Columns

What Will Canada’s Anti-Spam Law Mean for Users and Businesses?

Long before sites such as Youtube and Twitter were even created, the Canadian government established a national task force to examine concerns associated with spam and spyware. The task force completed its work in May 2005, unanimously recommending that the government introduce anti-spam legislation (I was a member of the task force). Four years later, then-Industry Minister Tony Clement tabled an anti-spam law, which underwent extensive committee review before receiving royal assent in December 2010.

My technology law column last week (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that while most expected the government to quickly bring the new law into force, the regulation-making process became bogged down by an intense lobbying effort designed to sow fear, doubt, and uncertainty about the legislation. Business groups relied upon implausible scenarios to argue that Canada would be placed at an economic disadvantage, despite the fact that government officials were able to identify over 100 other countries that have similar anti-spam regimes. The lobbying was a partial success, however, as the regulations went through two drafts and three more years of delay.

Almost a decade after Canada started down the path toward anti-spam legislation, Industry Minister James Moore announced earlier this month that the regulations are now final and the law will begin to take effect next year. There will be still yet more implementation delays – the anti-spam rules start on July 1, 2014, safeguards on software installations begin on January 15, 2015, and a private right of action that facilitates lawsuits to combat spam will be delayed until July 1, 2017 – but it appears that Canada will finally get an operational anti-spam law.

December 16, 2013 — 6 comments — Columns

The Federal Government’s Complete E-Government Failure

Ten years ago, Canada held the distinction of being the top ranked country in the world for the breadth and sophistication of its electronic government services. Citing the Canadian government’s integrated, strategic approach, annual assessments by Accenture found that more important services were offered online in Canada than anywhere else.

Fast forward a decade and Canada’s e-government rankings have steadily declined, a victim of astonishing neglect by the current Conservative government. Last week, the auditor general issued a scathing report on the state of e-government in Canada, noting the lost opportunities for reduced expenses and greater efficiencies as well as the complete absence of strategic vision.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the successful implementation of e-government initiatives should be a win-win scenario. For Canadian businesses and citizens, it offers convenience and round-the-clock access. For government, the shift online offers the promise of significant cost savings. Indeed, rather than simply eliminating programs, the government could focus on cutting costs by emphasizing lower cost electronic delivery of its services.

December 3, 2013 — 5 comments — Columns

Lawful Access Returns Under the Cover of Cyber-Bullying Bill

In February 2012, then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews introduced Internet surveillance legislation that sparked widespread criticism from across the political spectrum. The overwhelming negative publicity pressured the government to quickly backtrack by placing Bill C-30 on hold. Earlier this year, then-Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced that the bill was dead, confirming “we will not be proceeding with Bill C-30 and any attempts that we will continue to have to modernize the Criminal Code will not contain the measures contained in C-30.”

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that Nicholson’s commitment lasted less than a year. Last week, Peter MacKay, the new federal justice minister, unveiled Bill C-13, which is being marketed as an effort to crack down on cyber-bullying. Yet the vast majority of the bill simply brings back many (though not all) lawful access provisions found in Bill C-30.

November 27, 2013 — 2 comments — Columns

Leaked TPP Text Confirms Countries Had Plenty to Hide

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, a massive proposed trade deal that includes Canada, the United States, Australia, Mexico, Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand, Vietnam, Japan, Peru, and Chile, has long been the target of criticism owing to the veil of secrecy associated with the draft text. While negotiations have been ongoing for several years, participating countries have steadfastly refused to release the working text that addresses everything from agriculture to copyright, claiming that trade talks must be conducted behind closed doors.

Last week, Wikileaks released a leaked version of the intellectual property chapter, which confirmed that the U.S. hopes to use the agreement to export extreme intellectual property provisions that are out-of-step with international norms. Indeed, the 95-page document validates fears that the real reason for the TPP secrecy is that the negotiating countries have plenty to hide.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that while many of the leaked proposals are cause for concern, the good news is that Canada often finds itself opposing some of the most draconian demands with negotiators promoting Canadian law as a suitable alternative.

November 19, 2013 — 5 comments — Columns

New Risks Emerge as Anti-Counterfeiting Bill Placed on the Legislative Fast Track

The government’s anti-counterfeiting legislation, which died over the summer when the Conservatives hit the parliamentary reset button, is now back on the legislative fast track. Industry Minister James Moore quickly re-introduced the bill last month and speedily sent it to the Industry Committee for review (I appeared before the committee last week).

That review has revealed that the numerous new border measures envisioned by the bill, including seizure powers without court oversight, fall short of the demands of intellectual property lobby groups. Those groups intend to use the committee hearings to seek further expansion of border seizures and to shift more enforcement costs to the public.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that since virtually everyone is opposed to harmful counterfeiting – particularly when fake goods create health and safety risks – it is unsurprising that the bill appears to enjoy all-party support. The focal point of the bill is that it grants customs officials broad new powers without court oversight. Officials will be required to assess whether goods entering or exiting the country infringe any copyright or trademark rights. Should a customs official determine that there is infringement, the goods may be seized and prevented from entering the country.

November 12, 2013 — 5 comments — Columns