The federal government has rammed the controversial Lawful Access Act through Parliament despite massive opposition.

June 18, 2026, OTTAWA – Twenty-one civil liberties organizations, privacy groups and individual experts are deeply alarmed that, late last night, the federal government cut off debate at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on the very controversial Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act.

Bill C-22 raises significant privacy and security concerns, including that it will:

• Grant police easier access to our personal information;
• Allow the government to force companies to create backdoors so police and spy agencies can scoop up our personal data and communications, making online protections like encryption meaningless;
• Allow the government to order companies to hold on to our personal information for up to a year, creating a treasure trove of data that would serve as a digital map of everyone in Canada, and could be misused, leaked, or targeted by hackers; and
• Risk more of our information being shared with US intelligence and law enforcement agencies, including for the investigation of acts that are legal in Canada.

MPs have received several thousands of emails from Canadians opposing the bill. Many companies, such as Google, Apple and Meta, have sounded the alarm, especially regarding mandated backdoors into their system that would break encryption. Several, such as Signal, Duck Duck Go and NordVPN, have even threatened to leave Canada if the law passes.

It is even more troubling that the government has passed another undemocratic motion to stop debate on a rights-threatening bill when it faces more than 100 amendments, with only a fraction having been discussed before debate was cut off. The government promised to bring its own amendments to address criticisms of the bill, but they were never fully revealed before the vote, and, because of this motion, did not receive any actual debate at committee.

Bill C-22 is too complex and its impacts too significant to be rushed through. The government should not have used this draconian measure, should have allowed the study of the bill to run its course, and should have ensured that all government and opposition amendments were given full consideration and scrutinized in public. We are urging MPs to denounce the passage of the motion, and the government to change course on C-22 and its undemocratic ways.

Quotes:

“This legislation presents one of the greatest threats to privacy in Canada of the past two decades. Its provisions will weaken the rules governing police access to personal information, all while facilitating a vast expansion of government surveillance. This is another clear case of the decades-long trend of governments using national security as an excuse to erode civil liberties and human rights. We are encouraging all members of parliament to oppose these new powers.” –Tim McSorley, National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group

“Breaking our own privacy with mandated backdoors is a terrible idea at the best of times; and Canada has chosen one of the worst possible moments. Frontier AI has become so good at finding software vulnerabilities that the US government just pulled the most capable model off the market worldwide because of what it could find. While other countries race to patch their vulnerabilities, Canada is poised to do massive self-inflicted damage to our economy and security, unless we drop Part 2 of C-22.” –Matt Hatfield, Executive Director, OpenMedia

‘’Let’s be clear: the current government’s handling of this bill is an affront to democracy. All Canadians should be concerned about what the Carney government has in store for us with the highly controversial C-22 and numerous other bills that lay the groundwork for a surveillance state in which the primacy of “security” trumps civil liberties and privacy protections. Not only is the government abruptly cutting short the committee debate—and thereby ignoring the serious concerns raised by both privacy advocates and businesses—but it is also hiding behind misleading rhetoric that claims opposing C-22 means siding with criminals rather than victims! Such statements are an insult to the intelligence of Canadians. The Ligue des droits et libertés calls on members of Parliament to oppose these anti-democratic practices and to vote overwhelmingly against this bill.’’ –Dominique Peschard, Spokesperson and activist for the Ligue des droits et libertés

“People in Canada deserve legislation that respects and protects their privacy rights, and legislators deserve the opportunity to satisfy themselves that they fully understand the true consequences of Bill C-22 on informational privacy, cybersecurity, and cross-border information sharing before they are called to vote on it for the last time. It is frankly irresponsible to curtail the committee study process on such a comprehensive and consequential piece of legislation.” –Aislin Jackson, Policy Staff Counsel, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association 

Signatories:

International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
OpenMedia
Ligue des droits et libertés
Privacy and Access Council of Canada
Le Centre de Réfugiés / The Refugee Centre
Centre for Free Expression
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA)
Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes (TCRI)
Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council (CMPAC)
BC Freedom Of Information and Privacy Association
Clinique pour la justice migrante / Migrant justice clinic
Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)
Council of Canadians
Start Point Organization
IFEX

Safiyya Ahmad, lawyer
Ümit Kiziltan, researcher
Kate Robertson, Senior Research Associate, Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy, University of Toronto
Ron Deibert O.C., O.Ont., Professor of Political Science and Director of the Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy, University of Toronto
Noura Aljizawi, Senior Researcher, Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy, University of Toronto
Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law

– 30 – 

Media contacts:

Tim McSorley, National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
613-241-5298, national.coordination@iclmg.ca

Matt Hatfield, Executive Director, OpenMedia
1 (888) 441-2640 ext. 0, press@openmedia.org 

Sharon Polsky, President, Privacy & Access Council of Canada
1 877 746 7222, media@pacc-ccap.ca 

Claude Rioux, Communications manager, Ligue des droits et libertés
514-715-7727, communication@liguedesdroits.ca

June 17, 2026, OTTAWA–The adoption of Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, without necessary amendments presents a new and significant risk to Charter rights and civil liberties of all people in Canada, including those communities that the government wishes to help protect, says a Canadian civil liberties coalition.

The ICLMG has observed with distress the increase in hate-based violence across Canada over the past several years, and believes greater measures must be taken to address it. But such measures must be targeted and specific, and must not unduly impact civil liberties or Charter rights — including those of the very communities the measures are meant to protect. Unfortunately, several measures in Bill C-9 fail that test.

“The government had the opportunity to ensure that new laws to address the rising number of violent hate acts in Canada were targeted and specific. Instead, new hate provisions involving the use of symbols as hate propaganda and new offences for intimidation or obstruction near religious or cultural places – even when used for unrelated purposes – are so broad that they would be used in discretionary or discriminatory ways to criminalize speech and actions that may be disagreeable or distasteful, or simply critical of the government, but are not hateful or criminal in nature,” said Tim McSorley, national coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG).

Criminalization of the display of “hate” symbols

For example, the bill creates a new offence of wilful promotion of hatred by displaying symbols associated with listed terrorist entities, as well as symbols that closely resemble them. The government has argued that the offence is limited in its scope and would not apply to the mere display of such symbols; rather, they would need to be displayed in a way that also promotes hatred. However, legal and civil liberties advocates, including the ICLMG, have disputed this point, stating that the wording of the offence will allow police to interpret the display of a symbol as in and of itself promoting hatred – a serious infringement on free expression, which, for that very reason, is not even found in Canada’s anti-terrorism laws. Regardless of the breadth of the offence, granting police the discretion to determine what symbols are associated with a terrorist entity – and what is considered “close enough” to resemble one – constitutes a grave risk for discretionary enforcement, overpolicing, and the stifling of free expression and dissent.

Already, political and cultural symbols associated with Palestinian culture and human rights, including the keffiyeh, have illegitimately been associated with terrorist entities or hate. These new provisions would be a license for police to detain people first, and ask questions later, during protests and other gatherings, further undermining freedom of assembly and free expression.

Moreover, basing a hate offence on the terrorist entities list (TEL) is in and of itself deeply troubling. The listing process for the TEL is secretive and discretionary, with governments responding to political pressure in making determinations of which organizations to list and when, while ignoring others. It has a troubling history of being used to target groups that have fought for rights of self-determination and against occupation, all while Canadian governments have failed to act against the much more prevalent and deadly violence enacted by states.

Further restrictions on freedom of assembly

New offenses in Bill C-9 regarding obstruction and intimidation in proximity to certain places, including places of religious worship, schools, community and sports centres – regardless of what these places are being used for – raise similar concerns. For example, groups have pointed out that had this offence already been in place, it could have been used to criminalize protests outside of synagogues during events that were illegally selling occupied land in the West Bank, an event not related to the religious nature of the building. Furthermore, the Criminal Code already allows for police to act on the basis of mischief, intimidation, harassment, or threats, including in regards to protests. This has been made amply clear in the history of policing – and over-policing – of protests across the country, including and especially demonstrations in support of Palestinian rights, such as the disruption of many lawful protests, and the violent dismantling of peaceful encampments. Not only is it clear that these new powers are unnecessary, the wording would also empower police to take discretionary action based on how they interpret the intent of protesters – not protesters’ actions.

The proposed new offences would carry significant penalties, including the threat of jail time, and will result in people who would ordinarily take action to speak out on important social issues refraining from doing so under the fear of being trapped in the dragnet of additional, unclear and broad discretionary powers.

In response, the ICLMG is calling on the government to issue clear guidance to police and prosecutors around the enforcement of the new offences created in Bill C-9 to ensure that they are enacted with restraint and respect for Charter rights. The ICLMG will also monitor the use of these new provisions, and is encouraging individuals to contact the coalition through its website at iclmg.ca/contact-us to help collect and compile examples.

More information:
Tim McSorley, national coordinator, ICLMG
(613) 241-5298
national.coordination@iclmg.ca

June 16, 2026, OTTAWA – A civil liberties coalition is raising concerns that the government’s new Safe Social Media Act, Bill C-34, will serve as a backdoor to broaden the definition of terrorism, introduce a new definition of violent extremism, and expand what could be considered a terrorism offence. The inclusion of these new definitions in the Safe Social Media Act – and a lack of adequate safeguards – will result in the censorship and possible removal of otherwise lawful content, including political and human rights advocacy, journalism, education and art.

“We recognize the importance of an overall framework to protect online safety and, in particular, to hold corporations accountable for harms they allow on their online platforms. However, Bill C-34 cannot be allowed to serve as a trojan horse to expand already controversial definitions of what constitutes acts of terrorism, create new definitions for acts of violent extremism, or harmful content associated with them,” said Tim McSorley.

Previously, the federal government had promised that the online harms in any such legislation would adhere to what is already in the Criminal Code. However, a new definition of “acts of terrorism and violent extremism” expands the scope beyond the definition of acts of terrorism in s. 83.01 (1) of the Criminal Code, and creates a new category of violent extremism. This includes adding “undermining, weakening or destroying fundamental institutions or political, economic or social stability,” an incredibly broad definition that is undefined in either the Safe Social Media Act or the Criminal Code. Moreover, the existing definition of acts of terrorism state that any such actions are an offence if they intentionally cause death or serious bodily harm, endanger an individual’s life or cause a serious risk to the health or safety of the public, among other things. The new definition in Bill C-34 significantly expands the wording to include acts that “could cause” those outcomes.

Language in what will constitute “terrorist and violent extremist (TVE) content” also goes further than what is currently prohibited in the Criminal Code. While both C-34 and the Criminal Code will prohibit content that instructs, recruits or counsels individuals to participate in a terrorism or violent extremism, or the threatening to carry out such acts, the new legislation would also define harmful content as anything that “encourages” or “promotes” such activity. “Terrorist propaganda”, which would be the most direct – and appropriate – parallel in the Criminal Code to “terrorist content” is itself defined as “any writing, sign, visible representation or audio recording that counsels the commission of a terrorism offence.”

These new definitions create in Canadian law new expectations as to what constitutes both acts of terrorism and acts of violent extremism. Moreover, they will serve as the basis for what social media and AI chatbot services are expected to block people in Canada from being exposed to, under threat of serious fines and penalties. Combined, they create a potent recipe for limits of freedom of expression – and access to information – online.

These concerns are exacerbated by limited and confusing exceptions to what constitutes terrorism or violent extremism. For example, Bill C-34 states that TVE content excludes content “whose communication has a legitimate purpose, including a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to journalism, education or art.” Instead of simply excluding the administration of justice, journalism, education or art, this definition will be predicated on the determination of a “legitimate purpose” – raising the question of who will make such a determination? The definition also fails to include anything related to advocacy, protest or dissent, all of which are excluded from the Criminal Code definition of terrorism.

Bill C-34 also states that terrorism or violent extremism does not include “activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties.” This narrows, in very problematic ways, a similar provision in the Criminal Code which states that the definition of terrorism does not include either official military duties (however only “to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law”) or acts “committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of [their] commission, [are] in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict.” The removal of references to international law is unacceptable and must be reversed.

Creating new definitions of terrorism or violent extremism – and expecting social media platforms to adequately interpret and enforce them – is problematic and should be avoided. Luckily, Bill C-34 already presents a clear solution, just as the previous Bill C-63 did: focusing instead on the removal of content that incites violence. Doing so takes away the discretionary and political nature of determining the motivation behind an act of violence, reducing the likelihood of undue censorship and making clearer to both the public and online platforms what content is prohibited.

“While the definition of “incitement to violence” also raises some concerns, it is a much better starting place to work from to prevent content that can lead to some of the most serious forms or harm,” said McSorley. “We look forward to working with the government and MPs from all parties to ensure that social media and AI chatbots are held accountable for their practices that can cause significant harms, all while ensuring people in Canada can share – and access – important content related to world events, political and human rights advocacy, academic debates and more, without undue fear of censorship.”

-30-

More information:
Tim McSorley
National Coordinator, ICLMG
(613) 241-5298