The lawful access debate continued for a third day on Friday with Bloc MP Claude DeBellefeuille asking Patricia Lattanzio, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, a critical question: why has the government chosen “the lowest possible threshold for obtaining information, that of reasonable grounds to suspect, rather than the more stringent threshold of reasonable grounds to believe.” She added that she did not understand the choice and would like a clear answer (I focused on this issue in a previous post). In keeping with the government’s discouraging defence of lawful access thus far (my posts on day one and day two of debate) Lattanzio’s response went for deception rather than clarity. After noting that reasonable grounds to suspect already appears in parts of the Criminal Code, she offered the government’s substantive defence of the lower threshold in a single sentence: “We also think that ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ is higher than the threshold of mere suspicion.” The problem is that mere suspicion isn’t a threshold for search at all, but rather the standard the courts point to when a search is unconstitutional.
Latest Posts
More Surveillance Demands to Come?: Government Admits Bill C-22’s Lawful Access Provisions Could Be Expanded
Debate on Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, continued this week with Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree and Secretary of State for Combatting Crime Ruby Sahota leading the government’s case on Wednesday. I posted earlier on the first day of debate, which was notable for what the government chose not to say, as Justice Minister Fraser devoted just a single paragraph to the bill’s expansive metadata retention provisions and offered only process answers to questions about systemic vulnerability risks. The government continues to do its best to ignore the metadata issue, but the most alarming outcome of the debate was the admission that the current bill may only be the starting point, with support for an even broader scope in follow-up regulations or legislation.
Win, Lose or Draw?: The Federal Court of Appeal Overrules a Key Copyright Case on Procedural Grounds
Nearly two years ago, I wrote that the Federal Court had issued a major decision on the relationship between fair dealing and digital locks, concluding that copyright’s anti-circumvention rules do not trump user rights (podcast on the case here). That decision, Blacklock’s Reporter v. Attorney General of Canada, was a big win for user rights because, for the first time, a court ruled that Canada’s anti-circumvention rules (aka digital lock rules) were subject to fair dealing. Last month, the Federal Court of Appeal set aside that judgment, ruling that the declarations in the lower court decision should never have been issued in the first place because they lacked “practical utility.” In basic terms, the case was “moot” since Blacklock’s had tried to withdraw the lawsuit and did not require a ruling. But while rights holders seem ready to celebrate, the reality is that the new ruling does not say the Federal Court was wrong on any of the substantive copyright questions.
The Lawful Access Debate Begins: Canadians Should Pay Attention to What the Government Isn’t Saying
When the government introduced Bill C-2 last year, it buried the lawful access provisions at the end of an omnibus border security bill and said as little about it as possible. The strategy failed, the provisions were abandoned after widespread criticism, and the government spent months consulting stakeholders before trying again. Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, is the follow-up attempt. If the first day of House debate on the bill is any indication, the approach hasn’t changed, as the government is once again hoping no one notices what is actually in the bill.
The Global Battle for Data Control: How the 2026 U.S. Report on Trade Barriers Targets Data Sovereignty Worldwide
My Globe and Mail op-ed last week argued that the U.S. is pursuing a two-pronged strategy on cross-border data: the CLOUD Act to assert legal access wherever data sits, and trade policy to pressure countries that try to move their data beyond that reach. This post provides the underlying data that the op-ed could not fit with a fuller picture of what the 2026 U.S. National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (NTE) actually says about cloud computing and data sovereignty across the globe.
Recent Posts
A Standard That Doesn’t Exist: Parliamentary Secretary for Justice Offers Misleading Defence of Bill C-22’s Lower Threshold for Subscriber Information 
More Surveillance Demands to Come?: Government Admits Bill C-22’s Lawful Access Provisions Could Be Expanded 
Win, Lose or Draw?: The Federal Court of Appeal Overrules a Key Copyright Case on Procedural Grounds 
The Lawful Access Debate Begins: Canadians Should Pay Attention to What the Government Isn’t Saying 
The Global Battle for Data Control: How the 2026 U.S. Report on Trade Barriers Targets Data Sovereignty Worldwide
