The government yesterday introduced the Strong Border Act (Bill C-2), legislation that was promoted as establishing new border measure provisions presumably designed to address U.S. concerns regarding the border. Yet buried toward the end of the bill are lawful access provisions that have nothing to do with the border. Those provisions, which raise the prospect of warrantless access to information about Internet subscribers, establish new global production orders of subscriber information, and envision new levels of access to data held by electronic service providers, mark the latest attempt in a longstanding campaign by Canadian law enforcement for lawful access legislation. Stymied by the Supreme Court of Canada (which has ruled that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber data) and by repeated failures to present a compelling evidentiary case for warrantless access, law enforcement has instead tried to frame lawful access as essential to address everything from organized crime to cyber-bullying to (now) border safety. Much like the government’s overreach last year on online harms, Bill C-2 overreaches by including measures on Internet subscriber data that have nothing to do with border safety or security but raise privacy and civil liberties concerns that are bound to spark opposition. This post provides the background on lawful access and an overview of some Bill C-2’s provisions with more details on key elements to come.
Blog
Here We Go Again: Internet Age Verification and Website Blocking Bill Reintroduced in the Senate (With Some Changes)
The last Parliament featured debate over several contentious Internet-related bills, notably streaming and news laws (Bills C-11 and C-18), online harms (Bill C-63) and Internet age verification and website blocking (Bill S-210). Bill S-210 fell below the radar screen for many months as it started in the Senate and received only cursory review in the House. The bill faced only a final vote in the House but it died with the election call. This week, the bill’s sponsor, Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne, wasted no time in bringing it back. Now Bill S-209, the bill starts from scratch in the Senate with the same basic framework but with some notable changes that address at least some of the concerns raised by the prior bill (a fulsome review of those concerns can be heard in a Law Bytes podcast I conducted with Senator Miville-Dechêne).
When the Drumbeat of Intolerance Becomes Too Loud to Ignore: Reflections on Campus Antisemitism, Academic Freedom and My Global Technology Law Exchange Course
The need for fact-based, good-faith discussion and exchange to address our most challenging policy issues has never been greater. My Hub Canada op-ed notes that universities should be ideally suited for a leading role, yet in recent months, the drumbeat of intolerance has undermined their ability to do so. Last week, the well-documented rise of antisemitism and anti-Zionism on North American campuses hit home as I was conducting a global exchange that brought together students from five continents representing a remarkably diverse array of religious, political, and technical backgrounds.
Solomon’s Choice: Charting the Future of AI Policy in Canada
The decision to create a Minister for Artificial Intelligence sends an unmistakable signal that the Carney government recognizes the need to prioritize AI as a core part of its economic strategy. My Globe and Mail op-ed notes that while few doubt the importance of AI, what the federal government should do about it is far less certain. The Trudeau government emphasized both government handouts and regulation, with billions in AI spending promises on the one hand and ill-considered legislation that was out of step with global trends on the other. The result was a mish-mash of incoherent policies that left the AI sector confused, civil society frustrated and Canada at risk of being left behind.
Elevating AI to a full ministerial position suggests Prime Minister Mark Carney wants to fix the status quo, but in some ways the new office looks like an impossible job dressed up in ambition. Evan Solomon, the minister, steps into a role full of symbolism but operationally murky. Mr. Solomon may well find that cutting more cheques or introducing regulations won’t solve the issue.
Queen’s University Trustees Reject Divestment Efforts Emphasizing the Importance of Institutional Neutrality
The Queen’s University Board of Trustees last week rejected efforts to require divestment of the university’s endowment and investment funds from companies conducting business with or in the State of Israel and declined to implement a negative screening process for future investments. The decision, which adopted a review committee’s assessment, stands as one of the more detailed analysis of the issue at a Canadian university. Some universities have declined to even consider the possibility and others have held open hearings on the issue. But Queen’s agreed to full committee review, sparking consultations and numerous submissions.
The review committee’s report identifies several reasons to reject the divestment proposals including fiduciary obligations that require that the University’s investments be managed prudently with a view to maximizing financial returns, the lack of consensus on the political issues, and the acknowledged ineffectiveness of divestment policies. The report also notably relies on the importance of institutional neutrality in reaching its decision.
Recent Posts
Why Bill C-2 Faces a Likely Constitutional Challenge By Placing Solicitor-Client Privilege at Risk 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 237: A Conversation with Jason Woywada of BCFIPA on Political Party Privacy and Bill C-4 
Lawful Access on Steroids: Why Bill C-2’s Big Brother Tactics Combine Expansive Warrantless Disclosure with Unprecedented Secrecy 
Government Reverses on Privacy and the Charter: Department of Justice Analysis Concludes Political Party Privacy Bill Raises No Charter of Rights Effects 
“Big Brother Tactics”: Why Bill C-2’s New Warrantless Disclosure Demand Powers Extend Far Beyond Internet and Telecom Providers
