Mark Carney's Popularity is Endangering Canada - Part 3
In this installment in my series about the damage that Mark Carney's Liberal government is doing to Canada I will look at the advances that Carney is trying to make in the directions that Justin Trudeau had started during his tenure, but he was held at bay by the minority Parliament that Canadians gave him to work with. This is likely at least part of the reason why Carney worked so hard to change the balance of power that Canadians gave to him at the last election. He knew that in a minority Parliament he would not be able to pass the bills that are currently before the House. In a minority Parliament, the bills would receive a lot of scrutiny by the Parliamentary Committees that will examine them and that scrutiny would be made public through social media journalists, though not the legacy journalists.
This is not so much the case in a majority Parliamentary situation. With the manufactured majority that Carney has engineered, the Liberal Party has the option of cutting the Committee meetings short by a simple majority motion which could and would severely limit the amount of scrutiny these bills would receive. Alternately, the majority Liberal Committees could move to take the Committee "in-camera", which ironically means that all discussions would be had off camera, and the content of those discussions would fall under a gag order, the violation of which comes with penalties for whoever blabs. In this way, the Liberal government can hide their reactions to the legitimate concerns brought forward by the other parties and can force these bills through Committee out of sight of the public, completely undermining the purpose of democratic systems in the first place.
The Liberals have used this particular tactic several times this year since they were able to change the makeup of Committees after securing their potentially fraudulent majority at the end of April. According to a Global News article from April 30, in the span of a week, the Liberals moved four Committee meetings in camera and adjourned another Committee meeting, things possible only with a majority. This is an affront to the democratic system that our Parliamentary system is built on. By hiding or cutting short the proceedings, the government has removed the scrutiny of the people from their actions. This has occasionally been done in the past for matters of national security, and when this has happened, there has typically been at least grudging support for the move by the Opposition parties, but this string of moves by the Liberals were not based upon national security concerns. In fact, the motion was simply presented and voted upon with the Liberals using their majority to their advantage to hide the proceedings for unknown reasons.
In another Global News article posted on May 1, government House Leader Steven MacKinnon said "committees are vital to the parliamentary system and the government is responsible for ensuring accountability and transparency. “We’re determined to continue to extend our hand across the aisle and to work with opposition parties to keep those committees transparent, open and doing their work in public as they mostly always have,” he said." This about-face came only after the governing Liberals faced a wave of criticism from the Opposition parties, the media and government accountability watchdog groups for their actions during the previous week. Mr. MacKinnon's attitude towards this about-face was evident in another sentence in his statement to the press; “But I accept that the burden of the government is to ensure that this work remains virtually entirely done in public.”
It is apparently a burden for the Liberal government to conduct their business in the eyes of the public, those who placed them in their positions of authority and to whom these public servants are supposed to answer. This is a snapshot into the mindset of the people in the Liberal Party. Accountability is viewed as something that will slow down their desired progress and is something that they wanted to avoid.
So as of the beginning of May, the Liberals stated that transparency will be the order of the day, but as we have recently entered into the latest sitting of Parliament, we'll see how important that transparency truly is to the Liberals. After all, they have introduced numerous bills that are dangerous to the Canadian public at large, but if they can keep the public from finding out what they are doing, then they can implement their control and censorship platform without backlash.
And control and censorship truly is their goal. For the remainder of this article, I will be using a lot of information taken from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms website and some interviews with John Carpay from the JCCF. This is an organization whose mission "is to defend the constitutional rights and freedoms of all Canadians through litigation and education." Over the last eleven years of Liberal government rule, they have been busy.
Quoting from a December 2025 article titled "Death by a thousand clicks: The rise of internet censorship and control in Canada", the article's abstract states, "Since 2020, the Government of Canada has introduced eight bills that collectively expand state control over Canada’s internet, including online speech, news distribution, and streaming services. Framed as protecting Canadians from hate, misinformation, and foreign threats, laws passed and pending grant government institutions unprecedented power to manipulate algorithms, compel platform payments, and enable warrantless
surveillance, internet disconnections, and expanded speech criminalization. This report traces Canada’s legislative shift from an open to a controlled internet where government determines what may be said, seen, and shared online. It shows how Canada’s historic departure from its tradition of open discourse toward state-managed digital speech undermines democracy and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
That is a damning condemnation of the state of the control mechanisms that the Liberals tried, and in too many cases succeeded in implementing, starting with the previous Trudeau government, with Mark Carney as Trudeau's advisor since 2020 - that is not a coincidence. The table of contents of the above linked report lists the bills that the Liberal government brought forward to this end:
44th Parliament (2021-2025)
- Bill C-11: Online Streaming Act
- Bill C-18: Online News Act
- Bill C-63: Online Harms Act
45th Parliament (2025 - )
- Bill C-2: Strong Borders Act
- Bill C-8: An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making
consequential amendments to other Acts
- Bill C-9: Combatting Hate Act
Now before I go on, I need to mention that all of the things that the above bills claim to seek to prevent and protect against were already covered under previously long-standing laws. The problem was that those laws were not being applied against these internet based infractions, presumably to create the conditions under which these bills could be introduced to increase the breadth of control that the government holds over our access to information on the internet and our freedoms to speak openly on the internet.
I recently watched an interview that Jasmin Laine conducted with John Carpay, the link to which is right here, and I will share part of the transcript of that interview in which Carpay covers what the government didn't tell Canadians about some of those bills:
"The building blocks of the surveillance state are being put into place where Canada is now moving towards becoming like communist China where you have the social credit system whereby the government knows every citizen, where they are, who they're talking to, what they're doing, where they're travelling, when they get on a plane or a train or a bus, everything because they have centralized digital ID.
And so in Canada, we've got, I'll just cover it kind of one sentence per bill, but there's a lot to it. But when we had bill C11, the Online Streaming Act, which gave the CRTC power over the internet. Previously, it was limited to radio and television, which was already pretty big. Now they have power over the internet.
The Online News Act [Bill C-18] made it impossible for us to share news links via Facebook.
We've had Bill C8, the Cyber Security Act, which empowers federal cabinet ministers to kick individual Canadians off the internet so they can order providers to say, "Well, don't provide any internet services to Jasmine Lane or to John Carpay or to whomever." And this can be done by way of a secret order that you're not allowed to talk about. And the Bill C8 also gives government officials immense powers to regulate private companies and tell them how to set up their software.
Bill C-22 does the same thing. This is the Lawful Access Act. It's C-22. It's now, it passed through the House of Commons. It's now before the Senate. And it gives government officials, it gives the government the power to instruct companies how to set up their software and their their architecture for easy searches. And so we've had Signal announcing publicly that they're going to leave Canada because they can no longer guarantee the privacy and confidentiality to their own customers if Bill C-22 becomes law. So this is super serious.
And then last but not least, (Bill) C34, the Safe Social Media Act, is going to create this new super regulator called the Digital Safety Commission, which will have power to censor social media and levy huge fines on social media companies, all in the name of protecting the kids. So, I'll stop there, but that's that's a very tip of the iceberg, 30,000 ft view of the building blocks of the surveillance state that most of them have passed already. Some of them are still in the legislative process."
That is the rundown, in the view of a non-partisan organization, of the new legislative structure that the Liberal government has spent the last six years building. These new laws add a digital/internet aspect to existing laws, not because the laws are insufficient, but so that the government can gain control and authority over the internet, internet users and all information on the internet.
This is not about protecting you; this is about controlling
you. Justin Trudeau famously stated his admiration for China's "basic dictatorship" and people didn't take him seriously. They should have. Now we have Mark Carney who obviously shares a similar view of China because he has signed Canada on to a new strategic partnership with China, the documentation of which he has kept hidden from all Canadians, against all efforts to gain access to these documents by numerous people. This is why Mark Carney had to parachute in to save the Liberals from defeat. Trudeau had built a small foundation upon which the rest of the bills would sit, and a Conservative government would have undone all of Carney's hard work. Carney did not come to be our Prime Minister for Canada, he did it to protect his plan. A plan that Europe is also walking down, hence our new proposed alignment with that continent.
Taking from another interview that John Carpay did, this time with Ryan of Northern Perspective, there was discussion about Bill C-34, which was recently introduced in the current Parliament. Following are excerpts from the discussion around this bill:
Ryan: "What is the JCCF most concerned about when it comes to C-34?"
John: "Well, (the) Digital Safety Commission is a new government body. This was in the old Online Harms Act that that died with the last parliament. This is a new government body that will be a regulator of social media that will have the power to write its own rules, interpret those rules, enforce those rules, and impose fines of up to $10 million or 3% of annual global revenues on social media companies. And the stated purpose, of course, is to to keep the kids safe."
"There's a provision to try to deny access to children or teens under 16, that they can't use social media. This has been tried in Australia. Their law has been on the books for six or seven months now. It was passed in December 2025. And the Australian government reports that three months later there was an official report (that) two thirds of teens under 16 were still accessing social media anyway by using fake ID or ID from an older brother, sister, parent, friend. And the the intentions are good of course."
"But in Australia it it didn't work. Two thirds of the the teens were still accessing social media. Now we might say okay, great, the law didn't work. The scary part is the next step, which people in Australia are now calling for, is to have a digital ID facial scanning biometrics providing bank account information so that every Australian when they go online to to use social media they must prove their identity."
"And it's the same thing with the with the Safe Social Media Act in Canada, Bill C34. It opens the door to a requirement that everybody will have to prove their ID when using social media for any purpose. And that's going to apply to every Canadian having to confirm your identity every time you log onto social media. And needless to say, if that is in place, it's a small step for people to say, well, there's all kinds of bad stuff on the internet. So, everybody has to log on and identify themselves and and prove their age before they use the internet."
The government may frame this as a way to protect kids, but in order for it to work, everybody will have to "log on" to the internet with their biometrics, regardless of what you are doing on the internet. Bills controlling access to social media, etc.; bills that are sold to the public as a means to protect kids require all users to identify themselves. Take this along with the requirement that all digital services companies will be required to hold all digital data on all interactions by all their customers for six months (for now), plus the requirement that software developers create back doors in their software that will allow the government to search the developers logs for client information and activity, without express permissions required, nor a judicial warrant, and we have the very serious makings of a tyrannical state with maximum control over the people and their abilities to communicate with each other, all being built at alarming speeds. But again, the legacy media won't tell you any of this.
Further on in the above interview, Ryan states that, "The other thing that I find really problematic about bills, especially C34, is the Liberals are writing all of these bills in a way that allows the actual regulatory information to be decided afterwards by non-elected officials."
This has been a problem that I identified years ago with Justin Trudeau's government. Too many bills contained too much vague language that was left open for interpretation later on, by bureaucrats, government ministers or judges, as the needs required. I don't remember now if that was after 2020 when Carney became Trudeau's advisor, but in hind sight, I would bet it was.
Part of John's response to this is that, "There there are 50 different issues, topics which will be decided not by parliament but by the federal cabinet or the digital safety commission. So the digital safety commission gets to write its own rules, interpret its own rules and enforce its own rules by imposing penalties of up to $10 million. "
"Now theoretically there is accountability to parliament because like any government body they're required to produce an annual report and if the if the majority of the MP's on a committee want to question the head of, you know, the CRTC or this new digital safety commission, they can compel them to come and answer questions. So there's some accountability , which is better than nothing. However, practically speaking, on a day-to-day basis, you've got this very powerful government body, I shudder to think how many people they're going to hire for it, but you're going to have lots of people there that are watching social media platforms. And it'll be the platforms themselves that are going to err on the side of censorship."
So we are looking at a system that the government wants to put into place in which the Parliamentarians themselves, those whom Canadians elect to represent us, do not have control over what gets censored on the internet, though I maintain that internet censorship is a danger in and of itself. Instead, the government will hire bureaucrats to oversee the censorship regime; bureaucrats that tend to hold the views of the Party that put them in place and whom will be protected from removal by the Union. We have seen the results of this in the U.S. government, where Democrat bureaucrats have worked under the previous and current Trump administrations to undermine his orders and stall or forever block the changes the he desired. Regardless of how you feel about the man, this is wrong and is a direct attack on democratic institutions in general.
There is also the matter that John mentions that "if the majority of the MP's on a committee want to question the head of" any given commission, they can, but as has happened in this current Parliament, what if the balance of power on a Committee is adjusted after the fact by deal making that changes the power of government which was granted to it by the people through an election? The purpose of elections is for the people to state their support for a government and also to limit their powers when the people, as a whole, do not trust the government.
One other point that John Carpay made in one of the interviews, I believe the one with Jasmin Laine, is that over the generations, too many people have put too much trust in governments, and that more people have been killed in the 20th century by their own governments than in wars in the same time frame. Yet people still blindly trust politicians and fail to hold them to account.
The Liberals exited the last election with a minority mandate. In my view, in most cases, a minority mandate is ideal for Canadians. It lends a level of accountability to the government, which we pay for with a less stable government, but a government cannot run away with it's own ideology. But our current government altered the outcome and subsequently gave itself majority power in the Committees, an act that is viewed by myself and many other Canadians as unethical at the least and more likely illegal. If the Liberals had at least left the balance of power in the Committees as Canadians had decided it, one could almost overlook the bought majority, as a lot of work gets done in the Committees, but by altering those as well, it is obvious that these were the actions of a power hungry dictator wannabe, and yet-to-be? This is a power grab, plain and simple.
What I have found particularly concerning about some of the language in Bill C-34 is that "posts damaging to public institutions that could undermine political stability" are included in the list of the types of posts that will be subject to censorship. Think about that for a second. The federal government is a public institution. An authoritarian government would see any criticism of it, it's laws, it's ministers or it's leader as "damaging to public institutions" and language that could potentially "undermine political stability". Of all the points of this proposed legislation, this is probably the most dangerous, yet it is getting next to no attention. This language can make criticism of the government, a basic tenet of western democracy, illegal online content, punishable by restricted internet access, at the very least.
Now look back to what John Carpay said about what is happening in Australia. The current version of the law that is meant to restrict social media access to under 16's is failing spectacularly. It is my view that this is by design in order to create the conditions for the public to accept and even call for the next step, which is identity confirmation for internet access.
The same trap is being set in Canada. This will be part of the basis for the introduction of not only wide spread but mandatory adoption of digital ID for all Canadians. In Europe, we see it being pushed to "protect" native born Brits and to keep illegal aliens from entering the work force, but again, there are already laws in effect to counter these things which are not being enforced. The government creates the problem, the public notices the problem and demands a fix, which the government already has ready to implement. A solution that gives the government more power, more control, and that power and that control has to be given up by the citizens of that country. In a future article I will delve into how the rejection of responsibility by individuals is leading to the enslavement of the people and the coronation of new "kings", but this article is too long to cover that now.
Western governments have been taken over by power hungry people of similar ideological views who want to work together to make a One World Government, a la John's Revelation, chapter 13. This is not a surprise to those who know the Bible, but most of the world does not know the Bible, so the world hurtles towards global tyranny through the demands of the uneducated masses. No, not uneducated; the ideologically captured masses. Those who think themselves wise but who are actually fools:
Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him. – Proverbs 26:12
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. – 1 Corinthians 1:18
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. – Colossians 2:8
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, – Romans 1:22
People are not stupid, but we have become too enamoured by our supposed educated elites and have placed too much trust in them. This goes for teachers, professors, doctors, lawyers, judges, politicians, and journalists among others. We have been trained to believe them. We have been told that they all, as a group, have out best interests at heart. This leaves us with a feeling that they are above corruption, but they are not. In fact, as it turns out, many are in cahoots with each other to work for their own benefit.
The government no longer wants the public to be able to scrutinize their actions or motives and the legacy media are all too eager to oblige them, given that the government has become their sugar daddy. People are more tuned into politics now than ever before, probably because of the polarity of modern politics and the divisions that this polarity causes, so you would think that people are more informed if they are more tuned in, right?
The problem is that the Liberal government keeps shotgunning announcements at Canadians in such a rapid succession that we cannot dig into one announcement before the next one comes up, so we are overloaded with information and cannot fully discover what the government means in any given announcement.
This is by design! This is done so it is more difficult for the people to hold the government to account.
Take, as a recent example, the big Liberal government announcement that the west coast pipeline project has been named as the first project of National Interest. Nothing was accomplished by granting this title to the project. No route was finalized, no investor was found, not a single length of pipe was ordered or shovel full of dirt was moved towards the completion of this pipeline, but there was a big media circus with Mark Carney at the center of it, and it was all that the media could talk about for two days. Until the next big, empty announcement was made, whatever that was. I can't remember, and neither can you. This is the point. Lots of announcements make it seems like something is getting done, but the only thing happening is that our country's freedoms are being removed and our government is taking over.
But it is high time that I wrap up this article. I will close with this; Mark Carney is a carpetbagger. That means that he is someone who is an outsider, especially a politician, who presumptuously seeks a position or success in a new locality. He was chased out of Britain as a failure, and Brits tried to warn Canadians, but too few heard or heeded the warnings. It is time for Canadians to realize and react to the information that is available to us and put a stop to this government.
For your information, I am including below links to several articles written by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms in which the growing surveillance state that is the Canadian government and the dangers that this poses to Canadians are talked about. Please take the time to read some of them, and educate yourself about our Parliamentary system as well.
https://www.jccf.ca/reports/privacy-roadmap-halting-canadas-surveillance-state/
https://www.jccf.ca/reports/privacy-collapse-canadas-expanding-surveillance-state/
https://www.jccf.ca/reports/manufacturing-consent-government-behavioural-engineering-of-canadians/
https://www.jccf.ca/reports/digital-id-surveillance-and-the-value-of-privacy-part-1/
https://www.jccf.ca/reports/digital-id-surveillance-and-the-value-of-privacy-part-2/
Comments
Post a Comment