Civil Society Calls For Overhaul Of Canada's Approach To Digital Policy

May 28, 2025
Today, OpenMedia and 13 other prominent Canadian civil society organizations and digital policy experts delivered a joint letter to key federal ministers, urging fundamental reform of Canada's strategy for digital policymaking. The letter calls for an end to the last government's practice of packing digital legislation into sprawling, multi-part omnibus bills such as Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, and Bill C-27, which covered private sector privacy reform and AI regulation. The signatories agree the government must address critical issues such as online safety, privacy, and artificial intelligence, but believe separate pieces of legislation advanced to fulfill a unified digital policy vision is the best approach for our new government to regulate them.
'Canadians deserve sensible, nuanced digital policy that can comfortably pass in a minority Parliament," said Matt Hatfield, Executive Director of OpenMedia. "We've seen how omnibus legislation plays out: the most controversial portions drown out the rest, and committees spend their time debating overreaching measures instead of getting effective digital regulation done. That's why we're asking our government to work with every party to pass basic rights-respecting privacy and online safety measures that are now many years past due."
The signatories observe that a fragmented approach to Canada's digital policy, split between different government agencies with competing mandates and agendas, has led to the failure of long-promised digital policy reforms to receive due study, appropriate amendments, and be adopted by Parliament. The letter's authors point to the recent appointment of Evan Solomon as Minister for AI and Digital Innovation on May 13th as a key opportunity for the government to better signal its priorities and implement a more cohesive legislative vision.
Many signatories engaged the government throughout its consideration of illegal online content that informed Bill C-63, including through a 2024 letter that recommended splitting the Bill, 2023 expert letter outlining red lines and recommendations for potential legislation, and by individual submissions to the government's 2021 consultation. Many also participated in Parliament's INDU Committee consideration of Bill C-27, delivering recommendations on privacy amendments, artificial intelligence regulation amendments, or both. Through this experience, the signatories observed Parliament struggle to grapple effectively with either bill. Controversial proposals attached to both overwhelmed productive discussion, preventing amendment and passage of more substantive and widely supported sections.
The letter concludes with five core recommendations for future legislation, including placing overall coordination responsibility for digital policy under a single department; advancing Canada's digital policy agenda through separate legislative proposals; and prioritizing areas of broad consensus for rapid legislative improvement first.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

RNZ News

6 hours ago

• RNZ News

Defence heads face scrutiny week hearing, promise to be fiscally responsible

Defence secretary Brook Barrington. Photo: Ministry of Defence Defence heads have assured politicians their huge new budget takes into account soldiers actually having to fire their weapons. They fronted up to an even-tempered scrutiny week hearing with MPs at Parliament on Thursday afternoon. Greens MP Lawrence Xu-Nan asked whether the budget boost of $9 billion new spending over four years allowed for buying the likes of replacement Javelin missiles, which cost $400,000 each. Defence secretary Brook Barrington responded that the increased budget meant troops could now move past the approach from the last 50 years of being only partly equipped. "The defence force is actually being provided with funding to ensure that, if we upgrade the capabilty, we are also able to shoot things with it," he said. Along with defence force Chief Air Marshal Tony Davies, Barrington laid out a raft of measures they said would enable them to buy weapons and other systems faster and smarter. "The demand queue is growing," Barrington said. "The longer it takes us to lodge an order, someone else has got their place in the queue before us and some of this stuff takes three years. "You know, you lose your place in the queue... and you're losing time." They felt a sense of urgency, but also had to ensure quality thresholds were set, so that in 3-4 years he was not up before MPs again being told, "We knew we couldn't trust you folk to bloody get your way out of a paper bag", he said. "We've got to find a sweet spot between rigour, confidence and pace." He added defence had already met with 280 people from 174 companies, both last month and this month, and that an industry strategy would be put out soon. They would be fiscally responsible with the billions of taxpayer money, Davies said. Defence Force Chief Air Marshal Tony Davies. Photo: RNZ / Ashleigh McCaull To accelerate, they would drop the old approach of trying to get 30 years of life from gear and retreading it, and instead, look at getting a "minimum viable product" quickly out to the field, he said. "Simple... quick... lean." On the personnel front, they had to rebuild forces, he said. The budget and plan had "buoyed" personnel, but their thinned-back ranks still constrained how much notice they needed to deploy, how long they could deploy for and whether they could mount multiple operations. Personnel turnover had fallen to less than seven percent, but vacancy rates in February were about 30 percent, an Official Information Act request (OIA) showed. The army was short 1500 people, Air Force 660 and navy 630. Defence was "over-training" people to hit 100 percent, when it did not need to, so was reviewing how to speed training up, Davies said. The 15-year plan was to add 20 percent to combat forces - or 2500 people - and the only way to do that currently was to cut civilian jobs down, he said. "At the moment, we've got ships tied up that can't go to sea, because we haven't got the sailors. We've got people that are going on their fifth deployment overseas, because we don't have the number of soldiers. "We've got Joint Force headquarters out at Trentham with watchfloors that can't be filled, because we haven't got the uniformed people with those skills. "We need those. The money is tight, still, even with uplifts." An OIA response showed that, in March, a hefty 313 positions were vacant at Joint Defence Services, far more than in other sections. Defence Minister Judith Collins said the point was to be able to defend against anybody who "threatened our people, or our assets". "Our people are not going to have to wave a white flag anymore. They are going to be able to get out there and protect themselves." She said she had told "prime" multinational defence contractors their best bet for getting a share of the business was to involve New Zealand firms. The small firms would not be written "out of the equation", Barrington said. He added the business cases for two very large projects - replacing the 757s and the maritime helicopters - were well advanced. Other business cases would be made short and sharp. The fleet renewal planning was by far the biggest job, but the budget gave the ministry a couple of million dollars extra for teams to do that. "What happens in two years, if the world situation's got worse and we need to step it up again?" Davies said. "How are we going to accelerate our capability acquisition process. It might be that we need to double our efforts there, so we are constantly looking at ways to fine tune it." The budget set aside $155m over four years for new military allowances for deployments and hundreds of millions for more operations. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Scoop

14 hours ago

• 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.

RNZ News

20 hours ago

• RNZ News

Government, Opposition scrap over common infrastructure ground

Chris Bishop sparred with Labour's Kieran McAnulty over which infrastructure projects they could agree on. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has committed to working directly with the Opposition, when putting together the Government's response to the 30-year infrastructure plan due out next week. He says that co-operation comes on the proviso that infrastructure decisions are always political in nature - and it did not stop the discussion from repeatedly descending into a fingerpointing tit-for-tat over which government was to blame for what. Labour housing, infrastructure and public investment spokesperson Kieran McAnulty kicked off the scrutiny week select committee hearing on Thursday afternoon, making an effort to "start on a positive note" on how bipartisanship could work for infrastructure policy, suggesting that would provide more certainty to the sector. "I agree," Bishop said. "That's part of the reason why we campaigned on a 30-year national infrastructure plan being developed in Government." The plan has been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission since late 2023 and is due to be launched at Parliament next week, with the Government required to respond within six months. Bishop said he planned a Parliamentary debate, so all the political parties' views could be included in that response, but McAnulty wanted more. "At the moment, frankly, the attitude of some ministers of bipartisanship is, 'We'll work with you, if you agree with us', and I don't think that's good enough," he said, garnering an emphatic "yeah" from Green MP Julie Anne Genter. Bishop said completely depoliticising infrastructure was not possible, which was to be expected in a democracy. "You know, if we all agreed, this would be a fairly boring place," he said. McAnulty agreed with, an agreement to disagree. "We think some of the things you've done are stupid... what I would like to see is a commitment," he said. "There's an opportunity there to work with the other side to actually identify where there is broad agreement and include that in your response." More than just a debate, he wanted the response to include an explanation of which infrastructure projects the government and opposition parties agreed on. Bishop : "I'm happy to commit to that now. Just making the obvious point ... we may not always agree. "For example, you guys have got to figure out where you're at on PPPs, for example, because you've had about nine different positions . McAnulty: "We know where we're at with that." Bishop: "You sure?" McAnulty: "Yes, I am actually... this is one of the things that I'm actually trying to avoid, right, is that we can't help ourselves. "This is the game we're in. We talk about bipartisanship, but we also take every opportunity to have a crack at each other." Bishop: "Well, you just said some of the stuff we've done was stupid." McAnulty: "Exactly my point, we can't help ourselves." Labour's Kieran McAnulty Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Bishop said parties could agree on a lot, when it came to infrastructure, and "sometimes there's a bit more heat than light in this debate". McAnulty said he did not think the public would know that. The minister pressed on, deferring to Infrastructure Commission chief executive Geoff Cooper to explain the projects expected across the country from about 110 organisations, including all but 14 of the country's councils. The result was a list showing investment worth $206 billion, broken down by region and sector, which Cooper said started to paint a much clearer picture of investment. "The point is to have... almost a single source of truth for what's in the pipeline," Bishop said. Committee chair Andy Foster - a former Wellington mayor - said the information should be included in councils' long-term plans and they should be contributing. Bishop had an easy solution. "Well, if they don't do it, we can just mandate that they do it - but I'd rather not, because that takes time and money," he said. "I'd rather they just do it." "Enough of those mandates for councils," interjected Labour local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere. "We make them do all sorts of things for the right reasons and this would be the same thing," Bishop responded. Andy Foster Photo: VNP / Phil Smith While the first half hour was not entirely bonhomie, unicorns and rainbows, the verbal finger pointing was surely on show in the second half of Bishop's appearance. McAnulty asked if the minister accepted cancelling projects across successive governments had affected sector confidence. "Depends exactly what you're talking about," Bishop said. "I accept that, after 2017, the radical change in direction of the National Land Transport Plan at the time had a significant impact." "So you're willing to say that one government cancelled projects that had an effect, but you're not willing to concede that you guys cancelling projects has?" McAnulty responded. Bishop said it showed the limits of bipartisanship. "Our view was that they're the wrong projects for the country, he said. "Depends which one, but generally too expensive, not good value for money, in some cases undeliverable. "It was the right thing to do to say, 'You know what, we're actually just not going to proceed with that'." Genter said many council projects were also defunded under the coalition and the iReX ferry replacement could have been rescoped, rather than dumped. Predictably, this kicked off a four-minute cancellation-measuring contest - which government cancelled more projects? Who cancelled more projects that were already contracted? "You can have an intention to do something, it doesn't mean it will end up happening," Bishop concluded - or seemed to. "The last government lived in fiscal fantasy land." "Only because your government made a decision to give billions of dollars to landlords," Genter fired back. The Greens Julie Anne Genter Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver Foster was eager to move on, asking Bishop about whether Kāinga Ora had managed to bring social housing build costs down to the same level as private developers - a topic well traversed in the last scrutiny week in December . The minister did not have the latest numbers, "because this is not the vote Housing and Urban Development estimates", but the agency was making "good progress" and would report back on that publicly. He and Utikere then argued some more over the roughly $250,000 allocated for cancellation of the ferries contract - whether that was part of Bishop's responsibilities - with Bishop saying it belonged to Rail Minister Winston Peters and Utikere saying, when they'd asked Peters, he'd referred it to Bishop. Utikere: "And the minister doesn't even know ... that's very disappointing." Bishop: "Yes. So's your behaviour." Utikere : "No, it's not actually, minister, my behaviour is about scrutinising the executive - that is our responsibility. "It is disappointing that you don't know the answer to just over a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of taxpayers money that has been set aside in your Budget." Foster stepped in again, suggesting Bishop's answer was that it was best for his ministerial staff to provide an answer and they did. Treasury deputy secretary Leilani Frew said negotiations for the ferry contract exit were still continuing, as well as wind-down costs. The discussion soon wound down too - after a series of patsy questions and a discussion about the causes of 15,000 fewer people being employed in construction. Bishop argued it was an expected side-effect of bringing down the official cash rate, which would - in turn - have the biggest effect on reinvigorating the sector, McAnulty argued housing could be an avenue for stimulating growth. In the end, the public got a commitment to bipartisanship. Whether it lasts remains to be seen, but investors watching this scrappy select committee may be hesitant to bet the house on it. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.