Traditionally, the arrival of July and August means the supportive or critical reaction to government bills goes slightly to the back burner until parliamentarians return to the House of Commons Sept. 21.

The keyword may very well be “slightly.” There are multiple data points, such as social media trends, petition drives and high-profile backlash, that suggest passionate conversation over Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, and Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, will endure throughout the recess.

The complexities of these bills are perhaps spurring the high volume of discourse. Whether scrutinized as separate legislative proposals or as the latest elements in the Mark Carney government’s overall online media strategy, there are many intricacies and fine-line tensions between digital security and civil liberties to contemplate.

Advertisement

Bill C-22 is further along in its legislative journey, and the majority Liberal government has courted criticism from 21 civil liberty organizations, privacy rights groups and individual experts for moving to shut down debate on the bill and force it through the Lower Chamber.

Postured as a necessary act to give law enforcement the tools to effectively disrupt and dismantle organized crime networks exploiting the globalized digital space, the new evidence-gathering methods Bill C-22 would create are a confirmation of service demand and a subscriber information production order.

The former would enable a peace or police officer to require a telecommunications provider to confirm whether they actively — or have in the past — provide telecommunications services for the subscriber, client, account or identifier outlined in the demand. The latter would authorize law enforcement to obtain information identifying subscribers of that service. The name, address and email address linked to a particular account could be turned over if a justice or judge believes there are reasonable grounds to grant a production request.  

Civil liberty critics of Bills C-22 and C-34, including Marty Moore, a constitutional litigator working with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), have sought to adjudge these bills alongside the Liberal government’s other legislative efforts to reshape the digital sphere, such as Bill C-8, the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act, Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act and Bill C11, the Online Streaming Act.

Suggesting that these bills in combination demonstrate the “increasing desire of the current federal government to police expressions online they view as hateful,” Moore suggested religious speech is at greater risk if Bill C-22 and C-34 become law. He pointed to how Bill C-9 already “removed the clear bright line protection for good faith discussion of religious texts as a defence from the accusation of hate,” and there is uncertainty over what could be perceived as hate.

“If you're having religious speech online and a police officer views that as hate and now is not encumbered by this idea that you might've been having a good-faith religious discussion online, they can still view it as hate even if they view it as a good-faith religious discussion online,” said Moore. “Well, now your privacy is being invaded in a police investigation.

“There (could) be a lower threshold for some of the hate offences under the online harms act portion of Bill C-34 where the digital safety commission could pressure and punish service providers for hosting and facilitating your expression. You yourself could also be subject to enforcement through the digital safety commission or through law enforcement.”

Peter Copeland, however, the acting director of domestic policy for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think tank, stressed the need for Canada to catch up to its partners in the Five Eyes (FVEY) intelligence alliance.

“We are basically a target for organized crime and for foreign states who are increasingly engaging in hybrid warfare, which is state-sponsored organized crime and intelligence activities here on our own soil,” said Copeland. “We lack the capacity to execute warrants in an appropriately efficient way to pursue criminals.”

Copeland, a former director of policy and stakeholder relations for the Ontario government, explained how the approval processes to secure consent for a wiretap or usage of On-Device Investigative Tools straitjacket the ability to respond to criminal elements using burner phones and electronic devices.

Advertisement

But the proposed expansion of policing and surveillance powers has raised freedom of privacy and individual security concerns, as critics warned the Lawful Access Act could force companies to create backdoors to extract and retain metadata. Google, Apple and Meta have warned that Bill C-22 as law could weaken encryption protections, while Signal, DuckDuckGo and NordVPN have suggested an exit from the Canadian market rather than compromise on privacy promises to users.

The JCCF's Moore is acutely concerned about the prohibition of disclosure orders that would be imposed on electronic service providers (ESP). ESPs would not be permitted to share with the information contained in an order, the grounds on which it was issued and that it is or was subject to the order.

“The bill itself shows that the government doesn't intend to be transparent on this file, and the way it passed (the House of Commons) I think exemplifies that,” said Moore. He alluded to the public safety and national security committee’s late-night voting session on June 17, where Canadians tuning into the proceedings “weren’t even able to know what amendment text the MPs were voting on.”

While recognizing there are “perennially legitimate concerns about rights and privacy,” Copeland said an “excessive emphasis on those things that have really hamstrung our ability to operate in all domains of law.”

Copeland, along with MacDonald-Laurier contributor Jamie Tronnes, the executive director of the Center for North American Prosperity and Security, did identify concerns about Bill C-22 in an opinion piece. He said the revised version of Bill C-22 heeded the institute’s recommendations to expressly prohibit end-to-end encryption and subject the ministerial orders to further oversight.

Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, was tabled within the final fortnight of the parliamentary session.

One central tenet is a Digital Safety Act to institute new safety requirements for social media platforms and AI chatbots to ensure harmful content (sexually victimizing, self-harm inducing, hatred fomenting, violence inciting, terroristic or bullying) is targeted. The government expressly intends to restrict Canadians under 16 from opening a social media account. Exemptions to this rule could be possible if companies establish sufficient age-appropriate safeguards. The other core provision of the bill is creating a Digital Safety Commission to implement the Canadian online safety framework by setting standards, enforcing regulatory obligations and responding to user complaints about content.

Early scrutiny has been trained on the mandatory age-verification measures that would also apply to adults.

“Whether that's a digital ID that would be created by the government for this purpose, facial recognition software or other biometric data, this represents a serious breach and invasion of Canadians’ privacy rights in order for them to use the internet in these different ways,” asserted Moore.  

Copeland suggested instituting age-verification measures “is not inherently concerning” as long as “things are defined properly with the appropriate precision.” He noted how there are already websites with age verification measures, and the ongoing transition into the digital age would compel changes to forms of identification and tracking.

What concerns Copeland about Bill C-34 is that the bureaucracies spawned by this bill “could become overreaching and too big” and Canadians “need to be wary about the power devolved to commissions.” Overall, he is supportive of the effort to curb social media addiction among children because of its impacts on social relationships and because these platforms expose developing minds to "all sorts of illicit and unhealthy content."

Advertisement

Regarding the concerns expressed by others that these packages of bills are ushering in a censorship regime, Copeland said: “I appreciate all these arguments to be sure, and there is warranted concern there, but I'm just on the other side of the balance of probabilities or way of concerns.”

Copeland expressed that proper jurisprudence is needed to combat potential issues that arise. He also stated that, especially in the case of Bill C-34, “public discourse will enumerate a number of features of the bill that need tightening, so as not to be overbroad.”