification. This is an attack on free speech and privacy. Government concerns about “hate speech” are more likely to be targeting speech they hate.

The surveillance economy has corporations culling huge amounts of metadata primarily for targeted advertising (but often collected “just in case” it can be used later). This made government access possible by purchasing the data rather than obtaining a warrant. Serious data breaches already threaten our privacy and security.

Canadian Youth Already Exposed in Schools

Bill S-209 doesn't address the sort of age-inappropriate activities being promoted by SOGI in schools and public libraries nor public nudity in front of children at gay pride events nor Drag Queen Story Hour for children. The government's concern with protecting children hasn't been demonstrated by keeping pedophiles in jail.

In an interview with BC Conservative leader John Rustad and CBC interviewer Stephen Quinn three explicit images were used to illustrate the sort of SOGI materials available in BC school libraries without parental approval including one showing a male adult masturbating a male child. These images were so offensive these examples could not be aired on the news and the segment showing them has since been edited out. But, hey, let's lock down the Internet to protect children!

SOGI provides this sort of information to school-age children in BC, Alberta and elsewhere. Apparently grade 6 is the time to discuss sexual acts in detail and “gender ideology” without parental approval (but don't let them see it on the Internet).

A 'sexual health educator' from Saleema Noon came to my daughter's Grade 6 class this week. She taught the 11 and 12-year-olds that sometimes children aren't happy with the bodies they're born with, so they can change them! Imagine telling kids they can change their bodies if they hate themselves. That's the message the kids hear.

 

They also learned about anal and oral sex, and how gender is 'assigned at birth' but sometimes they figure it out later.

 

The school then had an assembly on Friday for all kids in Grades 4–7, where a trans-identified female came to speak to them.
— Billboard Chris

Parents, Not Government, Should Be Responsible

The following opinion piece in the Times Colonist expressed the need for parents to become involved rather than governments or social media companies:

[W]hich brings to mind the advice of 14th century philosopher and theologian William of Ockham, credited for "Occam's razor," a problem-solving principle that suggests the simplest solution is usually the best one.

 

In 2024, that "simplest solution" is not necessarily complicated difficult-to-enforce legislation, but for parents to learn about the apps and social-media platforms children are using.

 

That's right, not tech experts, not government, not content providers — parents are still the simplest way to protect kids from online danger.
— Geoff Johnson

Unfortunately, the government protected schools and doctors transitioning without their parent's permission or knowledge to “protect children” that are being transitioned in secret. Children that age can't drink alcohol, get tattoos, drive or vote, but they can make a life-altering decision to have body parts removed or treated with the same drugs that have been used to castrate sex offenders.

It is the position of Canadian Gender Report that young people do not have the capacity to consent to life-changing medical gender transition and that the responsibility to determine whether a child's request for medical transition will be in their long term best interest must be shouldered by parents and healthcare professionals. In the case of foster children, the State must shoulder this responsibility.

 

The ruling in the Kiera Bell case in the UK determined that medical gender transition of children and young people is "experimental", that there is insufficient evidence of long-term outcomes and that young people are therefore unable to consent to treatment when the healthcare professionals themselves do not understand the potential outcomes or risks. A subsequent ruling clearly passed the burden of consent to parents and healthcare professionals for transitioning children and adolescents up to age 18.
— Canadian Gender Report

This experimental process was promoted by advocates using the unfounded premise that children denied the ability would commit suicide. They asked parents if they'd rather have a live transitioned child or a dead one. This has proven to be untrue, but so far there have been no consequences for perpetrating this lie.

Return to top

Prior Legislation

 

This section contains details about legislation from prior Parliamentary sessions. While most of this legislation failed to pass, the fact that it was proposed and discussed shows a clearly dangerous direction taken by the Liberal government going back years.

 

Bill C-26: Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act

An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts
— Bill C-26

While the intention of Bill C-26 was probably critical to protecting the security of Canada, the use of secrecy and non-transparency place both the Canadian public and telecommunications agencies at risk.

Cybersecurity cannot thrive on secretive and shadowy government edicts. The government must amend its legislation to ensure its activities comport with Canada's democratic values and the norms of transparency and accountability.
— The Citizen Lab, University of Toronto's Munk School
As written, Bill C-26 is designed as the government's spying wish list. Canadians deserve better than this half-baked legislation.
— OpenMedia
Cybersecurity Bill C-26 claims to improve our safety — but lacks ANY of the public transparency and safeguards we depend on to protect our fundamental rights.

 

People in Canada shouldn't have to sacrifice our fundamental rights for the strong cybersecurity protections that we deserve. Email your MP to fix C-26 with appropriate, rights-protecting amendments.
— OpenMedia
New cybersecurity protections are needed to protect Canada's critical infrastructure — but must be balanced with appropriate safeguards to prevent their abuse and misuse. We rely on access to essential services, like the Internet, to participate in democratic life; Canada can't afford prolonged attacks or Internet outages. While the new cybersecurity elements of Bill C-26 are designed to safeguard essential services better — like our access to the Internet — as drafted, they lack crucial provisions that promote public transparency, accountability, and oversight.
  • Bill C-26 empowers government to break into our private communications at the ISP level.
  • Bill C-26 forces ISPs into new information-sharing arrangements with Canada's spy agencies.
  • Bill C-26 continues to allow a government minister to order telcos to do anything they believe necessary for national security — and keep the order PERMANENTLY secret.
There's no reason why we can't have cybersecurity protections alongside the essential privacy and due process protections that allow us to participate in democratic life.
— OpenMedia

Bill C-26 Resources

Return to top

Bill C-27: The Digital Charter Implementation Act

An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts. Short title: Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022
— Bill C-27

Bill C-27 aims to regulate not only privacy but also artificial intelligence (AI) via the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act.

While legislation related to consumer privacy seems an outlier in a discussion about Internet legislation, Bill C-27 will affect the future of the Internet in Canada because it is very difficult to separate the issues of consumer privacy and personal information and data, never mind artificial intelligence which is being embedded into both the software and online services faster than most people comprehend, including legislators.

The government's push to pass controversial AI regulations, which many view as prioritizing industry interests over consumer rights, is also holding up essential privacy reform.

 

Many Canadians rightly want regulations on AI. But the government skipped basic consultations on AIDA, and has repeatedly rewritten the bill even as it sits at committee, leading to chaos. As committee's consideration of AIDA amendments has not yet even started, keeping AIDA linked to privacy threatens to doom both parts of Bill C-27, meaning we risk ending up with neither meaningful privacy protections nor adequate AI regulations. This will leave us Canadians vulnerable and unprotected when we deserve so much better!
— OpenMedia

The Privacy Provisions

Bill C-27 is an attempt to update the privacy laws in Canada including replacing current protections. It would repeal Part 1 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA), the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act (PIDPTA) and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA).

Make Our Privacy Laws Work for You

When it comes to privacy, Canada's government doesn't want to play by the rules. They're passing private sector privacy reform Bill C-27, but totally ignoring urgently needed reforms to the Privacy Act — the rules that govern how THEY respect our privacy!

 

In the meantime, we're suffering careless data breaches and shady information sharing from one public agency after another, because they know our privacy laws won't penalize their mistakes.

 

In today's digital age, personal information is collected, shared, and used as currency — by companies AND by governments. Now more than ever it's important that our laws keep up to protect us from changing technology. Tell our government: it's time to update and strengthen the Privacy Act so our laws start defending us from THEM.
— OpenMedia

While working on revisions for Canada's privacy laws, industry concerns were addressed rather than those of citizens or privacy advocates. That's like letting the fox design henhouse security.

Currently, companies that operate in Canada don't face significant repercussions for breaking our privacy laws. When fines for privacy violations were introduced in the European Union under their General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), companies began adjusting their business practices in order to comply with the new laws, and to avoid the potential fines.

 

But can we expect the same thing to happen in Canada? Maybe not. Canada's Bill C-27 will introduce weaker privacy protections than the EU's GDPR…and the fines will be watered down through the creation of a new tribunal slowing down the whole process.
— OpenMedia
The predecessor to Bill C-27…was condemned by former privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien as a “step backward” for privacy in Canada. Bill C-27 contains improvements…the government has listened to some concerns. However, it has clearly listened more to the concerns of industry. Human rights still take a back seat to commercial interests.

 

Privacy by design and by default are absent from the bill, which still does not cover the growing exploitation of personal data by political parties.

 

The exception for use of personal information without knowledge or consent for “socially beneficially purposes” still has major holes and scant attention is paid to the flows of personal data across Canada's borders.
— Toronto Star

The Privacy Commissioner then offered some encouragement and suggestions for improvement.

The OPC is encouraged by the introduction of Bill C-27 which is a recognition by the Government that Canadians need and expect modernized privacy laws that support innovation and enable Canadians to enjoy the many benefits of technology with the reassurance that their personal information will be protected.

 

Canadians should not have to choose between their participation in the digital economy and their fundamental rights.
— Privacy Commissioner of Canada

The Privacy Commissioner offered 15 recommendations to improve the protections to consumers offered by Bill C-27 in an email to the chair of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology dated April 26, 2023:

  1. Recognize privacy as a fundamental right.
  2. Protect children's privacy and the best interests of the child.
  3. Limit organizations' collection, use and disclosure of personal information to specific and explicit purposes that take into account the relevant context.
  4. Expand the list of violations qualifying for financial penalties to include, at a minimum, appropriate purposes violations.
  5. Provide a right to disposal of personal information even when a retention policy is in place.
  6. Create a culture of privacy by requiring organizations to build privacy into the design of products and services and to conduct privacy impact assessments for high-risk initiatives.
  7. Strengthen the framework for be-identified and anonymized information.
  8. Require organizations to explain, on request, all predictions, recommendations, decisions and profiling made using automated decision systems.
  9. Limit the government's ability to make exceptions to the law by way of regulations.
  10. Provide that the exception for disclosure of personal information without consent for research purposes only applies to scholarly research.
  11. Allow individuals to use authorized representatives to help advance their privacy rights.
  12. Provide greater flexibility in the use of voluntary compliance agreements to help resolve matters without the need for more adversarial processes.
  13. Make the complaints process more expeditious and economical by streamlining the review of the Commissioner's decisions.
  14. Amend timelines to ensure that the privacy protection regime is accessible and effective.

Artificial Intelligence and Data Act

Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) was added to Bill C-27, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act.

The urgency was prompted by the speed at which AI is developing and becoming embedded into our systems without regulatory oversight. Companies like Microsoft and Meta have changed their agreements to protect themselves while scooping material to train their AI which leave consumers without protection if their data is misused.

However, not only was it bad to embed AI into pending consumer protection legislation, but the government seems to have once again listened to the demands of industry and ignored the recommendations of individuals and citizen-based privacy organizations. Like so many issues, the government seems determined to ignore public concerns.

There are significant issues with the 38 pages of last-minute changes to the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) released AFTER the public consultations were completed.

[O]ver 25 leading civil society organizations, experts, and academics released an open letter to the House of Commons Industry Committee, urging them to hit the reset button and fully scrutinize the government's controversial Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA).

 

They recommend a full public consultation and redrafting of AIDA, starting with splitting AIDA from the other parts of Bill C-27, which deal with unrelated privacy matters, so that it can be subject to the careful democratic scrutiny it requires.

 

Highlighting what they describe as ISED's mishandling of "a process biased heavily toward narrow industry interests", the signatories call on MPs to ensure that any future public consultation is not stewarded exclusively by ISED.

 

The call comes two weeks after Industry, Science, and Economic Development (ISED) Minister François-Philippe Champagne published a beefy, 38-page package of proposed amendments to AIDA, rivaling in size the text of the original bill, and fundamentally altering its shape and implications.
— OpenMedia

AI regulation is not a simple process. Hurrying it through in the manner the Canadian government did is a red flag. Here's what OpenMedia said in a petition against Bill C-27:

The government is currently debating Bill C-27 — a privacy reform bill that's somehow ALSO Canada's first AI regulatory bill — and might be our only AI regulation for YEARS!

 

Why the rush? Industry wants free rein to experiment with AI on us, right NOW. They're pressuring the government to pass a half-finished bill — NOT to take their time to hear from ALL Canadians and thoroughly protect our rights.

 

Regulating AI RIGHT is more important than rushing this bill through.

 

Why do we have two monumental pieces of legislation baked into one bill? Good question, one without a clear answer from our government.

 

The sneaky, secret reason? Since ChatGPT, Dall-E and all the other 'generative' AI techs started rolling out, AI industry stakeholders in Canada are demanding a loose bill with a light touch. The goal? Not so much regulating AI well; instead, they want plenty of legally permitted room to experiment on Canadians, our data, and our rights.

Return to top

Bill C-51: The Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.

Bill C-51 Should Be Repealed, Not Amended

Trudeau promised to amend the controversial and Draconian anti-terrorist Bill C-51.

Trudeau vowed to amend the "problematic elements" of the law, rather than simply repeal the legislation, noted Snowden. "Because he's afraid of being politically attacked on the basis of being soft on terrorism, regardless of whether or not this law actually helps prevent any terrorist attacks," he said. "This is just the way the politics of fear work."
— Edward Snowden

Criticisms

The Bill makes 6 broad changes to national security, anti-terrorism, and privacy law:
  1. It creates a new terrorism offence that criminalizes knowingly advocating or promoting "terrorism offences in general" while aware of the possibility that someone else "may" commit such an offence;
  2. It allows the preventive arrest and detention of a person if it is "likely" to prevent a terrorist activity that a "peace officer" reasonably believes "may" be carried out;
  3. It creates the new concept of "terrorist propaganda" and allows a judge to order the deletion of such material from the internet;
  4. It gives the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) the power to take measures to reduce "threats to the security of Canada", even if doing so would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter") or other Canadian law;
  5. It allows government institutions to share information with each other about "activities that undermine the security of Canada"; and
  6. It codifies the Minister's ability to put Canadians on a "no-fly list".
  7. — CCLA

The CCLA examination of Bill C-51 has other more specific concerns:

  • Free speech will be "chilled" because the offence is vague and overbroad.
  • The offence undermines anti-terrorism efforts.
  • The offence is unnecessary.
  • The offence applies to private conversations and may lead to increased surveillance.
  • There is a low standard for using preventive powers and an extended period of preventive detention.
  • A low standard for preventive powers may lead to religious and ethnic profiling.
  • The definition of terrorist propaganda is too broad because it references the new vague and overbroad speech offence.
  • Without an effective and independent self-initiated review body, judicial oversight in the Bill may be circumvented.
  • Customs officials may have difficulty understanding what material should be seized as terrorist propaganda.
  • The Bill radically and unnecessarily changes the nature of CSIS without changing its broad mandate.
  • CSIS.s power to "reduce" threats is too broad and may lead to countless Charter violations.
  • The new warrant procedure fundamentally misunderstands the Canadian constitutional system by allowing judges to pre-authorize violations of any Charter right.
  • There will be very little, if any, effective defence of the rights of people affected by warrants because the proceedings are secret.
  • CSIS.s new powers may make terrorism prosecutions more difficult or even impossible.
  • Oversight and review mechanisms do not accompany the significant increase in CSIS.s powers.
  • Allowing government institutions to share information about "activities that undermine the security of Canada" is a very broad standard and a radical departure from conventional understandings of privacy.
  • There are no internal or external safeguards to ensure reliability and proper relevance of the information that is shared, which may seriously endanger or cause major difficulties for Canadians.
  • The secretive process, lack of independent review, and government immunity from civil liability may lead to unfettered information sharing.
  • There is a very low standard to be put on the no-fly list but a high standard to be taken off.
  • The procedure for appealing the Minister.s decisions violates a Charter right.
  • — CCLA

I strongly recommend reading the entire Understanding Bill C-51 in Canada: The Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015 to understand these criticisms in context.

Bill C-51 makes it easier for police to access information and to defeat encryption and allows for the sharing of entire databases with CSIS and the RCMP without cause:

The bar is so low that effectively “having a look around just in case” is sufficient justification for sharing massive amounts of information under the Act.
— BCCLA

Provisions Unrelated to Terrorism

A number of the provisions of Bill C-51 are clearly obsolete or otherwise don't belong in a bill aimed at fighting terrorism because they apply to common criminal activity rather than terrorism or a threat to national security.

A lot of what classifies as terrorism in the political context — individuals that the news calls terrorist — are really common criminals. But they do not constitute the kind of super criminal threat that is represented by our terrorism legislation.
— Edward Snowden 2016
Provisions that have been found to be unconstitutional by the courts should no longer be enforced. However, they remain in the Criminal Code until Parliament amends or repeals them. This legislation promotes clarity in the law and would help to avoid confusion and errors by ensuring that the laws on paper reflect the laws in force.

 

Repealing provisions that are very similar to those found unconstitutional by the courts would help to avoid expensive, time-consuming litigation to achieve the same result and may prevent court delays. It recognizes the Government's responsibility for aligning the law with the requirements of the Charter.
— Department of Justice

Attacks on Legitimate Gun Owners

The government's continued attacks on legitimate gun owners (farmers and hunters) while simultaneously ignoring the use of illegal weapons by criminals (Canada's “catch-and-release” justice) is concerning.

Mohammed Majidpour of Vancouver had been convicted 30 times for such offences as assault with a weapon and uttering threats but was still released on bail when arrested for assaulting a woman with a pole in September 2022. He's been released and arrested several times since. This guy gets out before the arresting officer finishes typing the report.
— National Post

The undeniable conclusion is that criminal attacks on civilians are not the reason for gun control. Rather, it is the protection of the political class.

Obsolete & Irrelevant Laws

The proposed legislation would repeal several Criminal Code offences that were enacted many years ago, but that are no longer relevant or required today, including:
  • Challenging someone to a duel (section 71);
  • Advertising a reward for the return of stolen property “no questions asked” (section 143);
  • Possessing, printing, distributing or publishing crime comics (paragraph 163(1)(b));
  • Publishing blasphemous libel(section 296);
  • Fraudulently pretending to practise witchcraft (section 365); and,
  • Issuing trading stamps (section 427).

The proposed legislation would also repeal other offences that are needlessly specific and deal with conduct that, if necessary, could be addressed effectively by other Criminal Code provisions. For example, the following offences would be repealed because the conduct they target could be addressed using other fraud provisions:

  • Impersonating someone during a university exam (section 404); and,
  • Falsely representing goods as having been made by a person holding a royal warrant (section 413).
  • — Department of Justice

Bill C-51 makes it easier for police to access information and to defeat encryption.

It allows for the sharing of entire databases with CSIS and the RCMP without cause:

The bar is so low that effectively “having a look around just in case” is sufficient justification for sharing massive amounts of information under the Act.
— BCCLA

Learning More

Learn more about the need to repeal Bill C-51 including issues related to unregulated surveillance.

Return to top

Bill C-63: The Online Harms Act

Fix Online Harms, But Respect Our Rights!

Some aspects of the failed Bill C-63 were troubling, but there were good parts too.

You don't have to choose between a better, safer Internet, and one that respects your privacy and expression.

 

Last year, the government promised to separate the good parts of Online Harms Bill C-63 from the ones that could hurt our rights — but that promise died when Parliament fell in January 2025. There's a huge risk our new government will either abandon the good work done to improve that legislation, or just ignore our online safety altogether. But we don't have to stand for either.
— OpenMedia

The Failed Bill C-63 Online Harms Act

An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts
— Bill C-63

Bill C-63 died when Parliament fell in January 2025. Let's have legislation that keeps the good parts while removing the parts of Bill C-64 that included censorship rather than protections.

The bill may address an issue that is widely regarded as essential, but once Canadian privacy and civil liberties had the opportunity to review the fine print in the bill, many came away concerned.
— Michael Geist
Online Harms legislation…could be the worst yet. Don't forget — the government's first proposal for it was designed by and for CSIS and the RCMP, giving them an unlimited surveillance web over every Canadian on online platforms — and they would have passed it into law, had an overwhelming volume of citizens and experts not spoken up demanding a reconsideration.
— OpenMedia
They said it couldn't be done. But last week…the government finally separated dangerously speech-chilling proposals — like life imprisonment for speech, or punishment with no criminal conviction — out of Online Harms Bill C-63!

What's now IN

  • Age-appropriate design that lets young Canadians use online platforms safely;
  • Removal within 24 hours of child abuse material and adult material shared without consent — so-called "revenge porn";
  • Tools to empower YOU to get what you want from platforms, like easy ways to block other users, the right to appeal take downs of your content, and the right to speak to a human when you have a problem.
What's GONE
  • Criminal code changes that threatened life in prison for an act of speech;
  • A "pre-crime" proposal that proposed massive restrictions like home confinement or drug tests if a judge thinks you could be "at risk" of hateful speech;
  • An anonymous complaints system that would have Canadians file Human Rights Tribunal complaints against each other instead of blocking trolls and moving on.
What's left is a foundation of harm reduction principles Canadians can get behind, under this government and any future government. But C-63 is FAR from done, and there are lobbyists pushing hard to undermine the best and bring back the worst.
— OpenMedia

Redefining Hate Crimes

Why are the Liberals restoring amendments that restrict free speech by Canadians in a manner that will allow them to redefine hate crimes?

The justice minister of Canada has framed these amendments as a way to protect the vulnerable and hold individuals accountable for spreading hatred online. But let's be clear: there's a thin line between protecting individuals and infringing upon free speech. And that line is looking blurrier by the day in Canada. And when the government starts deciding what constitutes "hate speech," you have to start wondering: Who gets to draw that line? And based on what standards?
— Dan Knight
Bill C-63 doesn't just flirt with authoritarianism; it's a full-blown courtship, and it's dressed up in the finery of "progressive" values. This bill is about establishing the Digital Safety Commission of Canada — essentially, the thought police of the digital age. And let me tell you, nothing quite spells "independent" like a government-appointed bureaucracy, their pockets lined with the potential for bonuses, all for toeing the line of those wielding the gavel.
— Dan Knight

The Criteria is Suspect

A problem arises when hate speech is defined by what's acceptable to the government rather than what is dangerous to society. The criteria cannot be selective to political beliefs.

When an out-of-control leftist government (essentially a dictatorship) wants to curb free speech, you are on dangerous ground. Notice how the government has ignored months of militant Palestinian protests calling for genocide (“from the river to the sea”) while aggressively prosecuting members of the Trucker Convoy.

Indeed, you could not have asked for a starker contrast in protests than the Freedom Convoy and the Pro-Hamas Left — or a sharper contrast in how they have been treated by Canada's government. The truckers were met with draconian measures imposed by Trudeau — while he's used kid gloves on the pro-Palestinian protests.

 

But I wouldn't hold my breath for any real consequences, despite a new Canadian bill aimed at punishing "hate crimes." Bill C-63….

 

I'm no fan of this law — but we all know who it is meant to penalize, and it's not people chanting for the death of Jews. It's people who Trudeau considers his political enemies — people like the truckers who opposed his COVID-19 regime.
— Newsweek

The fact that the Canadian media has stayed silent about such contrasts demonstrates the dangers of a controlled media — the result of Trudeau's Bill C-18.

This government quickly passed Islamophobia legislation over a few incidents but said nothing as over 100 Christian churches were burned down across Canada other than to state “it was understandable.” After the October 7th terrorist attack on Israel they continued to trust unreliable resources in Gaza rather than support the only Western democracy in the Middle East.

On October 7, Hamas terrorists waged the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust — slaughtering babies, raping women, burning whole families alive, and taking hundreds of innocent civilians hostage. Since October 7, more than 1,200 Israelis have been killed. Terrorists are still holding 132 men, women, and children in captivity.
— American Jewish Committee
The question, as Europe has discovered, is whether law enforcement and political resolve will be sufficient to stuff an angry, Judeophobic genie back into a bottle most western governments blithely uncorked through their infatuation with multiculturalism, or in Quebec's case fixation on language, both of which, alas, necessitated a self-destructive indifference to the epidemiology of terrorism.
— National Post

Low Threshold; Excessive Investigative Powers

Privacy Lawyer David Fraser presents some significant concerns about the threshold for assessment and the excessive powers granted to investigators:

Bill C-51 makes it easier for police to access information and to defeat encryption.

It allows for the sharing of entire databases with CSIS and the RCMP without cause:

The bar is so low that effectively “having a look around just in case” is sufficient justification for sharing massive amounts of information under the Act.
— BCCLA
I think the thresholds for some of this are too low, resulting in removal by default. The new Digital Safety Commission has stunning and likely unconstitutional powers. As is often the case, there's too much left to the regulations.

The decision of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal against Mayor Harold McQuaker and Emo Township councillors over their decision not to raise a Pride flag is a glaring example of political excess that could with Bill C-63's mechanisms.

Far from “going dark,” the amount of data available to policing agencies in Canada and abroad is at historic heights, making this truly the golden age of investigative surveillance.
— The Star

The fact that it offers to pay people to report their neighbours reeks of the sorts of propaganda control used by the Nazi Gestapo in World War 2.

Return to top

C-293: Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act

An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness
— Bill C-293

This private members bill — dubbed “the Vegan Act” — passed through the House of Commons but stalled in the Senate. The fact that it is barely known is of great concern.

Unprecedented Government Interference in Agricultural Meat Production & Food Choices

The focus on non-traditional food requirements follows globalist policies that would legislate fake meat and destroy meat production in Canada to meet arbitrary goals based upon misinformation about the environmental cost of production. For example, the amount of rainfall on a field is used to determine the amount of water required to produce a pound of beef as though the rain would stop falling if there were no cattle on the field. Bill C-293 speaks more to controlling people than resources.

One of the most alarming aspects of Bill C-293 is the discretionary power it would grant to officials to shut down agricultural facilities without clear, objective criteria. Such arbitrary actions could disrupt not only meat supply chains but also the wider agricultural operations linked to them, including feed production. This threatens to destabilize related sectors and could trigger cascading effects throughout the entire food system.

 

The bill represents an unprecedented governmental intrusion into personal dietary choices and market dynamics. A detailed examination of the bill does more than sow confusion about its intentions — it reveals a troubling spirit at its core.

 

Under this bill, public health officials could have the authority to close facilities they consider "high risk," such as meatpacking plants, during pandemics and even "mandate" the consumption of vegetable proteins by Canadians — measures that border on the absurd. It's hardly surprising that the private member who introduced Bill C-293 is Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who is known for his vegan lifestyle.
— Toronto Sun

Allows WHO to Regulate Public Health

If the COVID-19 pandemic taught us anything, it was government overreach and false claims to be “following the science.” Many international agencies like the United Nations and WHO are unduly influenced by China and third world nations. UN policies attack Western culture while simultaneously ignoring the threat of Islamic terrorism and mass immigration.

This Bill allows the World Health Organization (WHO) to make agreements with Public Health directly, attempting to eliminate jurisdiction of the courts and the constitution. It allows Public Health control over communications infrastructure, instituting interlinking surveillance.

 

Once enacted, C-293 imposes mandatory medical treatments, explicitly controls your personal autonomy, affecting your freedom of movement and privacy, can expropriate farms and other property and relocate rural and urban dwellers (to 15 minute cities), for absurd reasons like 'deforestation increases the risk of pandemics.' Even with the absurd grants of power C-293 still gives more powers 'as appropriate,' not further defined.

 

No other bill represents such a clear threat to Canada and the rule of law given the complete absence of definitions of terms coupled with its comprehensive overreach into every aspect of life.
— Stop Bill C-293

The bill is overly broad and poorly defined. It threatens Canadian sovereignty by allowing WHO, an unelected body, to directly affect Public Health regulations.

Despite the failure of Bill C-293 to pass, the Liberal government went ahead and signed the WHO Pandemic Agreement. Canada is once again obligating itself to fund the third world while ignoring the desperate needs growing at home because of destructive Liberal DEI policies under the Trudeau administration.

This past weekend, the deadline passed for Canada to reject the World Health Organization (WHO) amendments to the International Health Regulations.

 

Canada did not reject these binding regulations, which would grant power to the WHO to influence Canada's public health response during global health crises.

 

Not only did Canada fail to reject these amendments, there was also no Parliamentary discussion surrounding these changes, which have potential implications for our national sovereignty and our ability to respond as we see fit in times of crisis.

 

Countries such as the USA and Italy have rejected these amendments to protect their national sovereignty.

 

Canada, however, has doubled down. Canada has not only accepted these bidding regulations but also appointed an interim Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Howard Njoo, who is the Vice-Chair of the WHO Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework Advisory Group.
— Dr. Leslyn Lewis, MP July 21, 2025

Return to top

Related Resources

On this site:

Found this resource useful?
Buy Me A Coffee

 

 

Return to top
RussHarvey.bc.ca/resources/legislation.html
Updated: July 13, 2026

Copyright © 1996– | Privacy | Navigation | RHC Design