The Government of Canada is looking to fast-track the passage of its controversial “lawful access” legislation by the end of the week.
The feds say Bill C-22 is intended to “strengthen Canada’s laws and support law enforcement and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) with new tools to investigate serious threats, disrupt organized crime, and protect our communities.” The government argues that law enforcement needs better tools and frameworks to combat crime in the digital age, and Bill C-22 would require tech companies to retain certain metadata from users for up to six months and give law enforcement additional powers to seek this information in investigations.
Naturally, this has raised many privacy concerns, including from the rival Conservative Party, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Bar Association and experts like Michael Geist, law professor and Canada Research Chair in internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa. Tech companies like Signal and DuckDuckGo have also warned that they may exit Canada should Bill C-22 pass due to the potential privacy violations.
Large tech companies like Apple and Google have also raised concerns about the law, particularly over a section that would allow the government to secretly request backdoors that would weaken encryption. (Notably, Canada’s Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree has promised amendments to clarify the encryption issue, saying the bill “was never meant to breach encryption.”)
On Tuesday, Anandasangaree argued that opponents like the Conservatives are adopting “stalling tactics” and said “collaboration and cooperation” is needed right now to better support the war on cybercrime. He also said the government has already adopted several amendments to Bill C-22 in response to clause-by-clause study, including reducing the requirement period of metadata retention from one year to six months.
However, Conservatives and other critics argue that fast-tracking the bill limits the opportunity for debate and the implementation of proposed amendments. In his own criticism, Geist notes that the expedited process both prevents MPs from better scrutinizing the bill and creates a lack of transparency for the public.
Via: CBC News
