American Christian rock musician, Sean Feucht, was recently stunned to discover that cities across Canada were Canceling his concerts in parks and churches.

Billboard Canada explains,

Feucht unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Congress as a Republican in 2020 and has spoken out against abortion rights, “critical race theory,” and the 2SLGBTQ+ community on his website.

“Six Canadian Shows From MAGA Musician Sean Feucht Are Cancelled,” July 25, 2025

In Montreal, the clearly politically motivated Cancelation got unusually testy. From Alex Dhaliwal at Rebel News,

Police briefly entered the church before Friday’s event, then confirmed the show would proceed, according to media reports.

Law enforcement were heavily present as Feucht supporters arrived, met by local anti-Trump, ‘anti-fascism’ protestors. At least one demonstrator was arrested.

In the hours that followed, police monitored the church where dozens sang and prayed. A smoke bomb was thrown inside, but no arrests were made.

“City fines Montreal church $2,500 for hosting Sean Feucht,” July 26, 2025

What surprised Feucht — and many Canadians as well — was the implicit assumption that many in authority made: They had to right (duty?) to shut him down because his politics are unpopular with them.

But in recent years, the Canadian government has made many forays in the direction of censorship, most of them with graver implications than this one.

Bill C-63

Introduced in February 2024, the bill’s stated purpose is to protect children and non-consenting adults from harm caused by online speech. But the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms notes two things about the bill: In substance, it duplicates existing Criminal Code provisions. But it also does something else:

The Online Harms Act would impose severe penalties for online and offline hate speech, including life imprisonment, which is the most severe criminal punishment in Canada. This new legislation would establish a new Digital Safety Commission with power to enforce new regulations created by the federal cabinet. The Canadian Human Rights Commission would acquire new powers to prosecute and punish non-criminal hate speech.

In short, it creates and/or enhances a bureaucracy to establish censorship.

The bill died on the order paper in January 2025 when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned. But, now that the Liberal government has been returned in an April election, under Mark Carney, there is talk of reintroducing it.

Hate speech is a curiously selective concept

Anti-Semitic activities have become an everyday feature of life in a number of urban areas in Canada, including Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. But few believe that the government is anxious to address that issue (which would require no changes to the Criminal Code in any event). In fact, Prime Minister Carney has muted the issue, highlighting efforts to fight poorly defined Islamophobia instead.

So it is reasonable to think that the government has broader goals than dealing with traditional concerns about hate speech.

Online Streaming Act (2023)

Since April 2023, Canada has also had the Online Streaming Act (C-11), which is often described as an effort to control streaming in order to support Canadian content. There are other ways of seeing their actions.

Jen Hodgson had the story at Western Standard:

Bill C-11, or the Online Streaming Act, which has passed through both the House and the Senate and gained Royal Assent on February 2, 2023, will control what content search engines like Google and YouTube recommends to Canadian users.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation in an in-depth analysis on the legislation earlier compared Bill C-11’s censorship to “authoritarian nations like China and North Korea.”

The bill also compels podcasters to register under the national broadcast regulator Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and requires media giants like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Spotify to promote Canadian content and pay 5% of their revenue to support Canada’s legacy broadcasting system, according to Music Canada’s Patrick Rogers.

“ONLINE STREAMING ACT: What is Bill C-11 and why should Canadians care?” Dec 25, 2024,

Why so much concern over what Canadians see, hear, or think?

The heart of the problem

Image Credit: 1STunningART - Adobe Stock

The business of supporting Canadian media — once the usual patriotic stuff we all nod for — has become a drive to control what Canadians think. The Liberals, Canada’s “natural governing party,” are serious about it. In an age of VPNs and multiple search engines, the government cannot have complete control, or at least not yet. But they can, and now do, force internet providers to subsidize Canadian media efforts and direct our attention toward approved sources.

The trouble is, government-subsidized Canadian media represent the public much less than they used to. That is because one outcome of generous government support is that media operate as creatures of government. This was well put by Francis Crescia, commenting on Bill C-11 in an article at Independent Institute:

Legacy media considers itself the protector of democracy, but it has turned a blind eye and become an implicit advocate for censorship. It is not far-fetched to believe that C-11 is crafted with the interests of traditional television and print publications to promote their content, helping them survive as the media business continues to lose audiences and money.

“The Dark Side of Bill C-11: How it Could Silence Canadian Voices,” January 6, 2023

Government-funded media become less hostile to censorship over time because it has little effect on their activities. Censorship primarily affects the independent media who refuse the subsidy and cover news that is unpopular with government. In fact, that’s their bread and butter!

Canadian media veteran Peter Menzies, surveying the scene, notes,

This pattern of behaviour makes it exquisitely clear that media dependence on the government negatively impacts democratic discourse and that’s why this Substack exists. I was down to a handful of [independent] holdouts in The Line, The Hub and Western Standard – God bless them all – as platforms that would post commentary on the ethical dilemmas posed by media dependence on government. I wasn’t sure how long they’d be able to hold out, as it’s not easy to compete when the government is paying 30 per cent or more of your rivals’ salaries.

“News media’s dependence on Liberal subsidies cited as sign of democratic decay,” July 21, 2025

And in the end…

In this environment, the public doesn’t so much mistrust subsidized media as it just tunes them out. The lavishly funded government broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), is watched during prime time by only two percent of Canadians.

And, as long as access to the internet continues, it is still easy to get around most restrictions. But no one should see this fact as a healthy news environment.