Bill C-22, the lawful access bill, was a focal point of debate in the Senate last week. While companies continue to warn they may exit Canada if the bill passes in its current form, the debate’s biggest revelation was that it may take years for the government to pass the regulations needed to fully implement the law. The delay is notable for several reasons, including the government’s insistence in the spring that passing the bill was urgent (to the point that it shut down committee clause-by-clause review) and the regulatory uncertainty that it creates. Indeed, the Senate is effectively being asked to approve a surveillance and data retention framework without knowing who will be covered, what they will be required to build, what data about Canadians will be retained, or what any of it will cost. If this sounds familiar, it is because it has seemingly become the government’s go-to approach on many of its digital bills, from privacy to social media regulation, where key decisions are left to regulations and regulatory processes that take years to complete.
News
The Missing Charter Statement: Why Hasn’t the Government Explained How Bill C-34’s Social Media Ban Complies with the Charter?
Four months ago this weekend, the government introduced Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, with the headline promise to establish a social media ban for those under 16. The bill has attracted enormous attention from supporters and critics alike, yet the government still has not released the Charter statement that is supposed to accompany it. The Department of Justice Act requires the Minister of Justice to issue a Charter statement for every government bill that sets out its potential effects on Charter rights, with the express purpose of informing both Parliament and the public. Charter statements have been released for bills tabled after Bill C-34, including Bill C-36, the privacy reform bill that works in partnership with Bill C-34. Yet nothing has happened in four months on Bill C-34 and the social media ban.
Three Years After October 7th: Living With the Shockwaves
In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas terror attacks on October 7th, Jewish communities around the world shared the shock of Israelis at the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. A year later, I wrote about learning of the attack in real time, hours after a Shabbat dinner, as the Israeli red alert app on my Apple Watch buzzed continuously. The barrage of alerts was so intense that I initially thought the app had malfunctioned. The pain of that day and the days that followed was shared by many who, despite being thousands of kilometres away, felt as if they too had been targeted and were left with a desperate sadness.
Over the past three years, the initial shock has turned into a relentless series of shockwaves, as if October 7th was an earthquake with reverberations that never end. For many Israelis and diaspora Jews, these three years have been dominated by denial, repeated antisemitic violence, and a deep sense of betrayal.
What If the U.S. Demanded This? The Cloud Provider Conditions Behind Canada’s EU Digital Pivot
Given concerns about what the U.S. envisioned for “digital trade alignment,” consider the possibility that the package required Canada to keep its cloud market open to U.S. companies, gave them equivalent access to government procurement, and restricted the implementation of a “Buy Canadian” approach to sovereign cloud. The U.S. would also set the standard for Canadian privacy law, Canadian law enforcement and security agencies would not wield powers over cloud providers that conflict with U.S. rules on government access to data, and the U.S. could suspend or revoke the deal if it concluded that Canada no longer met its standards. In return, the deal would allow Canadian companies to compete for sensitive U.S. government cloud contracts on the condition that the data centres, the data and the staff were U.S. based, staff were U.S. citizens, and the Canadian government was restricted from accessing the data in the U.S.
Is Compromise on Encryption Possible? Why Bill C-22’s “Minor Opening” Leaves the Central Question Unanswered
Bill C-22, the government’s lawful access legislation, is awaiting Senate consideration this fall with the encryption provisions likely to be the centre of attention given diametrically opposing views from law enforcement and technology companies and experts. Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree told the Toronto Star earlier this month that the bill strikes “the right balance” on encryption, claiming that cracking encryption is “off limits” except in “extenuating circumstances” where there is a “minor opening,” and that “everybody has had to have some water in their wine.” The government’s approach follows the typical legislative playbook of seeking a middle ground that stakeholders can (sometimes reluctantly) live with. Yet the past few weeks have produced an unusual situation in which both sides say no viable middle ground exists. Police claim the bill’s encryption provisions do little to change what they can obtain under existing law. Nearly two dozen technology companies and industry groups argue the same provisions leave every user at risk since even partial weakening of encryption undermines its effectiveness.
Recent Posts
Years of Uncertainty: Bill C-22’s Missing Regulations and Secret Ministerial Orders 
The Missing Charter Statement: Why Hasn’t the Government Explained How Bill C-34’s Social Media Ban Complies with the Charter? - Three Years After October 7th: Living With the Shockwaves
What If the U.S. Demanded This? The Cloud Provider Conditions Behind Canada’s EU Digital Pivot 
Ontario is Done Waiting for Universities to Act on Campus Antisemitism
