Which MPs or senators have publicly supported or opposed Bill C-8 and why?

1. Government backers: national security and continuity sold as the rationale

The primary public supporters of Bill C-8 are government ministers and Liberal MPs who frame the bill as necessary to secure Canada’s telecommunications and other critical infrastructure against cyber threats and to prevent disruptions that could harm small businesses and essential services, a line explicitly presented when the bill was tabled and in subsequent parliamentary debate ^{[1] [7]}. Government sources insist the bill incorporates improvements from earlier iterations and that privacy and Charter protections will be respected, noting an intention to work with opposition parties to “strengthen and pass” the bill ^{[7] [8]}. The parliamentary record and LegisInfo show the bill progressed to second reading, signalling institutional government support through the House process ^[9].

2. A named parliamentary opponent: Christine Normandin’s vote against the bill

In the House of Commons process documented in committee and concurrence records, Bloc Québécois MP Christine Normandin is recorded as the sole MP who voted in opposition to a version of Bill C-8 in June 2021, a concrete parliamentary dissent that indicates at least some elected officials took an explicit public stance against the measure during that stage of proceedings ^[2]. The broader record of debate referenced on openparliament.ca also captures other MPs raising privacy and surveillance concerns, even where those MPs did not record a dissenting vote ^[7].

3. Senate scrutiny and specific senators’ concerns over consultation and oversight

Senate debate and committee hearings flagged questions about consultation and oversight: Senator Salma (?) Omidvar (noted as “Senator Omidvar” in committee summaries) questioned the adequacy of consultations with newcomer communities, illustrating that senators publicly probed the bill’s reach and stakeholder engagement even as the government pushed the measure forward ^[2]. The Senate’s role in reviewing and amending earlier iterations of cybersecurity legislation is part of the public record, and senators pressed for more transparency and safeguards—criticisms the government says it has attempted to address ^{[7] [10]}.

4. Civil‑society and industry opposition: privacy, encryption and secret powers

Civil‑society organizations and some industry voices have publicly opposed or urged major amendments to Bill C-8, warning the legislation contains “encryption‑breaking” and secret order powers that could permit the minister to cut internet or phone service for specified persons without adequate safeguards; groups such as the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have urged MPs to amend or reject elements of the bill on Charter and privacy grounds ^{[3] [4] [5]}. Think tanks and advocacy networks (OpenMedia mentioned in commentary) have mobilized thousands of public submissions to MPs, arguing the bill’s order‑making and disclosure exceptions threaten fundamental rights and the overall security of networks if backdoors are mandated ^{[5] [3]}.

5. Media and editorial positions: alarm about scope versus government reassurances

Commentary in outlets like the National Post and legal analysis published alongside the official Charter Statement reflect the polarized public conversation: conservative editorial pages emphasize the extraordinary scope of government powers to collect data or suspend service ^[6], while official legal documents and Justice Department statements argue the bill’s objectives and non‑disclosure provisions pursue important security aims and that Charter considerations have been assessed ^[8]. The reporting record therefore shows a clear split between government proponents citing resilience and critics—parliamentarians, civil‑society groups and media commentators—highlighting risks to privacy, free expression and encryption integrity ^{[7] [3] [5] [6]}.