The 11 months since the 2025 federal election have seen the Liberals introduce several bills with significant digital policy implications: Bill C-2, Bill C-8 and, most recently, Bill C-22, tabled on March 12.

Peter Menzies, when asked to assess the Mark Carney government’s approach to online legislation from a 30,000-foot view, noted that big picture concerns he had about Carney’s predecessor Justin Trudeau’s approach to cyberspace are as prevalent now.  

“Societies depend on a good balance between liberty and order,” said Menzies, a former vice chairman and president of telecommunications for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). “A number of these bills are intended to ensure that business and society is conducted in an orderly fashion. But I think they tend to infringe on liberty more than is perhaps necessary. I think their instinct is to go a little too far. Sometimes they pull back — sometimes it's enough and (other times) it's not enough.

Advertisement

“To me, it's a trend that requires a lot of vigilance on behalf of the public and the media who cover these stories.”

A senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Menzies has warned in recent years that any weakening of civil liberties harms religious expression. He knows that religion has always been a "topic of interest" for government radio-television and telecommunications supervisory agencies like the CRTC and religious programming is historically “something that makes them institutionally nervous.”

Significant controversy did erupt in the public square when Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, was introduced in June 2025, particularly a provision that would grant police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service the authorization to demand basic subscriber information — names, addresses, phone numbers and services used — without a warrant. It would also empower a minister to issue secret surveillance orders. Service providers like WhatsApp, Gmail and TikTok would be fined if it let users know their information was disclosed to the government. The uproar derailed C-2 in the House of Commons. No progress has been made since last September and core tenets of the bill have resurfaced in successive legislation.

Bill C-8, “An Act respecting cyber security,” garnered concerns in the autumn for a measure that would enable the Minister of Industry and Governor In Council (GIC) to prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to any specified person,” and it can direct a provider such as TELUS, Bell and Rogers to suspend telephone and Internet access to said individual “for a specified period.” This authority could be enacted without requiring judicial oversight if someone is deemed an “interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation” risk to the Canadian telecommunications system.

Menzies anticipated the bill would be reformed before it ever became law, and indeed an amended C-8 emerged out of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on March 11. Judge authorization was restored. Interference or disruption was classified as only technical actions, not lawful expression, persuasion or political debate, thus only a person committing a concrete action against the system could face prohibition.

Advertisement

While noting that these changes are positive, Menzies cautions that “the real proof of that will be in the regulations when we see them. Those don't get voted on. Those get established by the government after the bill gets passed.”

Bill C-22, “An Act respecting lawful access,” while noted by digital policy watchdogs as a better alternative over the warrantless informational demand power of C-2, still harbours privacy risks.

Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, wrote on his website about the proposed government power to compel “core providers” to retain categories of metadata 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,” wrote Geist. “It is one of the most privacy invasive tools a government can deploy, and the international experience suggests there are major privacy risks.”

Additionally, the evidentiary standard for law enforcement to request individual subscriber information would lower from “reasonable grounds to suspect.”

Menzies noted how bills like C-2, C-8 and C-22 do receive “a lot of their push from the police who are looking for the most efficient way for them to be able to operate,” and if there are not bills arming them with broad powers “in some instances (they) would complain that ‘you're just handcuffing us.’ ”

Advertisement

While he does “understand and sympathizes to an extent,” he said, “our default position needs to be liberty with order as opposed to the other way around.” 

Citing Carney’s February declaration that Canada abides by civic nationalism, which includes a respect for dignity and human rights, Menzies would like to see that respect for human rights “more fully reflected in the legislation that the government produces.”