As the government prepares to shut down debate on lawful access and push Bill C-22 through committee without even discussing or debating dozens of potential amendments, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree’s responded by saying it was time for opposition parties to “choose” whether to stand with law enforcement and victims of crime. The response was telling as it evoked a similar response to another lawful access debate in 2012. At that time, the Conservatives were in power and Vic Toews was the Public Safety Minister. Toews infamously had the following exchange with Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia, who is now the Speaker of the House.
Post Tagged with: "c-22"
Government Moves to Shut Down Lawful Access Hearing In Order To Fast Track Passing the Bill This Week
The government is planning to shut down hearings into Bill C-22, the lawful access bill, with no further debate or discussion on potential amendments to the bill. It has just placed a motion on the Order Paper that would limit today’s committee meeting to only 30 minutes for standard clause-by-clause review. After that, it plans to cancel all further debate or discussion on any other amendments. The committee will instead be required to vote on all remaining amendments with no further debate, discussions or questions to officials. In fact, the substance of the amendments will remain secret and will not even be disclosed to the public. The government’s intent is clearly to complete clause-by-clause review tonight to ensure that the bill passes through the House of Commons by the end of the week
Yesterday, the government introduced privacy reforms that shuts down the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s role in private sector privacy regulation. Today, it is shutting down hearings into one of the biggest privacy threats in years. Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree had committed to amendments during the lawful access hearings, but this move means that only secret government amendments that will not be made public during the hearing will pass. Opposition parties have submitted many amendments based on testimony from the Privacy Commissioner, bar associations, security companies, and privacy experts. These include potential changes to the rules on mandatory metadata retention, risks to security and encryption, and privacy safeguards. All of these amendments will not even be made public, much less open to debate and discussion. Weeks of hearings and public concern tossed aside by the government in a rush to shut down debate and consideration of amendments to a deeply flawed, risky legislative plan.
Privacy as a Fundamental Right? The Government’s Terrible Privacy Track Record Suggests Virtue Signalling Over a Genuine Commitment
The government is set to introduce its long-promised privacy reform legislation early this week, with the recognition of a fundamental right to privacy expected to serve as a foundational element of the bill. Establishing privacy as a fundamental right would be a welcome and long-overdue development, one that many have called for and that was set to be added to Bill C-27, the prior attempt at privacy reform. Yet the framing is difficult to square with the government’s actual record on privacy, which over the past year has involved a steady stream of privacy-invasive measures that leave the fundamental rights rhetoric feeling more like virtue signalling than a genuine commitment. Simply put, the government cannot credibly claim to treat privacy as a fundamental right while actively undermining that right through a series of other bills and efforts to sideline the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
Liberal MP: Lawful Access “Has Nothing to Do With the Privacy of People and Their Information”
The government is set to introduce privacy reform next week with the “fundamental right to privacy” expected to serve as a foundational element of the forthcoming bill. Yet as the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security continues its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-22, Liberal MP Sima Acan last night offered a stunning perspective suggesting that the government simply does not conceive of privacy as most Canadians do. Frustrated with the dogged efforts of Conservative MP Jacob Mantle to address the privacy implications of the bill, Acan stated that the bill “has nothing to do with the privacy of people and their information.” After multiple hearings on the privacy consequences of mandatory metadata retention, backdoor access and weakened encryption, and reduced evidentiary standards for access to subscriber information, the comment is ill-informed and simply shocking. If that position reflects the broader view within the government, it is little wonder that the privacy risks of lawful access have not been taken seriously.
Bill C-22’s Clause-by-Clause Problem: The Government Includes Agencies Seeking Lawful Access Powers But Blocks the Privacy Commissioner’s Return
The House of Commons public safety committee started its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-22 last week, the stage at which the lawful access bill’s actual statutory language is settled and the privacy safeguards are either written in or left out. The witnesses the committee included said a lot about the government’s commitment to addressing privacy concerns and to ensuring a balanced bill. Clause-by-clause reviews typically include departmental officials as witnesses, who provide support to the committee by answering technical questions. Years ago, officials were viewed as non-partisan, but today officials invariably defend the government’s position and subtly (or not so subtly) argue against amendments. Including non-departmental witnesses is very rare since they have already had the chance to make their case to the committee. Yet the RCMP and CSIS, the agencies that have lobbied for these powers and will wield them, were on hand last week to guide members through the Bill C-22 amendments. Those witnesses will be unlikely to support potential privacy-focused amendments. Even more astonishing, efforts to include Philippe Dufresne, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, whose recommendations several of the amendments under consideration are drawn from, were rejected by Liberal MPs on the committee.
Recent Posts
Ontario is Done Waiting for Universities to Act on Campus Antisemitism 
Is Compromise on Encryption Possible? Why Bill C-22’s “Minor Opening” Leaves the Central Question Unanswered 
The Wrong Target: Why the CBC Should Be Asking About the Yom Kippur Protesters, Not the Journalist Who Reported on Them 
Buried in Bill C-39: The Enabling Digital Trade Act Brings Canada Its First Federal Electronic Trade Documents Law 
A Definition That Meets the Moment: Federal Government Recognizes Antisemitism Includes Anti-Zionism
