Freedom in Canada is dying slowly and gradually, not by a single fell swoop, but by a thousand cuts. How did the United Kingdom end up arresting thousands of its citizens (more than 30 per day) over their Facebook, X, and other social media posts? This Orwellian nightmare was achieved one small step at a time. No single step was deemed worthy of fierce and effective opposition by British citizens. The citizens of what was once a free nation adapted begrudgingly to the slow-but-steady elimination of their freedoms, including privacy and freedom from state surveillance.
Likewise in Canada, too few Canadians have spoken out against the federal government gradually taking over the internet through a series of bills with innocuous and even laudable titles.
The Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11) became law in 2023, and put all streaming platforms and user-generated content under the authority of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). The CRTC now has control over the content produced by Canadian individuals, businesses, charities, and citizens’ groups as “broadcasting.” The act also empowers the CRTC to mandate funding of government-approved “Canadian” (as defined by government) content, and to regulate content “discoverability” to determine what Canadians can (and cannot) easily find and watch online.
The Online Streaming Act undermines net neutrality (all online content being treated equally) and amounts to an aggressive expansion of government control over the internet and media companies. The CRTC now has broad power over what Canadians watch, hear, and access online, deciding what is discoverable, permissible, or even visible.
The Online News Act (Bill C-18) also became law in 2023, and obliges platforms to pay news publishers for content, supposedly to address the imbalance between dominant “digital news intermediaries” (e.g., Google and Meta) and Canadian news publishers like CBC, CTV, Global, Postmedia, Globe and Mail, etc. Meta responded to this new law by blocking all Canadian news on Facebook and Instagram, slashing traffic to domestic media and increasing the latter’s dependence on government subsidies. Canadian news sites suffered massive traffic losses, which further harmed them financially by decreasing their readership/viewership. Google responded by agreeing to pay a flat-fee $100 million a year into a “Canadian Journalism Collective,” which is predictably awarded only to “mainstream” media who are now even more dependent on subsidies.
The Online Harms Act (Bill C-63) died with the April 2025 election, but the federal government remains committed to passing identical (or at least similar) legislation. The act was introduced on the pretext of protecting children, even though the Criminal Code already prohibits threats, intimidation, extortion, revenge porn, child pornography and other harmful conduct. This powerful pretext (who could be against protecting children from online harms?) served as camouflage for sinister provisions that would create a new federal bureaucracy under the Digital Safety Commission, empowered to enforce internet censorship regulations crafted by the federal cabinet without any accountability to Parliament.
The Online Harms Act regime would have given this new Digital Safety Commission sweeping powers over online platforms, forcing them to remove or block a broad range of content, including lawful speech, thereby greatly chilling free expression. The Digital Safety Commission’s bureaucrats would be able to demand platform data, conduct warrantless searches, and issue massive fines, all of this supposedly to prevent “online harms” that are already illegal under existing laws. As if the Criminal Code’s arbitrary and subjective prohibitions on promoting “hatred” were not bad enough, the Online Harms Act would have empowered the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prosecute Canadians from coast to coast over non-criminal “discriminatory” speech. Judges would have been empowered to place Canadians under house arrest and wear an ankle bracelet based merely on a neighbour’s suspicion that someone might say something hateful in future.
The Strong Borders Act (Bill C-2) is still before Parliament today. It authorizes warrantless demands for subscriber data and metadata from online providers. Bill C-2 should be called the Strong Surveillance Act, as it gives sweeping powers to a host of non-police government officials to conduct warrantless searches. The Strong Borders Act would grant law enforcement unprecedented powers to monitor Canadians’ digital activity, without judicial oversight. Any online service provider—including social media and cloud platforms, email domain hosts and even smaller service providers—would be compelled to disclose subscriber information and metadata. Other provisions also have little to do with borders, like empowering Canada Post to open letter mail without a warrant, and criminalizing the use of cash in amounts of $10,000 or more.
The Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act (Bill C-8) would allow government to kick Canadians off the internet, i.e., “direct a telecommunications service provider to remove all products provided by a specified person from its telecommunications networks or telecommunications facilities, or any part of those networks or facilities.” The government’s pretext for the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act is to “modernize” Canada’s cybersecurity framework and protect it against any threats of “interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation.” Sadly, it remains entirely unclear whether “disinformation” (as defined by government) would constitute “interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation.”
The Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act authorizes the federal cabinet to designate any service or system as a “vital” service or “vital” system, enabling federal government control over an unknown number of private sector networks, potentially affecting digital operations and compliance requirements for service providers.
The Combatting Hate Act (Bill C-9), though not strictly about government control over the internet, would remove the existing requirement that hate speech prosecutions must first be approved by the attorney general. With discretion left entirely in the hands of local police and prosecutors, this would see far more Canadians getting prosecuted over their social media posts and off-line speech, making us more like the United Kingdom.
The Combatting Hate Act also removes needed protection from religious leaders (and others) who wish to proclaim what their sacred scriptures teach about human sexuality. Marc Miller, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, has stated publicly that he views certain Bible and Koran passages as hateful. Bill C-9 would chill free speech, especially on the internet where expression is recorded indefinitely, and particularly for activists, journalists, and other people expressing opinions contrary to government-approved narratives. This law also vastly increases the maximum sentences that could be imposed if a judge feels that the offence was “motivated by hatred,” and creates new offences. It prohibits merely displaying certain symbols linked to hate or terrorism in public, and extends criminal liability to peaceful protest activity.
Together, these bills collectively grant government unprecedented control over online speech, news, streaming services, and digital infrastructure. Ostensibly to protect children, combat hate, support Canadian journalism, and secure critical systems, these laws are transforming Canada’s open internet into a government-managed digital environment, restricting what Canadians may access, share, say, and debate online. Our federal government is transforming Canada’s centuries-old traditions of free speech and privacy rights into something revocable at the pleasure of the CRTC, politicians, and bureaucrats.
The story of the boiling frog comes to mind. The first frog, tossed into a pot of boiling water, jumps out immediately. But the second frog, placed in a pot of cool water that is gradually heated, doesn’t notice the danger and remains there until boiled to death.
Canadians have no excuse for behaving like the second frog. Laziness and naivete are not valid reasons for failing to rise up (peacefully!) and revolt against all of these bills, which are slowly but surely turning Canada into a police state.
It’s up to citizens to contact their MPs and demand the immediate repeal of the Online Streaming Act and the Online News Act. All MPs of all parties should be urged to reject the Strong Borders Act, the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act, and the Combatting Hate Act, which are now before Parliament. Further, Canadians need to contact their MPs to demand that the Online Harms Act, nor anything like it, should be re-introduced.
John Carpay, B.A., LL.B., is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca).
