Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Which Canadian political parties support or oppose Bill C-8?
Executive Summary
The landscape of party positions on "Bill C-8" is muddled because the label has been used for different federal bills at different times; the Liberal Party consistently sponsors and supports bills labelled C‑8 in both the 2020 conversion‑therapy context and the 2025 cybersecurity context, while other parties’ stances vary by the bill’s subject and timing. For the 2025 cybersecurity Bill C‑8 the Conservative Party signals conditional support for stronger critical‑infrastructure protections but seeks amendments over privacy and charter concerns, whereas historical debate over a 2020 Bill C‑8 on conversion therapy shows Conservatives opposing the conversion‑therapy bans and the NDP and Bloc Québécois urging swift passage [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why ‘Bill C‑8’ needs disambiguation — two very different laws sharing a name
Parliamentary practice reuses bill numbers across sessions, so “Bill C‑8” can refer to distinct legislative packages in different Parliaments, creating confusion unless the subject and year are specified. In 2025 the designation C‑8 refers to a package that amends the Telecommunications Act and creates the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act to strengthen cybersecurity for federally regulated entities; the sources summarize those provisions and frame the bill as a cyber‑infrastructure protection measure [5] [2]. By contrast, earlier uses of C‑8 in 2020 related to banning conversion therapy, a criminal‑law reform championed by the Liberal government; departmental releases and Hansard excerpts document that Liberal ministers re‑introduced conversion‑therapy amendments originally labelled C‑8 and that parliamentary divisions followed familiar partisan lines [3] [4]. Recognizing this naming overlap is essential to accurately assign party positions.
2. The Liberal Party: sponsor and proponent across versions
Across the materials provided, the Liberal Party is the clear sponsor and public supporter of bills called C‑8, whether the topic is conversion therapy in 2020 or critical‑infrastructure cybersecurity in 2025. The Department of Justice press release explicitly records Liberal ministers re‑introducing conversion‑therapy amendments under the C‑8 label, demonstrating party leadership on that subject [3]. Separate 2025 summaries of the cybersecurity Bill C‑8 describe the bill’s architecture and legislative aims and are framed as government initiatives, again pointing to Liberal government sponsorship and advocacy for the measures [1] [2]. This pattern shows the Liberals consistently authoring and promoting C‑8 legislation in the relevant sessions covered by the available analyses.
3. Conservative Party: conditional support for cyber protections, resistance on conversion therapy
The Conservative Party’s stance diverges sharply between the two C‑8 iterations: Conservatives signalled conditional agreement with the cybersecurity goals of 2025’s Bill C‑8 but have pressed for amendments to protect privacy and Charter rights, per the 2025 analyses that note their support for strengthening cyber systems coupled with demands for safeguards [1]. Conversely, historical parliamentary debate on the conversion‑therapy bills shows Conservative members criticizing and opposing conversion‑therapy bans, actively blocking predecessor bills and voicing reservations about the approach [4]. Thus, the Conservative position cannot be summarized as categorical support or opposition to “Bill C‑8” without specifying the bill’s subject; the party supports cyber‑security objectives subject to amendment but opposed the conversion‑therapy criminalization measures when they were advanced under the same number.
4. NDP and Bloc Québécois: allies on conversion‑therapy bans, less visible on the cyber bill
In the conversion‑therapy episode, New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois urged rapid passage and framed the ban as an urgent human‑rights measure, with parliamentary excerpts recording them pushing the government to move forward on the criminal‑law change initially tied to C‑8 [4]. The 2025 cybersecurity materials do not prominently document explicit NDP or Bloc positions in the provided excerpts, though one analysis of parliamentary committee behavior on other bills suggests that multiple parties including the Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc, and NDP have in other contexts supported moving bills forward with amendments [6]. Therefore, based on the supplied analyses, NDP and Bloc support is clear for the conversion‑therapy version of C‑8 but not explicitly stated for the 2025 cybersecurity C‑8 in these documents.
5. What’s missing, and why context matters for assessing party positions
The supplied analyses capture party rhetoric and procedural signals but omit full vote records, detailed opposition amendments, and official party proclamations tied explicitly to the 2025 cyber bill; this absence limits definitive assignment of support or opposition beyond the summary positions recorded [1] [2] [6]. The materials also illustrate a recurring dynamic: parties may back the goal of legislation—such as securing critical infrastructure—while opposing specific measures they view as compromising privacy or Charter rights, producing conditional support rather than binary yes/no votes [1]. To move from summary to authoritative mapping of party votes and amendments one would need the full Hansard votes and party press releases for the specific sitting in which the 2025 Bill C‑8 was debated; the current sources are sufficient to show Liberal sponsorship, Conservative conditionality, NDP/Bloc support on conversion‑therapy, and gaps in explicit NDP/Bloc positions on the cyber bill [1] [2] [4] [3].