If you were Canadian, I'd say this page is political commentary of a law which now exists here. But maybe it's just a coincidence...
Can't wait to see where things go from here!

Oh, is it? That's interesting! The idea was of poking fun of the habit of putting the word "terrorism" on literally anything so you could deal with it in a certain way while having an instant justification for it at hand, something that pretty much every country more or less does these days, even if it's just done in the media. But I wasn't aware of an actual law being passed in Canada! What exactly is it about?

It's a stupidly complicated law, but it pretty much says that any person that does anything disruptive or "unpatriotic" can be deemed a "terrorist" and a non-authoritative government agency has the power to arrest and detain that "terrorist" indefinitely without warrant or laying charges. The law also does not define "terrorist" but the federal law enforcement agency has said that by definition of the law, demonstrators and protesters would fall into that category. According to the information-gathering agency (which NOW has the power to arrest people), anyone deemed a "terrorist" will lose all privileges and freedoms associated with being a citizen until either cleared or released from custody.
This law was passed a couple months ago at the same time as another law, which allows the government to exile Canadian citizens and deny re-entry into Canada if the person holds dual-citizenship OR was born outside of Canada OR was a child of 2 immigrants. Though this only applies if the person in question was charged with some kind of crime (including minor things like traffic violations).
In the past year, the Canadian government has created powerful and overreaching laws which are weakly defined and open to interpretation, and were made to deal with imaginary threats; literally and knowingly sacrificing freedoms of the people o preserve security of the government.
I admit I am passionately opposed to (and biased against) these laws.

Wow, I never would have guessed that any country ever would have gone that far, and I thought of the page above nothing less than just mere satirical exaggeration. A little hamfisted perhaps, but I had to get the point across with just a few panels and bubbles at hand. Little did I know that things like these could technically happen in that very way! o_O

Whenever laws like these are passed (and by that I mean laws that are very loosely worded and leave way too much room for interpretation), I always wonder if this is because they don't know what they're doing or if this is actually downright intentional. It could very well be one of these things that were done in the best intentions, but once the "right person" comes along will be abused in all its glory.

I wonder what exactly led to this, though? Was there some event/problem that made the Canadian government consider taking actions like these?

Last year a crackhead (literally, a homeless drug addict) shot a military guard and ran into the parliament building with the intention of killing high-profile politicians including the Prime minister. So instead of reinstating strict gun control laws, or amending information-sharing laws, they claimed he was a terrorist (with no ties to any terrorist organizations) and then villified all muslims (the crackhead was a non-practicing muslim who was banned from a bunch of mosques). Some critics have suggested that the Prime Minister made these new laws because he was embarrassed by hiding in a broom closet during the whole incident.
The new laws were intentionally undefined, as the other parties here were either opposed to the creation of these laws, or wanted to amend them to limit their power. The current government went far out of their way to pass the laws as fast as they could, even when the supreme court and numerous experts said these laws should NOT be passed.

One couldn't make this one up. o_O And if one did it for a story or a movie, it would be considered as too far-fetched and too silly, no matter if it's a drama or a comedy.

I find it strange though that this didn't get more widely reported. At least over here I haven't read any notice about it. Pretty odd, considering how far reaching that law is. It's almost as if somebody has been opening Pandora's Box and no one's even caring. Seriously, it's things like these that make me rather worried about where we're heading as a whole.

GRR

Ah!
Yes' I can read that message! In fact, I may be the only one who bothers to read the signs!

Frankly, this is actually the best time of presenting the people under the signs, given how the people themselves are important here. The '42' is an interesting point: even when you are space-cramped, you managed to squeeze in a joke!

...Bill Bush, a look-alike of George Washington... how humorous! (I should warn you: I am Puerto Rican, hence this result may not be typical.)

The 5th panel... I so feel that... I want that panel to be memetic.

I feel bittersweet over being told to watch the guy... then again, I should appreciate that because I miss even the most obvious things.
...yet the 'FORESHADOWING!' self-referential box turns the whole thing into humour!