John Carpay: If These 3 Bills Pass, Canada Could Be a Police State by Christmas

The Confederation Building is seen above the trees on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on June 12, 2025. The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick

Commentary

Canada will be a police state by Christmas if Parliament passes Bills C-2, C-8, and C-9 in their current form, and even more so if the federal government reintroduces the former Bill C-63.

If Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, had become law prior to the April 2025 election, it would have given new censorship powers to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, with penalties up to $50,000, plus up to $20,000 payable to complainants, for offensive but non-criminal speech. A new army of bureaucrats working for the newly created Digital Safety Commission would now be enforcing censorship regulations passed by the federal cabinet. Canadians could be punished pre-emptively with house arrest, ankle bracelets, and curfews for speech crimes they might commit in the future. The maximum penalty for speech crimes would be life imprisonment.

Bill C-63 may or may not be reintroduced. But Bills C-2, C-8, and C-9 are now actually being considered by the House of Commons.

Bill C-2 is the Strong Borders Act, but should really be called the Strong Surveillance Act. In its original form, Bill C-2 would have empowered Canada Post to open letter-mail without a warrant. The government has since said it will split the bill, moving the new warrantless provisions into another piece of legislation. Regardless of the form or the number of bills these changes may manifest under, the proposed laws would make it illegal to spend or donate cash in amounts of $10,000 or more, and provide massive new powers to many government officials (not just police) to conduct searches without a warrant, and force companies to turn over confidential subscriber information to the government. Canadians will see their privacy violated on a scale never seen before.

Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, would vastly increase the maximum penalties that judges can impose in cases where the crime was motivated by “hate” as determined by the judge. Bill C-9 declares that the illegal emotion of “hate” is something stronger than dislike or disdain, having crossed into the forbidden criminal territory of detestation or vilification. However, speech that discredits, humiliates, hurts, or offends does not qualify as “hate.”

Ultimately, the muddied waters of Bill C-9 still leave the existence of “hate” to be decided subjectively by police, prosecutors, and judges, based primarily on how they feel. Bill C-9 also removes the existing requirement whereby the attorney general must consent to any hate speech prosecutions. By removing this review process, Bill C-9 will result in more Canadians facing criminal prosecutions over the words that they spoke or wrote.

Bill C-8 would give the federal government new powers to ban individual Canadian citizens from using the internet. Bill C-8 does this by giving federal cabinet ministers the power to direct and control “telecommunications service providers,” which are companies that provide Canadians with access to the internet, radio, television, phones, livestreaming, podcasts, video casts, emails, websites, etc. In the name of protecting the (undefined) “Canadian telecommunications system,” Bill C-8 would give the federal government considerable control, without a warrant or any court oversight, over communications between Canadians in Canada.

Further, Bill C-8 provides the federal government with new powers to control private companies, simply by declaring them to be “designated operators” of “critical” cyber systems that are “vital” to national security or public safety, including obtaining subscriber information of customers. Any company that a cabinet minister declares to be a “designated operator” must follow the government’s orders to “establish and implement cyber security programs, mitigate supply-chain and third-party risks, report cyber security incidents and comply with cyber security directions.”

A federal cabinet minister can impose surveillance obligations on private companies, which will be required to provide the government with any information demanded. This amounts to search powers and mass data collection without judicial oversight, contrary to the Charter. The federal government will be able to collect massive quantities of subscriber data and user data (e.g., websites that a customer visits) without a warrant, and without Canadians knowing whether or when the government has collected personal information about them. Bill C-8 contains no safeguards to prevent the government from obtaining sensitive personal information about Canadians, without a warrant, under the guise of regulatory measures to protect cybersecurity.

Bill C-8 empowers the government to order a company to “develop a security plan” in relation to its services, networks, and facilities, and order the company to take steps to mitigate any “vulnerability” (as defined by the government) and implement “standards” as specified and determined by the government. Just in case the above powers are not sufficiently absolute, Bill C-8 empowers the federal government to direct a company “to do a specified thing or refrain from doing a specified thing.”

The minister’s order can include “a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence, or some or all of its contents,” such that the government can tyrannize citizens and businesses in secret. Under Bill C-8, a minister’s orders and even federal regulations can be kept secret indefinitely, with no obligation for public reporting or transparency, making it impossible for the public or Parliament to scrutinize government actions.

Bill C-8 empowers the federal cabinet to “secure” the “Canadian telecommunications system” (not defined clearly) against any “threat,” including “interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation.” While Bill C-8 does not focus on website content and social media commentary, its language does not prevent the federal cabinet from using its new powers to censor what politicians deem to be misinformation or disinformation that might “disrupt” or “degrade” or “manipulate” the internet, including websites and social media.

Bill C-8 specifically states that no Canadian individual or business is entitled to any compensation from the government for any financial losses resulting from the minister’s order “to do a specified thing or refrain from doing a specified thing.”

A Canadian who violates a federal government order is liable to pay an “administrative monetary penalty” of up to $50,000 per day. Canadian companies are liable to fines up to $15 million per day for failing to comply with an order. Bill C-8 states that these penalties are “to promote compliance with orders” and “not to punish.”

Of course, a Canadian who found herself kicked off the internet thanks to a minister’s order could sue and seek a court ruling to quash the minister’s order, provided that she has an extra $100,000 or so available for litigation that would drag on for years (as litigation almost always does).

Politicians never violate our right to privacy (or other rights) without a persuasive pretext. The Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act, created under Bill C-8, claims to “protect” the cyber systems that are “vital” to Canada’s “national security” and “public safety.” Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree claims that the federal government needs to control the internet—and Canadians’ access to the internet—in order to crack down on hackers, ransomware fraudsters, malicious cyber actors, and hostile state actors.

Politicians as well as unelected bureaucrats know that Canadians support public safety and national security. Politicians therefore use these legitimate and worthwhile goals as clever slogans to justify a massive power-grab, whereby the federal cabinet can designate any cyber service or cyber system in Canada as “vital,” and therefore subject to government control.

The federal government does not need a new law to protect its own “telecommunications” (i.e. non-paper) systems, or those of private companies. Hacking into a cyber system and damaging someone else’s property are already criminal offences. Giving government broad new powers to kick individual Canadians off the internet is not necessary for cracking down on cybercrime.

Our freedoms are fragile. They will not survive and thrive automatically, but only through the passionate and active support of Canadians who love their free and democratic society. If we do not want Canada to become a police state by Christmas, Canadians need to contact their MPs and urge them to vote against Bills C-2, C-8 and C-9, and urge them to oppose the reintroduction of former Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.