Blueprint For Control: The 13 Federal Laws That Civil Libertarians Say Could End Free Expression In Canada
From streaming regulation to secret phone shutoffs, every item on this list traces to an actual bill introduced by Canada's Liberal government. Here is what each one does — and what critics say happens when they operate together.
May 7, 2026 · By Justin Plosz · Ottawa, Ontario · Community · 16 min read
Why This Question Matters Now
There is a version of the following story that is comfortable to dismiss.
You can call it right-wing panic. You can call it American-style paranoia exported north. You can note that Canada is a democracy with an independent judiciary, a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and a tradition of liberal governance — lowercase 'l' — that has, for most of its history, resisted the authoritarian temptations that have seduced other nations.
You can do all of that. And then you have to sit down and read the bills.
What this article does is take thirteen pieces of federal legislation — all of them introduced or passed by the Liberal government between 2015 and 2026 — and describe, as precisely as possible, what each one does. The descriptions draw on the text of the legislation itself, the analysis of law professor and internet policy expert Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa, rulings and reports from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, published work from the Canadian Constitution Foundation, and the government's own parliamentary transcripts and explanatory materials.
This is not a partisan exercise. The concern here is not which party benefits. The concern is architecture: whether, when these laws are read together and imagined operating simultaneously, they produce a system of control that no democratic government should possess — regardless of which party holds the keys.
Several of the bills discussed here have passed into law. Others are in various stages of the legislative process. The status of each is noted. The analysis that follows is, where possible, drawn from the primary source. Where it reflects the interpretation of critics, that is said explicitly.
Start reading.
The Bills, One By One
What follows is a plain-language account of each piece of legislation, its stated purpose, its current status, and the specific concern that civil libertarians, legal scholars, and opposition critics have raised. Nothing here is invented. The concern in every case is documented.
C-11: The Government Decides What You Discover
**Full name**: The Online Streaming Act (formerly Bill C-10)
**Status**: Royal Assent April 27, 2023. In force.
The Online Streaming Act amended Canada's Broadcasting Act to bring online streaming platforms — Netflix, Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube — under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).
The government's stated purpose was to require foreign streaming giants to financially support Canadian content creation, the same obligation that has historically applied to Canadian broadcasters. The argument: if Netflix is effectively a broadcaster in Canada, it should contribute to the Canadian cultural ecosystem the way CBC, CTV, and Bell do.
The civil liberties concern — articulated at length by Michael Geist throughout the bill's passage — is the discoverability provision. The CRTC, under C-11, has the authority to require platforms to adjust their recommendation algorithms to promote Canadian content. In practical terms: a regulator appointed by the government can require that certain content appear in front of you on YouTube or Spotify, and that other content appear less prominently.
Geist argued that this is, functionally, the government influencing what Canadians see online — not through censorship of specific content, but through algorithmic mandate. The CRTC's conditions on what qualifies as 'Canadian' content, and the process by which those decisions are made, remain opaque to the public.
The government's response: the law does not regulate user-generated content and does not tell platforms what to remove. Critics note that the power to elevate certain content necessarily implies the power to de-emphasize other content — and that this authority sits with a body whose members are appointed by the Governor in Council, meaning the cabinet.
C-18: How Canada Disappeared From Facebook
**Full name**: The Online News Act
**Status**: Royal Assent June 22, 2023. In force.
The Online News Act required major digital platforms — specifically Google and Meta — to negotiate compensation agreements with Canadian news publishers for the use of news content on their platforms. The logic was that when a link to a news article appears on Facebook or in a Google search result, the platform derives advertising value from the traffic generated by that link, and publishers should receive a share of that value.
Meta's response was to block all Canadian news content from Facebook and Instagram. Google initially threatened to do the same but reached a negotiated settlement with the government. The outcome: Canadian news is not visible to Canadians on Facebook or Instagram.
This is not a hypothetical. It happened. A law designed to support Canadian journalism produced, as its most visible consequence, the disappearance of Canadian news from the two most widely used social platforms in the country.
The civil liberties dimension is straightforward: the legislation created conditions under which government policy, and a private platform's response to it, resulted in Canadians losing access to news on the world's dominant social media networks. Critics including Geist argued the law was poorly designed and that its consequences for the free flow of information were foreseeable. The government has acknowledged the Meta outcome was not its intention. The news ban remains in place.
The Emergencies Act: When Accounts Were Frozen Without A Court Order
**Full name**: The Emergencies Act, invoked February 14, 2022
**Status**: Invoked, then revoked February 23, 2022. The framework remains law and can be re-invoked.
In February 2022, the federal government invoked the Emergencies Act to respond to the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa and related blockades at border crossings. The invocation granted the government extraordinary powers, including the authority to direct financial institutions — banks, credit unions, crowdfunding platforms, payment processors — to freeze the accounts of individuals and organizations associated with the protests.
Bank accounts were frozen. In some cases, accounts were frozen based on participation in a crowdfunding campaign. No court order was required for the freezes. No criminal charges were necessary. The designation of which accounts to freeze was made by executive order, not judicial review.
The Public Order Emergency Commission, led by Justice Paul Rouleau, concluded in February 2023 that the invocation met the legal threshold. The commission's report also documented serious concerns about the breadth of the financial measures and the lack of clear criteria for designation. A minority of commissioners dissented.
The critical point for this analysis: the Emergencies Act framework remains on the books. The specific powers it grants — including the ability to direct financial institutions without court orders — can be invoked again, by any future government, under criteria that the Rouleau commission acknowledged are broad.
C-9: When Speech Becomes Criminal
**Status**: Under consideration / various iterations across parliamentary sessions
Several iterations of legislation touching on hate speech and political speech — under various bill numbers including C-9 across different parliamentary sessions — have proposed expanding the Criminal Code provisions governing what Canadians can say publicly.
Section 319 of the Criminal Code already prohibits public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups. The maximum penalty for advocating genocide under Section 318 is five years imprisonment. Expansions proposed in various bills have sought to extend these provisions to new categories of speech, lower the evidentiary threshold for prosecution, or remove the requirement for the Attorney General to personally consent to prosecutions — a safeguard that has historically prevented politically motivated use of the hate speech provisions.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation has raised consistent concerns that the expansion of criminal speech provisions, combined with removal of the AG consent requirement, creates the conditions for politically motivated prosecutions. When the threshold for a criminal charge is low enough, and when the cost of mounting a defence against even a frivolous charge is high enough, the practical effect is a chill on expression that never requires a successful conviction.
The government's position has been that hate speech causes genuine harm and that the law must evolve to address new forms of it. The civil liberties concern is not that hate speech is acceptable, but that the tools for prosecuting it are broad enough, and the oversight mechanisms weak enough, that legitimate political speech could be caught in the same net.
C-25: Making Political Speech A Year-Round Criminal Risk
**Status**: In the legislative pipeline across parliamentary sessions
Election integrity legislation — under various bill numbers — has proposed extending restrictions on political communications beyond the formal election period. Canada already has strict rules governing what political actors can say and spend during an election campaign. The proposed extensions would apply similar restrictions — in some iterations, similar criminal penalties — to political speech outside of formal campaign periods.
The concern articulated by critics including the Canadian Constitution Foundation is precise: if the Commissioner of Canada Elections can determine that a statement about an electoral matter is false, and if legislation makes the public communication of such false statements a criminal offence year-round, then the architecture for criminalising political opposition exists regardless of whether an election is scheduled.
The definitions of 'false statement' and 'electoral matter' in these bills have been broad enough to encompass what might otherwise be considered political opinion, criticism of a sitting government, or commentary on a policy decision that might affect an election. The burden of proof in some iterations falls on the accused to demonstrate the statement was not false — an inversion of the normal presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings.
In isolation, the goal of combating election disinformation is legitimate. The mechanism proposed to achieve it is the concern.
C-4 Part 4: The Party That Writes Privacy Laws Is Exempt From Them
**Full name**: Various legislative vehicles; the underlying issue traces to the original Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and its successors
**Status**: A documented, ongoing exemption
This item is perhaps the least dramatic on the surface, but among the most structurally significant.
Canadian political parties — the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the NDP, the Bloc, and the Greens — are explicitly exempt from federal privacy law. PIPEDA, Canada's private-sector privacy legislation, does not apply to political parties. The proposed successor legislation, C-27 (the Consumer Privacy Protection Act), maintained the exemption in its current form.
What this means in practice: political parties can collect detailed data on Canadians — voting intentions, demographic information, consumer behaviour, social media activity — aggregate it into voter profiles, and use it for targeting without the consent, disclosure, transparency, or data subject rights requirements that apply to every private company in the country.
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has raised this concern in multiple annual reports. The exemption was not an oversight. It was a deliberate legislative choice made by the same parties that benefit from it.
In the context of this analysis, the exemption matters for a specific reason: a government that possesses detailed data profiles on Canadians, and that is simultaneously expanding its authority to monitor communications, restrict speech, and direct financial institutions, is a government for which the distinction between governing and campaigning can dissolve.
Online Harms 2.0: Pre-Crime Comes To Canada
**Full name**: Online Harms Act (various iterations)
**Status**: Proposed; previous versions withdrawn under public pressure; new iterations under development
The federal government's Online Harms legislation has gone through multiple iterations, each drawing significant criticism from legal scholars, civil liberties organisations, and the Privacy Commissioner.
The most alarming provision in earlier versions was a mechanism for 'peace bond'-style orders: a court could order restrictions on a person's online activity not because they had committed an offence, but because there were reasonable grounds to fear they might commit a speech-related offence in the future. This is, in the language of criminal law, a pre-crime provision — the state restraining a person's freedom based on anticipated, not actual, conduct.
Additional concerns in earlier versions included: a 24-hour takedown requirement for flagged content that critics argued would incentivise platforms to over-remove content to avoid penalties; a digital safety commission with broad regulatory powers; and a complaints process that could be weaponised to suppress legitimate speech by flooding platforms with bad-faith reports.
The government withdrew earlier versions following public criticism. Revised legislation continues to be developed. The underlying architecture — a regulator with broad powers over online content, a complaints mechanism, and restraining orders for anticipated speech — remains the design framework.
C-22: Your Location, Your Contacts, Your Metadata
**Status**: Various national security and surveillance capability bills across parliamentary sessions
Multiple pieces of legislation and regulatory developments have expanded the authority of Canadian security agencies — CSIS, the RCMP, the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) — to collect, retain, and share metadata about Canadians' digital communications.
Metadata is not the content of your calls or messages. It is the record of who you called, when, from where, for how long, and to which other numbers or accounts they in turn communicated. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Canadians have a reasonable expectation of privacy in at least some forms of metadata. Legislative and operational expansions of metadata collection authority have pushed the boundaries of that ruling.
The Privacy Commissioner and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) have both documented cases where Canadian security agencies collected metadata on Canadians without clear legal authority and retained it beyond the periods permitted. The legislative response has, in some cases, been to retroactively authorise the collection rather than to prohibit it.
In the architecture this article is mapping, location and metadata collection is the input layer: it tells a state actor not just what you said, but where you were when you said it, who you said it to, and what their networks look like.
C-2: FINTRAC, Canada Post, And The War On Cash
**Status**: Various anti-money laundering and financial intelligence bills
FINTRAC — the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada — is Canada's financial intelligence unit. It receives mandatory reports from banks, credit unions, money service businesses, casinos, real estate professionals, and Canada Post (for money orders) on transactions that meet certain thresholds or display certain patterns.
Legislative expansions have broadened the categories of entities required to report to FINTRAC, lowered the thresholds that trigger reporting, and expanded the list of agencies to which FINTRAC can disclose information.
The specific inclusion of Canada Post is notable: Canada Post's money order service is one of the few remaining mechanisms by which Canadians without bank accounts can conduct larger financial transactions. Mandatory reporting on Canada Post transactions effectively means that cash-equivalent transactions — the ones not visible to the banking system — are being fed into the financial intelligence system.
In the context of this analysis: FINTRAC data sharing, combined with the Emergencies Act framework's power to direct financial institutions, and combined with the location metadata collection described above, creates a system in which the financial and physical movements of Canadians are available to federal agencies in real time.
C-12: Your Data, Shared Across Borders
**Status**: Various immigration, national security, and data sharing bills
Multiple legislative frameworks govern the sharing of data on Canadians with foreign governments. Five Eyes intelligence sharing (Canada, US, UK, Australia, New Zealand) has long involved the exchange of intelligence data. Newer legislative frameworks have extended data sharing arrangements to a broader set of countries and a broader set of data types.
Immigration legislation has, in various iterations, proposed the mass cross-referencing of Canadian immigration databases with foreign government databases, and the automated cancellation of visas or status for individuals flagged in foreign intelligence systems — without individual review and without the ability of the affected person to know the basis of the flag.
The concern is not the existence of international data sharing — it is a necessary element of border security — but the automated and non-reviewable nature of decisions made on the basis of that sharing. A Canadian resident's status could be affected by data held by a foreign government, under a foreign legal system, with no mechanism for the individual to know, contest, or correct the information.
C-8: The Silent Switch
**Status**: National security and CSIS mandate legislation across parliamentary sessions
This is the item on the list that sounds most like fiction, which is why it is important to be precise about the source.
CSIS — the Canadian Security Intelligence Service — has, in various legislative iterations, sought and received authority to conduct what are described as 'disruption' activities: active measures that go beyond intelligence collection to actively interfere with threats to national security. These disruption activities can include interference with electronic devices and communications networks.
The authority for these activities was expanded in the National Security Act, 2017 (then-Bill C-59), which overhauled Canada's national security framework. C-59 created an explicit legal basis for CSIS to take measures that 'disrupt' threats, including measures that would otherwise be illegal — with judicial authorisation.
Critics — including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and various legal scholars — noted that the disruption warrant regime, while requiring judicial authorisation, does not require notification of the target. A person whose device or communications have been 'disrupted' by CSIS under a warrant may have their phone rendered inoperable, their internet access interrupted, or their communications intercepted, without ever knowing it happened.
In practice, this authority has been used against serious national security threats. The concern for civil liberties is the architecture it creates: a legal framework in which the state can secretly disable a person's digital communications, with judicial oversight but without public accountability or notification to the subject.
C-15: The Digital Dollar And The Question Of Programmable Money
**Status**: Bank of Canada digital currency exploration; legislation in various forms
The Bank of Canada has been actively exploring a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) — a government-issued digital dollar that would operate on a central ledger rather than through the existing commercial banking system.
Proponents argue that a CBDC would improve financial inclusion, reduce transaction costs, and give Canada a competitive position in the emerging digital currency landscape. The Bank of Canada has been transparent about the exploration — it has published multiple discussion papers, conducted consultations, and stated clearly that no decision to implement a CBDC has been made.
The civil liberties concern is not with the exploration. It is with a specific technical property of CBDCs that distinguishes them from all previous forms of currency: programmability.
Unlike physical cash — which is anonymous, untraceable, and can be used for any legal purpose by anyone — a CBDC can, in principle, be programmed with conditions. It can be set to expire. It can be restricted to certain categories of purchases. It can be frozen at the account level by a central authority. It can be traced to every transaction it participates in.
The Bank of Canada has stated that any Canadian CBDC would be designed to protect privacy and that programmability restrictions would require legislative authority. Critics note that the same was said about many of the other authorities described in this article — and that the legislative authority, once granted, tends to expand.
S-209: The Court That Can Black Out The Internet
**Status**: Senate bill; various iterations
Site-blocking legislation — enabling Canadian courts to order internet service providers to block access to specific online platforms or websites — has been advanced through Senate bills and regulatory proceedings before the CRTC.
The stated purpose is combating piracy: blocking offshore platforms that distribute copyrighted content without authorisation. The CRTC's FairPlay Canada proceeding, which predates the specific bill, established the regulatory framework for site blocking orders.
The civil liberties concern is the mechanism, not the stated purpose. Once the legal architecture for court-ordered platform blocking exists — once judges can require ISPs to make a website or platform unreachable in Canada — the question becomes: what else can the same mechanism be used for?
The Online Harms framework, described above, has contemplated orders that could require platforms to remove content or restrict access. S-209-style mechanisms provide the technical enforcement layer: if a platform does not comply with an order to restrict content, a court can order ISPs to block the platform entirely.
In isolation: a tool against piracy. In architecture: the blocking infrastructure for any platform a future government designates as non-compliant.
The Architecture Argument: When All Thirteen Operate Together
This is the section that requires the most careful reading, because it is also the most alarming.
Each of the bills described above has a government justification that, taken alone, is at least facially reasonable. Streaming regulation supports Canadian culture. Online news legislation supports journalism. The Emergencies Act responds to public order emergencies. Hate speech law addresses genuine harm. Financial intelligence combats money laundering and terrorism financing. National security disruption powers protect against foreign threats.
None of this is in dispute.
What critics — and the compilation of sources listed in this article — argue is that the combination of these authorities creates something qualitatively different from any individual component.
Here is what that combination looks like in a specific scenario, drawn from the analysis that has circulated among civil liberties researchers and that this article is attempting to verify and document:
A Canadian citizen posts commentary on a political topic — say, criticism of a government policy on immigration or climate or fiscal spending. The Commissioner of Canada Elections determines the post touches on an 'electoral matter' and that a statement within it is factually incorrect.
Under expanded political speech legislation (C-25 framework), this creates a basis for a criminal investigation. The investigation accesses location metadata and communication records (C-22 framework) showing where the post was made and who received it. FINTRAC records (C-2 framework) of the person's financial transactions are shared with the investigating agency. A disruption warrant (C-8 / C-59 framework) is sought, and the person's phone is rendered inaccessible — secretly, without their knowledge, pending the investigation.
If the post referenced a religious text in its argument, the hate speech provisions (C-9 framework) are available as an additional charge, without requiring the Attorney General's personal consent. The bank accounts of anyone who shared or financially supported the poster can be flagged through the Emergencies Act framework.
The platform on which the post appeared, if it does not comply with a takedown order under Online Harms legislation, can be blocked by ISPs under S-209 architecture. Because C-18 has made Canadian news invisible on Meta, coverage of the investigation is unlikely to reach Facebook or Instagram.
And because Canadian political parties are exempt from privacy law (C-4 / PIPEDA exemption), the governing party's data operation has profiles on everyone who interacted with the original post.
This scenario does not require that every element of every bill described above has been enacted in its most aggressive form. It requires only that the architecture is in place and that the political will to use it exists.
History does not offer comfort on the question of whether governments, once possessing extraordinary powers, exercise restraint in using them.
What The Government Says, And Why It Is Not Entirely Wrong
In the interest of honest journalism, the government's position deserves a fair hearing.
The Liberal government — across multiple iterations, ministers, and prime ministers — has maintained that each of these legislative measures addresses a documented, genuine harm. CSIS disruption powers exist because foreign state actors are conducting influence operations on Canadian soil. Financial intelligence legislation exists because money laundering is real and causes real harm. Online harms legislation exists because the documented psychological damage to children from unregulated social media platforms is well-evidenced. Election integrity legislation exists because disinformation campaigns have measurably affected democratic outcomes in allied countries.
None of those arguments are false.
The government would also note that Canada's courts — including the Supreme Court of Canada — have struck down legislation that violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The judicial review mechanism exists precisely to catch overreach. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians provides parliamentary oversight of the intelligence community. The Privacy Commissioner has enforcement powers. The access to information regime provides some transparency. These are not nothing.
The civil liberties counter-argument is not that these safeguards are nonexistent. It is that they are systematically undermined by the same legislative programme being documented here: courts that can secretly authorise disruption warrants, oversight committees whose findings are classified, a Privacy Commissioner without the resources or authority to audit political parties, and an access to information regime that has become, by the assessment of virtually every journalist and researcher who uses it, functionally broken.
The architecture argument does not require that the government is acting in bad faith today. It requires only that the architecture exists, that it is expanding, and that the assumption of good faith should not be the mechanism on which the protection of rights depends.
Why The Silence Of Liberal Voters Is The Most Interesting Part
The social media post that prompted this article asked a pointed question: why are Liberal voters silent about this?
The question deserves a serious answer rather than a partisan jab.
Part of the answer is that many Liberal voters genuinely believe the stated purpose of each of these bills and do not accept the architecture argument. They are not wrong that the stated purposes are legitimate. They are, in the assessment of this publication, not adequately weighing the architectural risk.
Part of the answer is tribalism. The same voters who were correctly alarmed by Donald Trump's executive overreach — his attacks on the press, his attempts to direct federal agencies toward political opponents, his use of emergency powers for policy ends — have been less attentive to the quieter, more bureaucratically orderly version of the same tendencies in their own government. The mechanism matters, but so does the direction.
Part of the answer is trust. A significant portion of the Canadian population trusts the Liberal Party as the traditional steward of the Charter and multicultural Canada, and finds it genuinely difficult to credit the argument that the same party is building a surveillance architecture. The cognitive dissonance is real, and it is not stupid. The Liberal Party has, in many respects, been on the right side of civil liberties questions over the last forty years.
But trust is not a substitute for accountability. And the question of whether a given power will be abused is always easier to ask before the architecture is in place than after.
The purpose of this article is not to answer the question of whether any of these powers will be abused. It is to establish, as precisely as possible, that the powers exist. Every source cited in this article is publicly available. Every claim about each bill traces to the legislative text, to published analysis by named experts, or to reports from officers of Parliament.
Share this with someone who hasn't seen it yet.
The PRC Editorial View
This publication has no party affiliation. It has covered Liberal, Conservative, and NDP governments at both the provincial and federal level with the same standard: what are the facts, who is affected, and what does the evidence say?
The facts in this case are as follows. The Canadian federal government has, over the past decade, assembled a legislative toolkit that — read together — provides a government with the capability to monitor communications, restrict political speech, control access to financial services, interfere with digital devices, share data with foreign governments, regulate what Canadians discover online, and block platforms that do not comply with government orders.
Some of these capabilities have already been used. The Emergencies Act bank freezes happened. C-11 is in force. C-18 is in force and Meta has blocked Canadian news. The CSIS disruption regime exists.
The appropriate response to this documented reality is not panic. It is attention. Attention from voters of every political stripe. Attention from parliamentarians who are not on the government bench. Attention from journalists, who are themselves subject to several of the mechanisms described above. Attention from lawyers and judges who will be asked, at some future point, to decide whether these authorities have been exercised within their proper limits.
Democracy does not fail loudly in developed countries. It fails quietly, through administrative incrementalism — one reasonable-sounding bill at a time, each solving a real problem, until the aggregate of the solutions has produced a system no one voted for.
That is the architecture argument. It deserves to be taken seriously.
Key takeaways
- C-11 (Online Streaming Act) gives the CRTC authority to require platforms to adjust recommendation algorithms to promote Canadian content — effectively allowing a government-appointed regulator to influence what Canadians discover online.
- C-18 (Online News Act) passed into law and Meta responded by blocking all Canadian news from Facebook and Instagram — a consequence critics argued was foreseeable and that the government has acknowledged was unintended.
- The Emergencies Act was invoked in 2022 and used to freeze bank accounts without court orders; the framework remains law and can be re-invoked by any future government.
- Canadian political parties are explicitly exempt from federal privacy law, meaning they can collect and use detailed voter data on Canadians without the consent or transparency requirements that apply to private companies.
- CSIS disruption warrants — authorised by courts under C-59 — allow secret interference with a target's phone or internet access without notification to the person whose devices are affected.
- Online Harms legislation in earlier iterations included pre-crime provisions: court orders restricting a person's online activity based on anticipated, not actual, offences.
- The architecture argument holds that each law is individually defensible, but read together they create an interlocking framework for monitoring, restricting, and controlling Canadian public life that has no precedent in Canadian democratic history.
Frequently asked questions
- Are these bills real Canadian legislation?
- Yes. Every bill referenced in this article — C-11, C-18, the Emergencies Act, and the others — is a real piece of Canadian federal legislation that was either introduced or passed by the Liberal government. The specific bill numbers correspond to legislation traceable to the Parliament of Canada's publicly available database. Some bills have received Royal Assent and are in force. Others are at various stages of the legislative process. The analysis of each bill draws on the legislative text, published academic and legal commentary, and reports from officers of Parliament.
- Has Michael Geist actually raised concerns about these bills?
- Yes. Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa and holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. He has been one of the most prominent and persistent critics of C-11 (Online Streaming Act) and C-18 (Online News Act) in particular, writing extensively about algorithmic regulation, the impact on user expression, and the consequences for Canadian access to news. His analysis is publicly available at michaelgeist.ca.
- What did the Emergencies Act actually do to bank accounts?
- When the Emergencies Act was invoked in February 2022, the government issued an Emergency Economic Measures Order that required financial institutions — banks, credit unions, crowdfunding platforms, payment processors — to freeze the accounts of designated individuals and organisations without a court order. The Public Order Emergency Commission (Rouleau Commission) confirmed that accounts were frozen, that no judicial approval was required for the freezes, and that the criteria for designation were broad. The Commission concluded the invocation was legally justified; a minority of participants in the inquiry disagreed.
- Is Canada actually developing a Central Bank Digital Currency?
- The Bank of Canada has been publicly exploring a CBDC for several years and has published multiple discussion papers and consultation documents on the topic. The Bank has stated that no decision to implement a CBDC has been made. Civil libertarians have raised concerns about the programmability of any future CBDC — the technical ability to restrict, trace, or expire digital currency — though the Bank of Canada has stated that privacy would be a design priority.
- Why are Canadian political parties exempt from privacy law?
- Canadian political parties have been exempt from PIPEDA (the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act) since its original passage. The exemption was retained in proposed successor legislation (C-27). The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has raised this issue in multiple annual reports. The exemption means political parties can collect, aggregate, and use detailed data on Canadians — including voter profiles compiled from commercial data sources — without the consent, transparency, or data subject rights requirements that apply to private companies.
- What is FINTRAC and what does it do with Canadians' financial data?
- FINTRAC is the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada — Canada's financial intelligence unit. It receives mandatory reports from banks, credit unions, money service businesses, casinos, real estate professionals, and Canada Post on transactions meeting certain thresholds or displaying certain patterns. FINTRAC can share this intelligence with the RCMP, CSIS, the Canada Border Services Agency, and foreign financial intelligence units. Legislative expansions have broadened the categories of entities required to report and the agencies with which FINTRAC can share data.
- What is the 'architecture argument' in plain language?
- The architecture argument holds that individual laws, each addressing a legitimate concern, can collectively produce a system of state power that no democratic government should possess. In this context: the power to monitor communications (metadata collection), restrict speech (election integrity legislation, hate speech expansions), control financial access (FINTRAC, Emergencies Act), interfere with devices (CSIS disruption), share data internationally, regulate what Canadians discover online (C-11), and block non-compliant platforms (site blocking) — all operating simultaneously — creates an interlocking capability with no democratic precedent in Canada's history.
← Back to PRC Newsroom · Public Relations Canada
Enable JavaScript to view the interactive version of this page.