The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology is one of several House and Senate committees currently grappling with legal, regulatory and policy challenges and opportunities presented by AI. I appeared before the committee yesterday alongside Yoshua Bengio and Colin Bennett. Bengio unsurprisingly garnered the lion’s share of the questions, but the committee did give me the chance to highlight my thoughts on policy priorities and to address a few questions. I plan to post some reflections on the policy tensions in the coming days. In the meantime, the video and text of my opening statement are posted below.
News
The Online Streaming Act in Jeopardy: U.S. Takes Aim at the CUSMA Cultural Exemption With Threats of Bill C-11 Retaliation
From the moment it was first introduced as Bill C-10 in the fall of 2020, it was readily apparent that mandated payments by foreign streaming services to support Canadian content would face a trade backlash with the U.S., with the real prospect of trade retaliation. In fact, I wrote about the issue days after the bill was tabled, warning that an uneven playing field for benefits – foreign companies required to contribute but banned from benefiting – was a risky approach. Those warnings were dismissed by the government, cultural lobby groups, and supporters of the bill who assured critics that Canada’s cultural exemption under CUSMA provided a shield against U.S. retaliation.
It took years for Bill C-10 – later Bill C-11 – to become law as the Online Streaming Act, but now the bill has come due. Weeks after the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) specifically identified Canadian digital laws as a target in CUSMA renegotiations, House Republicans introduced the Protecting American Streaming and Innovation Act, a bill that would mandate an investigation into the Canadian law and open the door not only to trade retaliation but also to a change in how the cultural exemption is applied.
The Hidden Lawful Access Tradeoff: How Bill C-22 Lowers the Evidentiary Standards for Police Access to Subscriber Information
The return of lawful access in Bill C-22 has unsurprisingly focused on the government’s significant shift on warrantless access to subscriber information, which was the headline concern with Bill C-2, the previous lawful access proposal. As noted in my initial summary of the bill, Bill C-22 establishes court oversight for subscriber information with the warrantless access piece limited to requiring telecom companies to confirm whether they provide service to a given individual. That is a positive step, but there is a tradeoff, namely that the evidentiary standard needed to obtain an order for access to subscriber information is actually being lowered.
The Lawful Access Privacy Risks: Unpacking Bill C-22’s Expansive Metadata Retention Requirements
Much of the discussion around the new lawful access bill (Bill C-22) has focused on provisions that improved upon Bill C-2, notably the decision to scrap the warrantless information demand power by requiring judicial oversight for access to subscriber information. Yet despite that improvement, there remain serious privacy concerns with the government’s latest iteration of lawful access. Buried in the second half of Bill C-22 is a provision granting the government the power to require “core providers” to retain categories of metadata, including transmission data, for up to one year. This is mandatory metadata retention that would require telecom and electronic service providers to store information about the communications of all their users, regardless of whether those users are suspected of anything. It is one of the most privacy invasive tools a government can deploy and the international experience suggests that there are major privacy risks.
Government Enacts Political Party Anti-Privacy Rules With Bill C-4 Royal Assent Sprint
I’ve written extensively about Bill C-4 and the government’s effort to bury political party privacy rules that largely eliminate privacy obligations for federal political parties and apply the new rules retroactively to May 2000. This past week’s Law Bytes podcast featured Senate hearings on the bill, which ultimately resulted in an amendment to require the government to establish actual privacy obligations within three years. The government yesterday rejected the amendment and the bill received royal assent in a lightning-fast process.
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
