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.
Post Tagged with: "lawful access"
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.
Scoping in the Tech Giants: Bill C-22’s International Production Order and the Shift to a Less Privacy-Protective Cross-Border Disclosure System
While much of the focus on lawful access and subscriber information has centred on the reduced standards for obtaining an order for such information from Canadian telecom and Internet providers, there is another new production order deserving of attention (see earlier posts on domestic subscriber information standards and mandatory metadata retention). Bill C-22 introduces a new mechanism for Canadian courts to authorize police to request subscriber information and transmission data held outside the country directly from foreign platforms such as Google, Meta, and other services that provide communications services to the public. The provision is presented as a tool to modernize cross-border investigations, but in practice, it is likely to reduce privacy safeguards.
Recent Posts
RCMP Confirms Bill C-22 Concerns: Police Want Law to Provide Access to Encrypted Communications 
More Misinformation on Bill C-22 as the Government Struggles to Defend Its Lawful Access Plan 
The Phony Phone Book Analogy: How Liberal Cabinet Ministers and MPs are Misleading Canadians About the Privacy Risks of Bill C-22 
Apple on Bill C-22: “This Bill Allows the Government of Canada to Force Companies to Break Encryption by Inserting Backdoors into their Products” 
From Levy to Liability: Why Canada Risks Facing Hundreds of Millions in Retaliatory Tariffs Due to the CRTC’s Online Streaming Act Ruling
