A Senate committee has begun hearings into Bill C-22, the government’s lawful access bill that requires a wide range of services to disclose subscriber information, retain metadata for months, and install government-mandated surveillance capabilities. In response, a growing number of companies have said they cannot comply and would exit Canada or withdraw services from the country.
One of the best known companies on that list is Signal, the popular messaging app with billions of users worldwide relying on its app and protocols to ensure secure, private communications. Udbhav Tiwari is Signal’s VP Strategy and Global Affairs. He joins me on the Law Bytes podcast to break down Bill C-22, explain what concerns remain, and discuss next steps if the bill remains unchanged.
Post Tagged with: "lawful access"
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 282: Udbhav Tiwari on Why Signal May Exit Canada Over Bill C-22’s Encryption and Metadata Retention Rules
Surveillance By Design: Government Officials Say Lawful Access Could Reach Gaming Platforms, Daycares and AI Services
Lawful access has long been associated with establishing the rules under which telecom and Internet companies may be required to disclose subscriber information, retain metadata, and install government-mandated surveillance capabilities. Yet the start of the Senate hearing on Bill C-22 this week confirmed again that the bill is about far more than telecom and Internet companies, with government officials acknowledging that the Canadian bill uses broader language than any of the comparable countries they examined. What emerges is surveillance by design, with the bill deliberately structured to cover an exceptionally wide range of services, including gaming platforms with chat functions and AI services. Moreover, the new subscriber information production order covers any service provider, as the Senators discussed the possibility of even scoping in daycare centres.
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 280: A Fall Update on Where Things Stand on Canadian Digital Policy Reforms
Parliament is back in full swing and with it debate on a wide range of digital bills, including lawful access, social media rules, AI regulation, and privacy reform. This week’s Law Bytes podcast provides an update on recent developments and highlights what to watch for in the weeks ahead as […]
Years of Uncertainty: Bill C-22’s Missing Regulations and Secret Ministerial Orders
Bill C-22, the lawful access bill, was a focal point of debate in the Senate last week. While companies continue to warn they may exit Canada if the bill passes in its current form, the debate’s biggest revelation was that it may take years for the government to pass the regulations needed to fully implement the law. The delay is notable for several reasons, including the government’s insistence in the spring that passing the bill was urgent (to the point that it shut down committee clause-by-clause review) and the regulatory uncertainty that it creates. Indeed, the Senate is effectively being asked to approve a surveillance and data retention framework without knowing who will be covered, what they will be required to build, what data about Canadians will be retained, or what any of it will cost. If this sounds familiar, it is because it has seemingly become the government’s go-to approach on many of its digital bills, from privacy to social media regulation, where key decisions are left to regulations and regulatory processes that take years to complete.
Is Compromise on Encryption Possible? Why Bill C-22’s “Minor Opening” Leaves the Central Question Unanswered
Bill C-22, the government’s lawful access legislation, is awaiting Senate consideration this fall with the encryption provisions likely to be the centre of attention given diametrically opposing views from law enforcement and technology companies and experts. Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree told the Toronto Star earlier this month that the bill strikes “the right balance” on encryption, claiming that cracking encryption is “off limits” except in “extenuating circumstances” where there is a “minor opening,” and that “everybody has had to have some water in their wine.” The government’s approach follows the typical legislative playbook of seeking a middle ground that stakeholders can (sometimes reluctantly) live with. Yet the past few weeks have produced an unusual situation in which both sides say no viable middle ground exists. Police claim the bill’s encryption provisions do little to change what they can obtain under existing law. Nearly two dozen technology companies and industry groups argue the same provisions leave every user at risk since even partial weakening of encryption undermines its effectiveness.
Recent Posts
Back-of-the-Napkin Cultural Policy: The Government’s $600 Million Streaming Plan Copies the CRTC Decision It Killed at More Than Double the Cost 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 282: Udbhav Tiwari on Why Signal May Exit Canada Over Bill C-22’s Encryption and Metadata Retention Rules 
From Making Web Giants Pay to Paying Media Giants: Budget 2026 Replaces the Government’s Internet Platform Strategy With $1.5 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars for Culture and News 
Has the Government Read Its Own Bill? What Three Days of House Debate Revealed About Bill C-34 Before the Committee Hearings Begin - Surveillance By Design: Government Officials Say Lawful Access Could Reach Gaming Platforms, Daycares and AI Services
