John Carpay, founder and director of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), warns that three Canadian federal bills now before Parliament—C-2, C-8, and C-9—would give Ottawa sweeping new powers to monitor, censor, and punish citizens under vague definitions of “security” and “hate.”
In a detailed interview with RAIR Foundation USA, Carpay cautioned that the measures would erode transparency, criminalize dissent, and allow secret government orders against individuals. He also warned that the Trudeau-era Bill C-63, the so-called “online harms” act, is expected to be reintroduced—legislation he says would let the state police speech and silence critics in the name of “safety.”
“We defend Canadians against tyranny, and the tyranny is growing,” Carpay said, describing JCCF as a non-profit, donor-funded legal charity with “a team of 10 lawyers across Canada” that takes on pro-bono cases when “freedoms of expression, association, religion, conscience, peaceful assembly, travel, mobility, [and] bodily autonomy” are threatened.
From there, Carpay outlined how each of the pending bills would grant Ottawa new powers to surveil, silence, or punish citizens under the guise of national security or social harmony.
Bill C-8: Ministerial power to cut off internet access
Carpay characterized Bill C-8, which amends the Telecommunications Act, as a vehicle for broad ministerial directives over online communications:
“The federal cabinet gets the power to kick somebody off the internet… and these orders can be secret.”
Because “threats” are not defined in the bill’s framework, Carpay argued that the law could be applied to “controversial” but lawful expression:
“If the Minister believes… your extreme views are a threat to cybersecurity, you can get kicked off the internet just on the basis of the content of what you’re saying.”
Carpay added that while officials often invoke “safety and security” to justify new tools, existing Criminal Code provisions already cover hacking, fraud, and cyberattacks. In his view, C-8 is “completely detached” from genuine cybersecurity enforcement:
“It’s very horrific that the government would have the power to kick anybody off the internet in the first place.”
Bill C-9: Doubling maximum sentences when “hate” is found
Turning to Bill C-9, Carpay said it would take current hate-motivation sentencing concepts “and put them on steroids.” He noted that judges in Canada can already increase sentences when they find hate was a factor; C-9, as described by Carpay, would raise maximum penalties across a range of offences (for example, “from two years to five years,” “from ten to fourteen,” and potentially “to life” at the top end):
“By virtue of the existence of hate as an emotion… you suddenly have doubled maximum penalties. How can a judge really know what’s in your heart?”
Bill C-2: From “Strong Borders” to strong surveillance
Carpay called Bill C-2—introduced after the last election and officially styled the Strong Borders Act—a 140-page omnibus that also creates a new Authorized Access to Information Act. He said it empowers “a whole range of government officials” to demand subscriber information and inspect computers without a warrant, and would allow Canada Post to open letter mail without first seeking judicial authorization:
“It should be called the Strong Surveillance Act… Government officials can access premises and demand inspections.”
The bill, he said, also includes gag provisions: service providers compelled to disclose data could be barred from notifying affected subscribers.
Secrecy vs. transparency — and a historical caution
Carpay drew a careful historical comparison to stress the dangers of opaque state power:
“That’s what the communists and Nazis and other horrible regimes… liked to do—operate in secret. One of the hallmarks of a free society is transparency.”
He emphasized that in free countries, charges, trials, and judgments occur in public. By contrast, he said C-2 and C-8 enable secret orders, leaving citizens “in the cold” about who acted and why.
Editor’s note: Carpay’s comparison was presented as a legal-historical caution about secrecy, not as rhetoric about current actors. We include it here precisely as stated to reflect the argument’s substance, not to sensationalize it.
The online-harms file: C-63 and pre-emptive restraints
Asked about the Trudeau-era Bill C-63, Carpay said government figures had spoken about bringing back similar measures. As he described it, if revived and passed, the package would push speech regulation into human-rights processes with financial penalties (he cited “up to $50,000” in the defunct text), prolonged proceedings, and the possibility of pre-emptive restrictions:
“If your neighbor fears that you might commit a hate speech crime, they can go to court and seek a judge’s order to place you under house arrest… on account of what you might say in future.”
Carpay also said C-63’s scheme would have captured content posted many years prior, exposing individuals to new proceedings over old online speech.
Digital ID and CBDC: “A nightmare of control”
While not offering specifics on the UK’s digital-ID debate, Carpay argued that centralized digital ID in Canada would “give the government more power and more control over the individual,” enabling officials to link access to services and mobility to one’s compliance status. He warned that a central bank digital currency (CBDC) would be even more sweeping:
“Central bank digital currency would make the lockdowns and vaccine passports seem like an absolute cakewalk… Now the government can totally control your life.”
What should Canadians do?
Carpay urged citizens to participate directly in democratic processes—from school boards to Parliament—and to contact their MPs immediately regarding C-2, C-8, and C-9:
“Tell them if they vote for Bills C-2, C-8, or C-9, you’ll vote against them in the next election.”
More broadly, Carpay urged Canadians not to view themselves as passive victims of government overreach but as citizens with the power to take back institutions — from local school boards to Parliament itself.
He said Conservative MPs had “so far” spoken out against the three bills. He also referenced an NDP MP from British Columbia who publicly flagged C-2 as a civil-liberties risk, while noting he was not certain of the name. He did not make definitive claims about the Bloc Québécois position.
