This week’s deeply disturbing revelations in Ottawa suggest that Prime Minister Mark Carney has been covertly, methodically establishing a Big Brother State, where Carney and cabinet executive orders will be extended without parliamentary oversight or need of public disclosure, and where Canadians’ rights and freedoms can soon be curtailed and managed. The Carney Liberals are now executing an unprecedented power grab and, as in the procedural trick used with the budget’s omnibus legislation, they are acting deceptively, violating the spirit of Canada’s parliamentary democracy.
The cumulative effect of the bundle of new laws the Liberals are intent on enacting will establish a prime minister and cabinet members who are no longer accountable to parliament, with the power to selectively grant special privileges to some and to selectively apply an extended hand of the law to others. This plan would be unfolding as devised were it not for the dogged questioning from a handful of acute opposition MPs and one alarming discovery by Toronto Star national columnist and CBC “At Issue” panelist Althia Raj.
On Dec. 6 the Toronto Star featured what has turned out to be a bombshell news item for parliamentarians. Raj concisely described the Liberals’ deceitful sleight of hand maneuver with Bill C-15, their budget legislation, in her news article, “Mark Carney is quietly giving sweeping new powers to his ministers.”
“Hidden in the federal government’s 634-page omnibus bill C-15, the Budget Implementation Act, is a measure that has so far escaped scrutiny. Under the pretext of regulatory efficiency, Prime Minister Mark Carney plans to grant cabinet ministers the power to exempt any individual or company from any federal law on the books — except for the Criminal Code — for up to six years.
The measure wasn’t included in the version of the Liberals’ Nov. 4 budget that was given to reporters. It was not discussed in the government’s speeches in Parliament about this bill. No opposition party aside from the Bloc Québécois seems to have noticed it was there until the Star pointed it out.”
Raj provided the Treasury Board Secretariat’s explanation that the measures are necessary to establish “regulatory sandboxes” where companies and individuals can operate outside Canada’s established regulatory regime – and this special status in the Liberals’ sandbox is to be granted confidentially by ministerial decree without the knowledge of parliament or the public for up to six years.
This shield of confidentiality is also granted to ministers’ actions – at the minister’s own self-discretion. So, for example, recall those extraordinary actions taken by the minister of finance in 2022 to freeze individuals’ bank accounts; with this new power, the government could take action against individuals without accountability to parliament or public disclosure. Think SNC-Lavalin, We Charity, and the ArriveCan app scandals, all which would have been kept hidden from parliament and the public for six years.
In the ethics committee this week, it was learned that Bill C-15 also shields ministers from wrongdoing and from revealing any of their own conflicts of interest. In a tense exchange between Conservative MP Michael Barrett and federal ethics commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein, the MP asserted that the legislation is “a path for ministers to bypass the usual parliamentary safeguards and ethical scrutiny by shifting decisions into private exemption orders.” Finckenstein responded that he had not looked at the legislation from “that particular aspect.” Barrett stated, “there’s no reason for a government to put forward legislation that gives them the opportunity to exempt themselves from all laws except the Criminal Code. I think that Canadians should be rightly concerned, and I certainly am.”
Leslyn Lewis, Conservative MP for Haldimand-Norfolk, is one MP who has been effective in raising awareness to the Liberals’ systematic undermining of national sovereignty, Canadians’ civil liberties and, as is the case with Bill C-15, the authority of parliament. In responding to Raj’s Toronto Star investigative work, posting on X, Lewis placed the Liberals’ recent wily attempt to hoodwink parliamentarians into context of the Liberals’ broader clandestine efforts to subvert parliament and override the country’s laws and democratic conventions.
“The Budget Implementation Act gives ministers the power to exempt specific persons, companies, or projects from being bound by all Acts of Parliament, with the exception of the Criminal Code. This change would make them literally above the law.
What concerns me is that this is not new.
Since Carney became Prime Minister, this has been happening sector by sector.
I have flagged this before in all these bills:
Bill C-2 centralizes discretion in border control, information-sharing, and enforcement, reducing the role of courts through administrative decision-making.
Bill C-5 consolidates federal override authority in economic and infrastructure matters, limiting external adjudication once projects are designated.
Bill C-8 allows ministers to direct telecom providers to suspend services or disable equipment by order, without a clearly defined appeal process.
Bill C-9 redefines hate, exposing pastors and faith leaders to potential legal action for preaching traditional beliefs, with decisions driven by ministers.
Bill C-10 reorganizes modern treaty implementation by shifting oversight and administration away from courts and to the government’s ministers.
Each bill focuses power within a specific sector.
Bill C-15 does something even broader. It generalizes this model across government.
Now is the time for Canadians to start asking questions.”
As Bill C-15 passed second reading and is now referred to a MPs finance committee, the Liberals are attempting to push their new hate legislation, Bill C-9, through the justice committee with a side deal with Bloc MPs. The Liberals have agreed to remove religious speech defence from the Criminal Code, which will place Canadians in a position of being criminally prosecuted for hate speech when expressing their religious beliefs or citing religious texts that might be deemed offensive by an individual or group.
Bill C-9 has been controversial with Canadian civil liberty groups who viewed the legislative wording too vague, and expert testimony warned MPs that with the legislation broadening the definition of hate would open the door for the hate law to be weaponized against peaceful protests and legitimate dissent. As Lewis posits above, this hate law is part of a larger design to introduce a new censorship regime, and C-9 is that piece of the puzzle that will censor Canadians’ religious freedoms.
Reacting to the Liberal-Bloc deal, Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman made this observation on X: “Deeply troubling. Bill C-9 lowers the bar for ‘hatred,’ strips out the safeguards that prevent political prosecutions, invents a new hate offence that can turn minor slip-ups into major crimes, bans symbols instead of confronting real hate, and NOW puts sincere religious discourse in the crosshairs. This isn’t about safety, it’s about control. And it will hurt the very communities it claims to protect. Pathetic when communities are led to believe we have a law problem when the problem is an utter lack of enforcement on real hate.”
Justice Minister Sean Fraser has repeatedly claimed that freedom of religion in Canada will not be impacted by the removal of a religious defence and the enactment of the new hate speech measures. However, the civil liberties and religious groups find no solace in the minister’s reassurances. It would take but one minister in the future to change what is defined as hateful. There is a high probability for that to happen if you consider the recent testimony of culture minister Marc Miller before the justice committee when he was there to comment on hate speech. Miller used passages of the Bible to illustrate that religious texts contain statements that are hateful and should be subject to the criminal penalties of the new law.
Derek Ross, of the Christian Legal Fellowship, also appearing before the committee, addressed the minister’s comments, “I don’t know that I would agree with that characterization, Mr. Chair, that passages are categorically hateful, especially not passages in the Bible. If members of Parliament are of the view that passages of the Bible are hateful, that’s something that Canadians should be aware of.”
As a parting comment on what is unfolding in Ottawa, much of it with little to no public attention, it is best to repeat Lewis’s stark warning: “Now is the time for Canadians to start asking questions.”
Chris George is an advocate, government relations advisor, and writer/copy editor. As president of a public relations firm established in 1994, Chris provides discreet counsel, tactical advice and management skills to CEOs/Presidents, Boards of Directors and senior executive teams in executing public and government relations campaigns and managing issues. Prior to this PR/GR career, Chris spent seven years on Parliament Hill on staffs of Cabinet Ministers and MPs. He has served in senior campaign positions for electoral and advocacy campaigns at every level of government. Today, Chris resides in Almonte, Ontario where he and his wife manage www.cgacommunications.com. Contact Chris at chrisg.george@gmail.com.