Fr0m LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The Department of Immigration has had research done to investigate digital passports as an identity document, but MPs have soundly rejected the idea as dangerous and costly.

Without oversight from elected federal MPs, Canada’s Department of Immigration had research done to investigate a national ID system using digital passports for domestic use and how such a system would be enforced.

According to Access to Information documents, a senior analyst wrote in a staff email, “One of the things that came up in our discussions with Canadian Digital Services is the assumption the passport would be used within Canada as an identity document.”

“This warrants a policy discussion,” the staff email added.

MPs have soundly rejected any national ID system as both dangerous and costly.

According to internal records, managers at the immigration department put a new question regarding national ID into a 2024 voluntary Passport Client Experience Survey.

The files do not say who requested the new question to be added, and no MPs, Senators, or even Canada’s own Privacy Commissioner were told about this question.

Liberal MP Marc Miller, who is now Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture but was then the Immigration Minister, offered no comment to the media when asked early this year about why the new question was inserted in the passport survey.

The question was asked, “How comfortable would you be sharing a secure digital version of the passport within Canada as an identity document?”

Responses were given as “very comfortable,” “comfortable,” “neutral,” “not comfortable,” or “not comfortable at all.”

The results of the questionnaire in general showed that only a fifth of Canadians would consider their passport to serve as a form of ID, with about the same amount rejecting the idea of using one’s passport for domestic ID purposes.

One of Canada’s most staunchly pro-life MPs, Leslyn Lewis, recently warned Canadians to be “on guard” against a push by the ruling Liberal Party to bring forth Digital IDs, saying they should be voluntary.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Canadian government hired outside consultants tasked with looking into whether or not officials should proceed with creating a digital ID system for all citizens and residents.

Per a May 20 Digital Credentials Issue memo, and as noted by Blacklock’s Reporter, the “adoption” of such a digital ID system may be difficult.

Canada’s Privy Council research from 2023 noted that there is strong public resistance to the use of digital IDs to access government services.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Carney federal government plans to move ahead with digital identification for anyone seeking federal benefits, including seniors on Old Age Security.

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre sounded the alarm by promising to introduce a bill that would “expressly prohibit” digital IDs in Canada.

Digital IDs and similar systems have long been pushed by globalist groups like the World Economic Forum, an organization with which Carney has extensive ties, under the guise of ease of access and security.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Ottawa says Bill C-9 fights hate. Critics say it turns ordinary disagreement into a potential crime.

Discriminatory hate is not a good thing. Neither, however, is the latest bill by the federal Liberal government meant to fight it. Civil liberties organizations and conservative commentators warn that Bill C-9 could do more to chill legitimate speech than curb actual hate.

Bill C-9 creates a new offence allowing up to life imprisonment for acts motivated by hatred against identifiable groups. It also creates new crimes for intimidation or obstruction near places of worship or community buildings used by identifiable groups. The bill adds a new hate propaganda offence for displaying terrorism or hate symbols.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) warns the legislation “risks criminalizing some forms of protected speech and peaceful protest—two cornerstones of a free and democratic society—around tens of thousands of community gathering spaces in Canada.” The CCLA sees no need to add to existing hate laws.

Bill C-9 also removes the requirement that the Attorney General consent to lay charges for existing hate propaganda offences. The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) calls this a major flaw, noting it removes “an important safeguard for freedom of expression that has been part of Canada’s law for decades.” Without that safeguard, decisions to prosecute may depend more on local political pressures and less on consistent national standards.

Strange as it sounds, hatred just will not be what it used to be if this legislation passes. The core problem begins with how the bill redefines the term itself.

Previously, the Supreme Court of Canada said hatred requires “extreme manifestations” of detestation or vilification that involve destruction, abhorrence or portraying groups as subhuman or innately evil. Instead, Bill C-9 defines hatred as “detestation or vilification,” stronger than “disdain or dislike.” That is a notably lower threshold. This shift means that ordinary political disagreement or sharp criticism could now be treated as criminal hatred, putting a wide range of protected expression at real risk.

The bill also punishes a hateful motivation more than the underlying crime. For example, if a criminal conviction prompted a sentence of two years to less than five years, a hateful motivation would add as much as an additional five years of jail time.

On paper, most Canadians may assume they will never be affected by these offences. In practice, the definition of “hate” is already stretched far beyond genuine threats or violence.

Two years ago, the 1 Million March for Children took place across Canada to protest the teaching of transgender concepts to schoolchildren, especially the very young. Although such opposition is a valid position, unions, LGBT advocates and even Newfoundland and Labrador Conservatives adopted the “No Space For Hate” slogan in response to the march. That label now gets applied far beyond real extremism.

Public pressure also shapes how police respond to protests. If citizens with traditional values protest a drag queen story hour near a public library, attendees may demand that police lay charges and accuse officers of implicit hatred if they refuse. The practical result is clear: officers may feel institutional pressure to lay charges to avoid being accused of bias, regardless of whether any genuine threat or harm occurred.

Police, some of whom take part in Pride week or work in stations decorated with rainbow colours in June, may be wary of appearing insensitive or intolerant. There have also been cases where residents involved in home invasion incidents were charged, and courts later determined whether excessive force was used. In a similar way, officers may lay charges first and allow the courts to sort out whether a protest crossed a line. Identity-related considerations are included in many workplace “sensitivity training” programs, and these broader cultural trends may influence how such situations are viewed. In practice, this could mean that protests viewed as ideologically unfashionable face a higher risk of criminal sanction than those aligned with current political priorities.

If a demonstrator is charged and convicted for hate, the Liberal government could present the prosecution as a matter for the justice system rather than political discretion. It may say, “It was never our choice to charge or convict these people. The system is doing its job. We must fight hate everywhere.”

Provincial governments that support prosecution will be shielded by the inability to show discretion, while those that would prefer to let matters drop will be unable to intervene. Either way, the bill could increase tensions between Ottawa and the provinces. This could effectively centralize political authority over hate-related prosecutions in Ottawa, regardless of regional differences in values or enforcement priorities.

The bill also raises concerns about how symbols are interpreted. While most Canadians would associate the term “hate symbol” with a swastika, some have linked Canada’s former flag to extremism. The Canadian Anti-Hate Network did so in 2022 in an educational resource entitled “Confronting and preventing hate in Canadian schools.”

The flag, last used nationally in 1965, was listed under “hate-promoting symbols” for its alleged use by the “alt-right/Canada First movement” to recall when Canada was predominantly white. “Its usage in modern times is an indicator of hate-promoting beliefs,” the resource insisted. If a historic Canadian symbol can be reclassified this easily, it shows how subjective and unstable the definition of a “hate symbol” could become under this bill.

These trends suggest the legislation jeopardizes not only symbols associated with Canada’s past, but also the values that supported open debate and free expression. Taken together, these changes do not merely target hateful behaviour. They create a legal framework that can be stretched to police dissent and suppress unpopular viewpoints. Rest in peace, free speech.

Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.