Latest news with #OpenMedia
CTV News
25-06-2025
- Politics
- CTV News
Federal bill could give law enforcement sweeping powers to access information, groups warn
Several advocacy groups are voicing concerns that the federal government's border security bill could grant law enforcement sweeping powers to surveil Canadians and invade their privacy. 'It's an extremely concerning bill,' said Matt Hatfield, executive director of OpenMedia, a community-driven organization working for a 'surveillance-free and democratic internet,' in an interview with CTV News. OpenMedia was one of hundreds of organizations represented at a demonstration on Parliament Hill last week. The 139-page Bill C-2 — dubbed the Strong Borders Act by the Liberals — was put forward by Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree earlier this month, largely aimed at addressing the border security concerns of U.S. President Donald Trump. The president blamed the fentanyl overdose and border concerns for his initial slate of tariffs on Canadian goods, first threatened in November and then implemented in February. Asked repeatedly in an interview on CTV's Power Play this month about whether the bill is primarily aimed at placating U.S. concerns, Anandasangaree acknowledged the federal government has 'heard from the U.S. on some of the irritants that they have' but also said Prime Minister Mark Carney has 'clearly set an agenda to ensure that our borders are more secure.' Bill allows for some warrantless data requests Hatfield is warning that the border bill, however, has larger privacy implications, and weakens protections against law enforcement going too far. Department officials providing information on a not-for-attribution basis when the bill was tabled said it has three main themes: fighting organized crime and fentanyl, securing the border and offering more tools to fight financial crime. The legislation also proposes changes to what law enforcement can do without a warrant. The background document says it would 'clarify the ability of law enforcement to exercise specific powers and seize specific information without a warrant in urgent, time-sensitive circumstances.' An example given is the 'live abuse' of a child. The sweeping legislation requires changes across a number of departments, including Public Safety and the Canadian Border Services Agency. According to Hatfield, that means, for example, that law enforcement could request information from any core service provider — from an email provider to a rental car company, a hotel, a cell phone company, or a private healthcare facility — without a warrant. That could include how long you've been a client, how frequently you access the service, and from where you access it, among other information. 'If law enforcement believes they have a suspicion that this information could help them investigate a crime — not necessarily a crime that you're involved in, but a crime that having that data might help them — they can make that request with no warrant or approval from a judge,' Hatfield said. In an interview with CTV News, national coordinator with the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group Tim McSorley said that information could be used to build a profile about someone, and without their knowledge. Stipulations in the bill to increase information sharing between law enforcement agencies also means U.S. authorities could use the rule changes to find out whether an American has accessed private Canadian health facilities to obtain an abortion, for example. 'Our concern is that opens up a system that's ripe for abuse and overreach, and for mistakes,' McSorley said. NDP MP and public safety and national security critic Jenny Kwan has also voiced opposition to the bill, calling it a 'sweeping attack on Canadian civil liberties.' 'It would allow the RCMP and CSIS to make information demands from internet providers, banks, doctors, landlords and even therapists, without judicial oversight,' Kwan said in the House of Commons earlier this month. 'This is not about border security. It is about government overreach and Big Brother tactics, plain and simple.' Concerns about regulation vs legislation Bill C-2 is formally titled 'An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures.' It was at second reading in the House of Commons before MPs broke for the summer break last week. Any other progress on the bill will have to wait until the House resumes in mid-September. But both Hatfield and McSorley are concerned that the bill, as is, is too broad, and that the government is prepared to rely on the regulatory period after the bill has received Royal Assent to fully install safeguards. 'The government may have plans for guardrails eventually, but they're not in the law,' McSorley said. 'The sky's the limit, currently,' Hatfield said, pointing to the example of the bill's lack of definition for a 'service provider' as a potential sticking point and one that should have more specificity. As is, Hatfield said, it could include anything from an online forum to a school. Speaking to reporters on Parliament Hill shortly after tabling the bill, Anandasangaree said he's confident there are 'very important safeguards that are built in.' 'I've worked my entire life in the protection of human rights and civil liberty,' Anandasangaree said, when asked about the sweeping powers this bill affords law enforcement. 'So, I, in order for me to bring forward legislation, it needed to have the safeguards in place, it needed to be in line with the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,' he added. 'And I fundamentally believe that we strike the balance, that while expanding powers in certain instances, does have the safeguards and the protections in place to protect individual freedoms and rights.' According to an assessment released last week from the Justice Department, proposed measures in the act could clash with sections of the Charter of Rights, including clauses protecting Canadians against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' CTV News has requested a response from the department of public safety and the department of justice. With files from CTV News National Correspondent Abigail Bimman
CTV News
25-06-2025
- Politics
- CTV News
Advocacy groups concerned federal bill could give law enforcement sweeping powers to access information
Several advocacy groups are voicing concerns that the federal government's border security bill could grant law enforcement sweeping powers to surveil Canadians and invade their privacy. 'It's an extremely concerning bill,' said Matt Hatfield, executive director of OpenMedia, a community-driven organization working for a 'surveillance-free and democratic internet,' in an interview with CTV News. OpenMedia was one of hundreds of organizations represented at a demonstration on Parliament Hill last week. The 139-page Bill C-2 — dubbed the Strong Borders Act by the Liberals — was put forward by Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree earlier this month, largely aimed at addressing the border security concerns of U.S. President Donald Trump. The president blamed the fentanyl overdose and border concerns for his initial slate of tariffs on Canadian goods, first threatened in November and then implemented in February. Asked repeatedly in an interview on CTV's Power Play this month about whether the bill is primarily aimed at placating U.S. concerns, Anandasangaree acknowledged the federal government has 'heard from the U.S. on some of the irritants that they have' but also said Prime Minister Mark Carney has 'clearly set an agenda to ensure that our borders are more secure.' Bill allows for some warrantless data requests Hatfield is warning that the border bill, however, has larger privacy implications, and weakens protections against law enforcement going too far. Department officials providing information on a not-for-attribution basis when the bill was tabled said it has three main themes: fighting organized crime and fentanyl, securing the border and offering more tools to fight financial crime. The legislation also proposes changes to what law enforcement can do without a warrant. The background document says it would 'clarify the ability of law enforcement to exercise specific powers and seize specific information without a warrant in urgent, time-sensitive circumstances.' An example given is the 'live abuse' of a child. The sweeping legislation requires changes across a number of departments, including Public Safety and the Canadian Border Services Agency. According to Hatfield, that means, for example, that law enforcement could request information from any core service provider — from an email provider to a rental car company, a hotel, a cell phone company, or a private healthcare facility — without a warrant. That could include how long you've been a client, how frequently you access the service, and from where you access it, among other information. 'If law enforcement believes they have a suspicion that this information could help them investigate a crime — not necessarily a crime that you're involved in, but a crime that having that data might help them — they can make that request with no warrant or approval from a judge,' Hatfield said. In an interview with CTV News, national coordinator with the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group Tim McSorley said that information could be used to build a profile about someone, and without their knowledge. Stipulations in the bill to increase information sharing between law enforcement agencies also means U.S. authorities could use the rule changes to find out whether an American has accessed private Canadian health facilities to obtain an abortion, for example. 'Our concern is that opens up a system that's ripe for abuse and overreach, and for mistakes,' McSorley said. NDP MP and public safety and national security critic Jenny Kwan has also voiced opposition to the bill, calling it a 'sweeping attack on Canadian civil liberties.' 'It would allow the RCMP and CSIS to make information demands from internet providers, banks, doctors, landlords and even therapists, without judicial oversight,' Kwan said in the House of Commons earlier this month. 'This is not about border security. It is about government overreach and Big Brother tactics, plain and simple.' Concerns about regulation vs legislation Bill C-2 is formally titled 'An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures.' It was at second reading in the House of Commons before MPs broke for the summer break last week. Any other progress on the bill will have to wait until the House resumes in mid-September. But both Hatfield and McSorley are concerned that the bill, as is, is too broad, and that the government is prepared to rely on the regulatory period after the bill has received Royal Assent to fully install safeguards. 'The government may have plans for guardrails eventually, but they're not in the law,' McSorley said. 'The sky's the limit, currently,' Hatfield said, pointing to the example of the bill's lack of definition for a 'service provider' as a potential sticking point and one that should have more specificity. As is, Hatfield said, it could include anything from an online forum to a school. Speaking to reporters on Parliament Hill shortly after tabling the bill, Anandasangaree said he's confident there are 'very important safeguards that are built in.' 'I've worked my entire life in the protection of human rights and civil liberty,' Anandasangaree said, when asked about the sweeping powers this bill affords law enforcement. 'So, I, in order for me to bring forward legislation, it needed to have the safeguards in place, it needed to be in line with the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,' he added. 'And I fundamentally believe that we strike the balance, that while expanding powers in certain instances, does have the safeguards and the protections in place to protect individual freedoms and rights.' According to an assessment released last week from the Justice Department, proposed measures in the act could clash with sections of the Charter of Rights, including clauses protecting Canadians against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' CTV News has requested a response from the department of public safety and the department of justice. With files from CTV News National Correspondent Abigail Bimman
Globe and Mail
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Globe and Mail
Ottawa pressed to split online harms bill to fast-track its passage
Child-safety advocates and technology experts are urging the federal government to swiftly bring back the online harms bill, but to split it in two to speed passage of measures that protect children from abuse. Bill C-63, which died when the last Parliament was prorogued in January, included initiatives to combat online child abuse and hate. But it faced sharp criticism from opposition MPs and civil liberty advocates for also proposing new criminal offences for hate propaganda and hate crimes – including life in prison for inciting genocide. Advocacy group OpenMedia says hundreds of messages have been sent to MPs since the election calling for the government to reintroduce the online harms bill. They want it to focus on measures to improve online safety for children and youth, and to create an independent regulator to tackle predatory behaviour, bullying and abuse online, while protecting online privacy or expression. The bill drew criticism from civil liberties groups for proposing a 'peace bond' to deter people feared to be planning to carry out hate crimes and hate propaganda offences, with penalties such as house arrest. Government ministers have indicated they plan to bring back the online harms bill but have not yet confirmed who would be shepherding it through Parliament. Will Carney's to-do list be hindered by parliamentary tactics? How the next government can protect Canada's information ecosystem Earlier this month, Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon said he expected it would be steered through by Canadian Identity Minister Steven Guilbeault. Among those calling for a swift reintroduction of the bill is Carol Todd, the mother of Amanda Todd, a teenager who died by suicide after falling victim to cyberbullying. She warned that Canada is lagging far behind countries such as the U.S. and Britain, which have already passed laws to protect people in the digital sphere. Ms. Todd said the government should take feedback it received on Bill C-63 before the election, including criticism of increased penalties for hate crimes, and put the Criminal Code measures on a separate track. 'They need to do two bills. If they put the same bill through, the same things will happen again and it will get held up,' she said. Bill C-63 would have forced online platforms to swiftly remove child sexual abuse material, intimate content shared without consent, and posts encouraging a child to self-harm. It would have created a digital safety commission and ombudsperson to combat online hate. 'The previous government's attempt to combine a platform accountability bill with a criminal justice bill was unwise,' said John Matheson, who leads the Canadian arm of Reset Tech, a global non-profit that fights digital threats to democracy, 'The Carney government would miss the mark if they do not create a new public regulator to hold platforms accountable in keeping our kids safe,' he said. The advocacy group OpenMedia wants the government to bring back the bill soon after MPs return from their summer break. 'Canada's next Online Harms Act should be about addressing the worst online harms, and not package in broader measures that aren't about the consequences of digital technologies,' said Matt Hatfield, the group's executive director. He said the controversy over new criminal penalties for hate speech and hate crimes 'completely overshadowed discussion of part one, the real core of the Online Harms Act.' 'There's still critical amendments to make to part one's text to strike the right balance between safety and online privacy and expression, but these changes are at a scale a parliamentary committee given adequate time can accomplish.' Lianna McDonald, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, said it 'would not be opposed to the approach of addressing Criminal Code and human rights amendments through its own bill or bills, and addressing online harms to children in its own bill.' 'It was clear in the last session that there was consensus amongst our elected officials that legislative action to protect children from online harms is urgently needed, so it seems more likely that a bill focused on the protection of children will be able to move forward,' she said. Charlotte Moore Hepburn, medical director of the division of pediatrics at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, said 'a new bill – one that prioritizes online safety for children and youth – is essential.'
Scoop
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Over 300 Organizations Unite To Demand Complete Withdrawal Of Bill C-2
18 June 2025 In an unprecedented show of unity, over 300 civil society organizations from across the country are on Parliament Hill today demanding the complete withdrawal of Bill C-2, the so-called "Strong Borders Act" as it enters into second reading. Four major coalitions representing a broad cross section of refugee rights, civil liberties, gender justice, and migrant advocacy have joined forces to oppose this assault on human rights and civil liberties. The four coalitions held a joint press conference today to present their unified opposition to this sweeping legislation, which represents a further, dangerous shift toward Trump-style anti-immigrant policies and attacks on the rights and freedoms of all residents. "Bill C-2 is the expansion of a deportation machine that will put hundreds of thousands of people at risk. With 1.2 million people already unable to renew their permits this year due to recent immigration cuts, this bill's sweeping new powers to cancel immigration status without individual evaluation will force more people into conditions of abuse, exploitation and even death,' says Karen Cocq, spokesperson for the Migrant Rights Network. 'Prime Minister Carney was elected on a promise of standing up to Trump but his very first bill is the same scapegoating of migrants and refugees that we've witnessed south of the border." Bill C-2 allows for unprecedented expansion of surveillance powers. Tim McSorley, National Coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, warned: "Bill C-2 would undermine more than a decade of Canadian privacy-related jurisprudence to enable a massive expansion of domestic surveillance. Without a warrant, police and spy agencies could demand information about our online activities based on the low threshold of 'reasonable suspicion.' This shockingly broad system is ripe for abuse and appears deliberately designed to prepare Canada for controversial data-sharing obligations with the United States and other countries." Matt Hatfield, Executive Director of OpenMedia, said: 'Bill C-2 is anti-privacy, anti-rights, and anti-Canadian. It solves border problems that don't exist; and breaks rights that do. Canadian voters want our government to keep its elbows up to defend our privacy and freedoms, and that requires a full withdrawal of Bill C-2 now.' 'Bill C-2 reflects a wholesale shift in how Canada responds to refugees seeking our protection, including enabling their deportation back to danger without even a hearing,' said Gauri Sreenivasan, Co-Executive Director of the Canadian Council for Refugees. 'It is a shocking abandonment of rights protected under our Charter and International law, providing none of the fairness and due process that Canadians fully expect from our government in immigration matters. In many respects it sinks lower than US policy. The Bill must be withdrawn '. Organizations working with survivors of gender-based violence have raised particular alarm about the bill's impact on vulnerable populations. Deepa Mattoo, Executive Director and Lawyer of the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic agrees, adding "Bill C-2 is a policy misstep—it is an attack on the rights and safety of survivors of gender-based violence. It ignores the lived realities of those fleeing abuse and trauma, and risks turning Canada's borders into instruments of harm. We must uphold our commitments to human rights and ensure that no one is denied protection because of how or when they arrive." Debbie Owusu-Akyeeah, Co-Director of Policy and Advocacy at Action Canada for Sexual Health & Rights, stated: "Survivors fleeing gender-based violence abroad are learning about legal processes while living with profound trauma, often under the control of abusive partners who restrict their access to information and support. Imposing strict time limits on these most marginalized refugees ignores Canada's commitments to gender equity and safety. Denying survivors access to protection based on how or when they arrived in Canada is not only unjust—it is dangerous." Four statements denouncing Bill C-2 from a broad cross-section of civil society The four coalition statements demonstrate the breadth of opposition to Bill C-2: "Withdraw Bill C-2" - Initiated by the Migrant Rights Network, Canadian Council for Refugees and International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, with endorsements from 176 organizations including the Canadian Labour Congress; Canada's national housing rights organization - National Right to Housing Network; Canada's largest Climate coalition - Climate Action Network Canada; as well as The United Church of Canada, Oxfam Canada, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and others. "Joint Call for the Withdrawal of Bill C-2" - Led by OpenMedia and signed by 39 prominent organizations including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and Canadian Anti-Hate Network, plus 122 individual legal experts and academics. This statement focuses on the bill's degradation of privacy rights and its preparation for controversial data-sharing with foreign governments. "Open Letter: Canada puts refugee claimants at risk with Bill C-2" - Initiated by OCASI (Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants) and endorsed by 71 refugee and settlement organizations, as well as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and YWCA branches nationwide. The letter details how the bill violates international refugee law and puts vulnerable claimants at grave risk. "Statement: Bill C-2 Risks Undermining Canada's Commitments to Gender-Based Violence Survivors" - Supported by 48 organizations including the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, Canadian Women's Foundation, Women's Shelters Canada, and YWCA Canada. This statement highlights the disproportionate and dangerous impact Bill C-2 would have on survivors of gender-based violence who face additional barriers while dealing with trauma. Notes: What Bill C-2 Would Do Impact on ALL Canadians: Mass Surveillance Without Warrants: Police and CSIS can demand to know whether you have an online account with any organization or service in Canada, along with information like how long you've had it for or where you've logged in from, with no warrant required. A lower bar for more data: Law enforcement with a warrant can demand production of your online data, unencrypted emails, and browsing history from any company based only on "reasonable suspicion"— not the current standard of reasonable belief. Forced Corporate Spying: Companies must keep records of your personal data under secret government orders, with blanket immunity for privacy violations for handing over more than they should. Foreign Access to Your Data: Bill C-2 makes necessary changes to prepare Canada to endorse the US CLOUD Act and additional protocols of the Budapest Cybercrime Convention. These treaties would allow US authorities and other foreign governments to make similar data requests to Canadian entities, undermining Canada's constitutional protections and data sovereignty. Inadequate Legal Recourse: Only five days are allowed to challenge secret surveillance orders, with blanket civil immunity for companies that comply, ensuring even excessive orders go unchallenged. Refugee and Immigration Measures: One-Year Refugee Deadline: Bill C-2 blocks anyone who has been in Canada more than one year from seeking refugee status—even if their home country becomes dangerous after arrival. This applies retroactively to everyone since June 2020, and is fundamentally inconsistent with international humanitarian law. Eliminates US Border Exception: Previously, those crossing from the US between official ports could apply for refugee status after 14 days. Bill C-2 removes this completely, trapping vulnerable people under Trump's xenophobic policies. Mass Deportation Powers: The Immigration Minister gains authority to cancel permits for entire groups without due process—including revoking permanent residency applications and cards already submitted. Migrants could lose status overnight with no legal recourse. Privacy Protections Removed: The bill allows unrestricted information sharing about migrants across all government levels. Undocumented workers asserting labour rights could face deportation when employers report them to border enforcement.
CTV News
11-06-2025
- Business
- CTV News
CRTC hearing dives into home internet choice, proposal for standardized labels
A person navigates to the online social-media pages of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission on a cellphone in Ottawa on Monday, May 17, 2021. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick Canada's telecommunications regulator is expected to hear today from major providers and consumer advocacy groups at a hearing on shopping for internet services. Wednesday marks Day 2 of the four-day hearing, which is part of a CRTC consultation launched in December on how to help consumers shop for home internet plans following complaints it was difficult to compare their options. The regulator is considering a requirement for providers to display relevant information — such as price and speed — through a standardized label, similar to nutrition labels on food products that contain serving size and calorie data. The Canadian Telecommunications Association industry group, along with Telus Corp., Bell Canada and internet accessibility advocacy group OpenMedia are scheduled to present today. The CRTC says it wants stakeholders to weigh in on what information members of the public need when choosing plans as it seeks to strengthen the 'position of consumers in their relationships with service providers,' while identifying associated costs to the companies. It's part of a broader push by the commission to give consumers more control over their internet and cellphone services, which included three additional consultations launched last year that sought feedback on potential changes around notifications, fees and self-serve options. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025. Sammy Hudes, The Canadian Press CTV News, BNN Bloomberg and CP24 are owned by Bell Media, which is a division of BCE.
