In recent years, the fabric of Canadian civil liberties—particularly freedom of speech and religion—has been quietly unraveling. A troubling pattern has emerged when examining the actions of government leaders, legislative proposals, and influential figures like Mark Carney, whose words and deeds suggest an unsettling shift toward centralizing power and restricting individual rights. This evolving landscape threatens to undermine the foundations of democracy and push Canada onto a dangerous path reminiscent of darker, more authoritarian histories.
The recent actions surrounding the Freedom Convoy 2022 vividly illustrate this concerning trend. Mark Carney, then a key advisor to Justin Trudeau’s government, penned an op-ed that laid the groundwork for subsequent sweeping measures, including the invocation of the Emergencies Act. His language demonized the protesters, describing the convoy—initially a peaceful protest against mandates and economic hardship—as sedition. This narrative served to de-legitimize dissent, framing it as a threat to national stability and justifying extraordinary government powers. As a result, bank accounts of protesters were frozen, assets seized, and voices criticizing government policies were silenced—all under the pretext of safeguarding democracy. Such actions, while presented as necessary for national security, revealed a disturbing willingness to curtail Canadians’ fundamental rights under the guise of protecting democracy.
This manipulative narrative was not an isolated incident. During the Jody Wilson-Raybould affair, Katie Telford—then Prime Minister Trudeau’s chief advisor—explicitly acknowledged the role of op-eds in shaping public perception and defending government actions. The strategy was clear: control the narrative to justify political overreach. Fast forward to 2025, and we see an ongoing effort to consolidate government authority through legislation—namely Bills C-2, C-8, and C-9—pejoratively framed as measures to “combat hate” and “protect social harmony.” These laws threaten to redefine hate speech, restrict civil discourse, and eliminate critical safeguards, such as the oversight role of the Attorney General. The vagueness of these new definitions could easily criminalize dissent, religious expression, or unpopular opinions, all under the false guise of addressing discrimination.
The move to weaken religious protections is particularly alarming. Recent parliamentary debates have discussed removing the “Advancement of Religion” as a charitable purpose—a move seemingly aimed at targeting religious organizations and expressions of faith. Such proposals risk criminalizing or silencing religious speech and practices. Laws like Bill C-9 seek to water down the Supreme Court’s legal definition of hatred, replacing it with vague, emotion-based standards that could be wielded against anyone expressing dissenting or unpopular views. Once governments begin defining and policing thoughts or feelings—rather than actions—civil liberties accelerate toward erosion. History teaches us the danger of laws that criminalize “thought crimes”: once subjective standards are institutionalized, individual freedoms are at great risk of collapse, replaced by unchecked state control.
Furthermore, the language used by figures like Carney—who publicly suggested that Canadians “will have to sacrifice” their economic stability and freedoms to face “challenges”—offers an unsettling glimpse into the government’s mindset. Such rhetoric hints at an intention to restrict protests and dissent under the pretext of maintaining social order during times of economic crisis. As deficits soar—already running at $16 billion in just seven months, with projections for a $100 billion deficit in the upcoming budget—economic hardship will likely intensify social unrest. When people see their savings whittled away by inflation, or feel their livelihoods threatened, resistance grows. Governments, anticipating this unrest, appear to be planning preemptive suppression—through draconian legislation, censorship, and increased surveillance—further eroding the civil liberties that form the pillars of democracy.
The pattern becomes clear: crises are being exploited as opportunities to expand government power while diminishing individual rights. The Freedom Convoy, which many in government labeled as seditious, was used as a pretext for crackdowns—bank account freezes, restrictions on protest, and enforcement of speech regulations that threaten to criminalize opposition and silence dissent. Now, with the upcoming budget and legislative agenda set to tighten control further, the threat to civil liberties is more imminent than ever.
This isn’t a new tactic. Across history—both in democracies and authoritarian regimes—fear and crises have been used to justify the suppression of civil liberties. What makes the current trajectory particularly concerning is Canada’s long-standing pride in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet, laws like Bill C-9—aimed at redefining hate, removing safeguards, and broadening government authority—risk turning law enforcement into tools of political suppression rather than protectors of fundamental rights.
Our response must be unwavering. Canadians need to scrutinize the upcoming budget with vigilance, critically examine legislative proposals, and stand against measures that threaten free speech, religious liberty, and due process. We must uphold the constitutional protections that have long safeguarded our society—not only for ourselves but for future generations. History reminds us that civil liberties are not self-perpetuating. As Irish orator and judge John Philpot Curran said, “God has given us freedom on the condition of eternal vigilance.”
