Canada at a Crossroads: The West’s Descent into Digital Authoritarianism
An In-Depth Investigation of Surveillance and Digital Control in the UK and Canada by Sonia Elijah
“Big Brother is watching you.” Orwell’s famous warning no longer feels imaginary. Across the UK and Canada, governments are advancing digital systems marketed as “safe,” “efficient,” or “modern,” yet these systems quietly expand state surveillance and reshape citizens’ rights. What once seemed like dystopian fiction is taking hold through policy.
Both countries are rapidly building national digital ID programs, tightening control over online expression, and enabling warrantless access to personal data. These moves align with the intelligence-sharing priorities of the Five Eyes alliance and the UN’s Agenda 2030 goal for “universal legal identity” (SDG 16.9). Rather than strengthening civil liberties, this shift normalizes unprecedented state control over digital life.
A recent investigation on the Sonia Elijah Investigates Substack sounded the alarm about the United Kingdom’s expanding surveillance powers and the lack of democratic oversight surrounding new global health and digital governance frameworks. Although her analysis focuses on the UK, the implications extend directly to Canada. In fact, the patterns Elijah exposes are now emerging here even more rapidly. And while some international agreements have already been adopted, it is not too late for Canadians to push back—if action is taken now.
Sonia Elijah’s work highlights a larger trend: the UK and Canada, once defenders of individual liberty, are now advancing digital systems that concentrate power, limit privacy, and position governments—and their international partners—to monitor and control citizens’ lives. Understanding the UK’s trajectory is essential, because Canada’s policies are quickly aligning with it. The UK example is a warning. Canada is the battleground.
The UK’s Blueprint for Digital Authoritarianism
Elijah details how the UK has spent more than a decade building a sweeping surveillance infrastructure. GCHQ’s Tempora program, revealed only through Edward Snowden’s leaks, intercepts vast amounts of global communications. The Investigatory Powers Act forces telecom companies to retain browsing and messaging data for a year and allows wide access for intelligence agencies, often without warrants.
Newer laws deepen the concern. The Online Safety Act gives authorities leverage to weaken encrypted apps, pressure platforms to censor vaguely defined “harmful” content, and impose enormous fines for non-compliance. Even major platforms have warned that the law encourages pre-emptive censorship.
Meanwhile, the UK is advancing biometric surveillance, AI-driven monitoring, and real-time data access across public systems. Police continue arresting people for online speech, and the proposed “Brit Card” digital ID would merge identity, access to services, and personal information into one trackable system. Public backlash has been intense, but the UK government remains committed.
Canada is not merely following this trajectory. In several areas, it is moving faster.
Canada’s Accelerating Shift Toward Digital Control
Sonia Elijah’s article places Canada alongside the UK as a key driver of Western digital authoritarianism. Multiple federal bills, coupled with Canada’s Five Eyes obligations and its commitment to digital identity under Agenda 2030, are creating the same integrated control framework seen in the UK.
Bill C-2, introduced in June 2025, gives border authorities warrantless access to digital data and allows information-sharing with U.S. agencies under CLOUD Act arrangements. Despite public criticism, the essential structure—expanded surveillance with minimal oversight—remains intact.
Bill C-8 goes even further. It grants the federal government power to issue secret orders compelling telecommunications companies to weaken encryption or install backdoors. It allows authorities to shut down the internet or phone access of specific individuals without judicial review. Conservative MP Matt Strauss warned that this could create a “digital gulag,” in which a citizen can be cut off from communication, banking, or employment with no explanation and no path for appeal.
These bills build on earlier attempts like the Online Harms Act (C-63), which collapsed under criticism in 2025 but established the template for broad content moderation and rapid deletion requirements similar to the UK’s Online Safety Act. Although C-63 did not become law, its influence is visible in today’s policies.
Alongside these pieces of legislation, the federal government continues to develop a national Digital Identity Program. Officials describe it as “convenient” and “secure,” but its structure aligns with both the UK’s Brit Card proposal and the UN’s SDG 16.9 requirement for universal digital identity systems. Canada’s program is still in pilot stages, with full rollout projected for 2027–2028.
Together, these measures reveal a coordinated trajectory: expanding surveillance, controlling digital infrastructure, limiting anonymous communication, and tying access to essential services to government-managed digital identity.
Is It Too Late for Canada?
The timing of Elijah’s October 2025 article raises a fair question, but the answer is clear: NO—Canada still has decisive choices to make.
The amended International Health Regulations (IHR), adopted globally, entered into force in September 2025 and now apply to Canada. This is significant, as they expand WHO authority during declared health emergencies.
However, the WHO Pandemic Agreement is different. Although adopted in principle, it is not yet in force, and Canada has not ratified it. Ratification requires a domestic process, including parliamentary review—something citizens can still influence. Canada is therefore not currently bound by the full framework, and MPs still have the power to reject or amend participation before it becomes legally binding.
This means Canada is at a genuine crossroads. Some elements of the new global governance model are already in place, but the most consequential commitments remain open. Public pressure now can still change the country’s direction.
What Canadians Can Do
Canadians can still meaningfully intervene in the direction of their country. The remaining decisions are political—not automatic—and MPs must be pressed to act responsibly.
Contact your Members of Parliament and urge them to:
-
Reject Bill C-2
-
Reject Bill C-8
-
Demand full parliamentary debate before Canada signs or ratifies the WHO Pandemic Agreement
-
Oppose the federal Digital Identity Program
-
Defend Charter rights to privacy, expression and due process
Canadians should also support civil liberties organizations challenging unconstitutional surveillance and censorship initiatives, and continue sharing credible information so others understand what is unfolding.
Canada is not yet locked into the full digital control framework described in Elijah’s investigation. But without strong public engagement and clear parliamentary resistance, the remaining barriers may fall quickly. This moment matters. The next decisions will shape the balance between liberty and control for years to come.
Source:
Forensic Investigative Journalist Sonia Elijah
How the UK and Canada Are Leading the West’s Descent into Digital Authoritarianism (2025).
*********************************************************************************************************************