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.
Archive for September 30th, 2026

Law Bytes
Episode 278: Ben Waldman on Gander Social and the Challenges of Building a Sovereign Social Network
byMichael Geist

August 10, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
Is Compromise on Encryption Possible? Why Bill C-22’s “Minor Opening” Leaves the Central Question Unanswered
The Wrong Target: Why the CBC Should Be Asking About the Yom Kippur Protesters, Not the Journalist Who Reported on Them
Buried in Bill C-39: The Enabling Digital Trade Act Brings Canada Its First Federal Electronic Trade Documents Law
A Definition That Meets the Moment: Federal Government Recognizes Antisemitism Includes Anti-Zionism
Nobody Can Say They Weren’t Warned: Canada’s Threat Assessments Predicted the Belleville Yom Kippur Attack

