Fresh off Bill C-2 and lawful access provisions buried in a border safety bill, the government has now quietly inserted provisions that exempt political parties from the application of privacy protections in Bill C-4, an “affordability measures” bill. The provisions, which come toward the end of the bill, are deemed to be in force as May 31, 2000, meaning that they retroactively exempt the parties from any privacy violations that may date back decades. The ostensible reason for the provisions is a B.C. case that applied provincial privacy law to federal political parties. I discussed the case with Colin Bennett in this episode of the Law Bytes podcast in 2023. The government is now seeking to render that case moot and provide all political parties with an effective exemption from any privacy laws other than measures found in the Elections Act. An appeal of the B.C. case is scheduled to be heard later this month.
News
More Than Just Phone Book Data: Why the Government is Dangerously Misleading on its Warrantless Demands for Internet Subscriber Information
Government and law enforcement justifications for warrantless access to Internet subscriber information has long been defended on the grounds that the information being demanded carries little privacy interest. The go-to claim was always that it was “phone book information”, a reference to the largely discontinued practice of printing an annual public directory that included name, address, and phone number. The problem with that argument was that the information at issue included data points such as IP addresses and device identifiers, which could be used to track users and monitor online activity without a warrant. Moreover, linking a specific user to a specific IP address or other identifier effectively unlocks the door to potentially very sensitive information that is otherwise unavailable. Indeed, there is a reason that law enforcement logged over a million warrantless requests per year for basic subscriber information prior to the Supreme Court shutting down the practice.
Privacy At Risk: Government Buries Lawful Access Provisions in New Border Bill
The government yesterday introduced the Strong Border Act (Bill C-2), legislation that was promoted as establishing new border measure provisions presumably designed to address U.S. concerns regarding the border. Yet buried toward the end of the bill are lawful access provisions that have nothing to do with the border. Those provisions, which raise the prospect of warrantless access to information about Internet subscribers, establish new global production orders of subscriber information, and envision new levels of access to data held by electronic service providers, mark the latest attempt in a longstanding campaign by Canadian law enforcement for lawful access legislation. Stymied by the Supreme Court of Canada (which has ruled that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber data) and by repeated failures to present a compelling evidentiary case for warrantless access, law enforcement has instead tried to frame lawful access as essential to address everything from organized crime to cyber-bullying to (now) border safety. Much like the government’s overreach last year on online harms, Bill C-2 overreaches by including measures on Internet subscriber data that have nothing to do with border safety or security but raise privacy and civil liberties concerns that are bound to spark opposition. This post provides the background on lawful access and an overview of some Bill C-2’s provisions with more details on key elements to come.
Here We Go Again: Internet Age Verification and Website Blocking Bill Reintroduced in the Senate (With Some Changes)
The last Parliament featured debate over several contentious Internet-related bills, notably streaming and news laws (Bills C-11 and C-18), online harms (Bill C-63) and Internet age verification and website blocking (Bill S-210). Bill S-210 fell below the radar screen for many months as it started in the Senate and received only cursory review in the House. The bill faced only a final vote in the House but it died with the election call. This week, the bill’s sponsor, Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne, wasted no time in bringing it back. Now Bill S-209, the bill starts from scratch in the Senate with the same basic framework but with some notable changes that address at least some of the concerns raised by the prior bill (a fulsome review of those concerns can be heard in a Law Bytes podcast I conducted with Senator Miville-Dechêne).
Queen’s University Trustees Reject Divestment Efforts Emphasizing the Importance of Institutional Neutrality
The Queen’s University Board of Trustees last week rejected efforts to require divestment of the university’s endowment and investment funds from companies conducting business with or in the State of Israel and declined to implement a negative screening process for future investments. The decision, which adopted a review committee’s assessment, stands as one of the more detailed analysis of the issue at a Canadian university. Some universities have declined to even consider the possibility and others have held open hearings on the issue. But Queen’s agreed to full committee review, sparking consultations and numerous submissions.
The review committee’s report identifies several reasons to reject the divestment proposals including fiduciary obligations that require that the University’s investments be managed prudently with a view to maximizing financial returns, the lack of consensus on the political issues, and the acknowledged ineffectiveness of divestment policies. The report also notably relies on the importance of institutional neutrality in reaching its decision.
Recent Posts
What Is With This Government and Privacy?: Political Party Privacy Safeguards Removed in “Affordability Measures” Bill 
More Than Just Phone Book Data: Why the Government is Dangerously Misleading on its Warrantless Demands for Internet Subscriber Information 
Privacy At Risk: Government Buries Lawful Access Provisions in New Border Bill 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 234: “Solutions Aren’t Going to be Found Through Nostalgia”: Mark Musselman on the CRTC Hearings on Canadian Content Rules 
Here We Go Again: Internet Age Verification and Website Blocking Bill Reintroduced in the Senate (With Some Changes)
