The government today reversed course on its ill-advised anti-privacy measures in Bill C-2, introducing a new border bill with the lawful access provisions (Parts 14 and 15) removed. The move is welcome given the widespread opposition to provisions that would have created the power to demand warrantless access to information from any provider of a service in Canada and increased the surveillance on Canadian networks. The sheer breadth of this proposed system was truly unprecedented and appeared entirely inconsistent with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was the immediate reaction when the bill was tabled in June (my posts here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Law Bytes podcasts on the topic here, here, and here) and there was never a credible response forthcoming from government officials. Indeed, if anything, meetings with department officials made plain that this was an embarrassingly rushed, poorly drafted piece of legislation that required a reset.
News
Why The Recent TikTok Privacy Ruling Swaps Privacy for Increased Surveillance
Last month, federal privacy commissioner Philippe Dufresne, alongside his provincial privacy counterparts from Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia, released the results of a multi-year investigation into TikTok’s privacy practices. As my Hub opinion piece notes, the outcome was never really in doubt—look under the hood of any social media company and you will find some privacy concerns—but what was both surprising and risky was the commissioner’s demand that TikTok engage in increased surveillance of its users in the name of better privacy practices.
Government Doubles Down in Defending Bill C-2’s Information Demand Powers That Open the Door to Warrantless Access of Personal Information
The return of the House of Commons from the summer break brings with it a resumption of debate on government bills. Topping the list this week is Bill C-2, the omnibus border measures bill, that buries dangerous lawful access provisions that open the door to warrantless access to personal information and increased surveillance capabilities in Canadian networks. I wrote multiple posts on the privacy concerns before the summer (here, here, here, here, here, and here), expressing concern not only with the substantive provisions but also with a bill that combines everything from border measures to restrictions on cash transactions to warrantless access for law enforcement to personal information. The risk is that no issue will get sufficient attention as major issues get lost among the myriad of disparate provisions. For that reason, the lawful access provisions in Parts 14 and 15 in the bill should be removed and contained, if at all, within a separate bill.
Privacy Lost: How the Government Deleted Bill C-11’s Key Privacy Principle Just Two Months After Passing it Into Law
The Online Streaming Act, the government controversial reform to the Broadcasting Act, continues to attract attention given an ongoing court challenge and backlash from the U.S. government. But there is another element of Bill C-11 that is deserving of attention. Due to what is likely a legislative error, the government deleted privacy safeguards that were included in the bill only two months after they were enacted. As a result, a provision stating that the Broadcasting Act “shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the right to privacy of individuals” was removed from the bill, leaving in its place two-near identical provisions related to official languages. The net effect is that with little notice (Monica Auer of FRPC spotted it), the Broadcasting Act has for the past two years included an interpretation clause that makes no sense and efforts to include privacy within in it are gone.
Out of Nowhere: TIFF Undermines Artistic Freedom of Expression With Forced Name Change of October 7th Documentary
The controversy over the Toronto International Film Festival decision to remove a Canadian made October 7th documentary film from its lineup focused primarily on the absurd demand for copyright clearances of clips taken by Hamas terrorists on the day of the attack. While TIFF reversed its decision given the enormous backlash over what many rightly perceived to be censorship, another aspect of TIFF’s demands remain in place. According to media reports, the initial title of the documentary was Out of Nowhere: The Ultimate Rescue. TIFF demanded that the name be changed in order to be included in the program, leading to the new title, The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue. TIFF staff apparently objected to the phrase “Out of Nowhere”, which suggests that staff believes both that (1) the October 7th attack was not out of nowhere, and (2) that it was appropriate to limit artistic freedom of expression by substituting its political views over those of the creator.
Recent Posts
Government Reverses on Bill C-2: Removes Lawful Access Warrantless Demand Powers in New Border Bill 
Why The Recent TikTok Privacy Ruling Swaps Privacy for Increased Surveillance 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 245: Kate Robertson on Bill C-2’s Cross-Border Data Sharing Privacy Risks 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 244: Kris Klein on the Long Road to a Right to be Forgotten Under Canadian Privacy Law 
Government Doubles Down in Defending Bill C-2’s Information Demand Powers That Open the Door to Warrantless Access of Personal Information
