After several days of debate in which the opposition to lawful access seemed half-hearted at best, the Conservatives woke up on Monday. MP after MP rose to argue, correctly, that Bill C-22 represents an unprecedented surveillance threat: mandated metadata retention (including location information) for up to a year, security vulnerabilities built into the interception architecture the bill requires, and a weakened legal standard for access to subscriber information. After days of debate with the government visibly struggling to defend its own legislation, this is precisely what the opposition should be targeting (coverage from day one, day two, day three).
Post Tagged with: "c-22"
A Standard That Doesn’t Exist: Parliamentary Secretary for Justice Offers Misleading Defence of Bill C-22’s Lower Threshold for Subscriber Information
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.
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.
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.
Could Bill C-22 Make Canadians Less Safe? The Systemic Vulnerability Gap in Canada’s New Surveillance Law
The lawful access debate in Canada has to date focused on privacy concerns such as access to subscriber information, mandatory metadata retention, and international production orders. But there is another dimension to Bill C-22 that has received less attention and may matter even more to the daily security of Canadians: the risk that the bill’s surveillance-capability requirements and lack of clarity about systemic vulnerabilities will make Canadians less secure. The international experience with similar laws is not reassuring, as it points to risks of hacking, removal of security features that protect users, and reduced investment and innovation. Bill C-22 heads in much the same direction.
Recent Posts
AI Without Canada: Why the Heritage Committee’s AI Report Could Lead to Less Canadian Content in the Training Data 
Addressing the AI Policy Challenge: My Appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications 
Lawful Access Heads to Committee: The Opposition Found Its Voice, the Government Never Found Its Defence 
Is Data De-Identification Dead?: Why the AI Privacy Risk Isn’t What It Learns, But What It Figures Out 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 265: Jason Millar on Claude Mythos, Project Glasswing, and the Governance Crisis in Frontier AI
