A distinction without a difference. The ruling elite doesn't have to survey the population. They sandbagged the population into alignment with their own opinions, then strong-armed holdouts and specifically targeted them along every possible vector (social, legal, economic, etc.) for their adherence to wrong beliefs. I shudder at how much worse this could get in a fully cashless society.

So, everyone in the population of Canada who disagreed with the ruling elite's opinions was personally "strong-armed" and "targeted"? Or only a subset of them? If it was just a subset, could there have been anything that distinguished much of that subset apart from the rest of the people who weren't "targeted?" Maybe some event they took part in or helped?

Yes, everyone in all of Canada who disagreed with the ruling elite's opinions at the time saw themselves strong-armed and targeted by both legislation and vitriol from public officials. The greater the perceived threat to destabilizing belief in the elite opinion from any subset, the more severe the measures taken - as we saw, including unreasonable wartime actions to force compliance.

Well, since I don't live in Canada, I'm just going to have to hit the eject button and trust you that every single person in the country holding a particular political belief, likely tens of millions, were personally and directly targeted by the government with enforcement action, as ridiculous as that sounds.

In any country people are personally and directly affected by subjugation measures directed at their ingroup, I don't think that's particularly controversial.