Bills C-8 and C-9 - Under Active Consideration in Parliament

What You Need to Know

Bill C-8 — “An Act respecting cyber security…”

This bill was introduced in June 2025, and as of late 2025 it has passed second reading and is in committee in the House of Commons. It would amend the Telecommunications Act and create the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act, imposing new federal cybersecurity mandates and oversight powers over telecommunications and “designated operators” of vital services and systems.

Why Bill C-8 Isn't in Our Best Interests

1. Broad government powers - Wide authority to issue orders to telecoms and other operators — including powers to require actions or stop services.

2. Potential impact on privacy & civil liberties - Government directives could allow access to or control over communication networks without strong checks, raising privacy concerns.

3. Risk of secret orders - this bill would permit confidential orders (e.g., cutting off an individual’s phone or internet service) without notification or transparent oversight.

4. Weak oversight safeguards - Privacy and civil liberties advocates argue that the legislation lacks robust privacy impact assessments and independent review mechanisms.

5. Compliance burden on businesses - The detailed cybersecurity requirements — especially for regulated sectors and their supply chains — could lead to significant costs and administrative workload for companies.

Bill C-9 — “Combatting Hate Act”

Also introduced in 2025 (October), Bill C-9 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code related to hate propaganda, hate crimes, and access to religious/cultural places. It has likewise passed second reading and is being studied in committee. The government frames it as targeting hate crimes and intimidation, while critics argue it risks infringing Charter rights like free expression and religious beliefs.

1. Bill C-9 expands criminal law in ways that risk criminalizing peaceful protest and expression - Opponents warn that the bill’s new offences—especially those related to “intimidation” and “obstruction” around certain places—are vague and broad. This could criminalize conduct that is currently lawful protest or peaceful assembly protected under the Charter.

2. It removes important prosecutorial oversight that protects against arbitrary enforcement - Bill C-9 eliminates the long-standing requirement that the Attorney General consent before hate-propaganda charges are laid. Civil liberties groups argue this shift gives police and prosecutors too much discretionary power, increasing the risk of politically motivated prosecutions.

3. Vague definitions could criminalize legitimate speech and artistic or religious expression - The law’s language about “symbols used by or associated with listed entities” and about “hatred” is criticized as ambiguous, meaning that harmless or symbolic speech (including artistic, religious, or political speech) could be prosecuted because courts may interpret these terms broadly.

4. Disproportionate impacts on marginalized and religious communities Civil liberties advocates note that expansive and loosely worded offences—especially absent adequate safeguards—could disproportionately affect racialized, religious, and minority communities, restricting their ability to organize, advocate, and speak freely without fear of criminal charges.

5. The religious speech exemption is being removed, threatening religious discourse.

A controversial proposed amendment to Bill C-9 would remove the “good-faith religious expression” defence for hate speech offences, meaning references to religious texts or doctrinal speech could potentially be prosecuted—raising concern from faith communities.

Bill C-9 is sold as a tool to combat hate—but as currently drafted, it broadens criminal penalties, weakens Charter protections, and expands state discretion over expression and assembly. By removing vital legal safeguards, introducing vague offences, and extending the reach of criminal law into spaces of peaceful protest, artistic and religious speech, the bill risks chilling free expression, empowering law enforcement with unbounded authority, and disproportionately targeting marginalized communities.

In both cases, neither bill has received royal assent or become law yet — they remain active government bills being reviewed by Parliament.

Why This Matters

1. Rushed legislation, limited scrutiny - Both bills were bundled into large omnibus-style legislation, making it difficult for Parliament—and the public—to fully examine their real-world impacts. When complex laws are passed quickly, democratic oversight suffers.

2. Increased financial burden on Canadians - Critics warn that measures in C-8 and C-9 risk increasing costs for households and small businesses at a time when affordability is already under strain. While framed as “economic recovery,” the consequences are unevenly felt.

3. Centralization of federal power - These bills expand the federal government’s ability to regulate, tax, and intervene with fewer checks. Once granted, these powers are rarely rolled back—regardless of which party is in office.

4. Weak accountability mechanisms - Despite large fiscal and regulatory implications, the government has offered limited clear metrics for success, limited sunset clauses, and minimal guarantees of independent review.

What the Government Isn’t Saying

The official narrative emphasizes efficiency and recovery. What it downplays is how these bills:

Reduce meaningful parliamentary debate
Commit future governments and taxpayers to long-term obligations
Prioritize federal control over local and provincial decision-making
Set precedents that extend well beyond their stated purpose

Democracy works best when laws are transparent, targeted, and openly debated. Bills C-8 and C-9 fall short of that standard.

Push Back Against Bills C-8 and C-9

Bills C-8 and C-9 are being presented by the federal government as routine or technical measures. They are not. Together, these bills expand federal authority, lock in long-term policy choices with limited public debate, and shift costs and risks onto Canadians—while offering insufficient transparency or accountability.

What You Can Do

Change does not happen automatically—it happens when people act.

Contact your MP and demand clear explanations and accountability
Submit feedback to parliamentary committees reviewing these bills
Share factual information with your community and networks
Support civil society groups calling for stronger oversight and amendments

These bills are not a done deal. Public pressure has changed legislation before—and it can again.

Further research info here:

https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills

https://lop.parl.ca/staticfiles/PublicWebsite/Home/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/PDF/45-1/PV_45-1-C8-E.pdf

* BILL C-8: AN ACT RESPECTING CYBER SECURITY

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-8/first-reading

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-8 (45-1) - First Reading - An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts - Parliament of Canada

https://www.mnp.ca/en/insights/directory/bill-c8-new-era-cyber-security-compliance-canadas-vital-sectors