Michael Geist

Justice Minister Sean Fraser appeared earlier this week before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights , relying on what has become a standard defence of Bill C-22's privacy implications, telling Conservative MP Roman Baber that the bill lets police access “a modern version” of what used to appear in the phone book. The “it's just phone book information” claim has been repeatedly recycled by cabinet ministers and MPs alike. Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree used the same framing to open the government's second reading defence of the bill on April 15th , telling the House that “twenty-five years ago, there were phone books that every household had. Bell Canada would deliver phone books to virtually every household” and presenting lawful access as a restoration of what those phone books once provided to police. The problem is that the analogy is plainly misleading as the data captured by Bill C-22, whether subscriber data or metadata, is nothing like the name, address, and phone number that once filled the phone book.

Two posts on Bill C-22 in a single day are not my typical approach, but the volume of misinformation coming from the government about the lawful access bill has made it hard to keep up. Earlier today, I posted about the repeated use by government ministers and MPs of the phony “it's just phone book information” analogy to misleadingly describe the collection of subscriber data and metadata. But a press conference yesterday by Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree demands comment, as he accused U.S. tech companies of spreading misinformation, even though his own claims were plainly inaccurate and within hours required a walkback.

As the concerns about Bill C-22 mount, the government's incoherent response has included Justice Minister Sean Fraser implausibly comparing metadata to phone book data and Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree suggesting that Canada was just trying to match U.S. metadata retention laws (the U.S. has no such law) and claiming that tech company concerns regarding breaking encryption were based on misinformation.

Over the past week, the concerns over Bill C-22, the government's lawful access bill, continued to mount . Many companies, notably including Apple, Google, Meta, Signal, and DuckDuckGo, have spoken out against the bill. So too has the VPN sector, with some warning that they can't remain in Canada if the bill goes ahead as is. This week, the CEOs of two of the companies that have spoken out against Bill C-22 join the Law Bytes podcast to explain. Avery Pennerun, the CEO of Tailscale , and Yegor Sak, the CEO of Windscribe , explain their businesses, discuss concerns about mandatory metadata retention and backdoor access to encryption, and consider what the law might mean for the future of their companies in Canada.

Daily astrology with Sally Brompton

For more than two and a half years, antisemitism in Canada has moved from the margins to a daily feature of Jewish life. Synagogues have been shot at, including several Toronto-area congregations this spring (among them the Shaarei Shomayim, the synagogue where I was married ). Jewish schools now operate with police at the doors, community events screen attendees and withhold their locations from public disclosure, protesters target Jewish residential areas , and many Canadian Jews have quietly taken the mezuzahs off their doorposts or tucked a Star of David out of sight . Despite antisemitism rates that have attracted increasing global attention , leadership prepared to directly confront Canada's antisemitism problem has too often been lacking.

The Canadian government's long-awaited and much-needed AI strategy is finally set to be unveiled this week, with AI minister Evan Solomon promising a plan that prioritizes AI adoption, investment, and regulatory guardrails to enhance trust, privacy and safety. My Globe and Mail op-ed argues the strategy seems doomed to fail, even before it is released, with the government's own digital policies working against it. An astonishing series of developments in recent weeks amount to digital self-sabotage, leaving global technology giants alarmed and Canadian tech companies openly considering leaving the country.

The government today killed the centrepiece of its broadcasting policy, announcing it plans to issue a new policy direction to override the CRTC's Online Streaming Act decision on Internet streaming service contributions less than two weeks after the Commission released it. The reversal, which undoubtedly reflects the harm the decision created as part of trade negotiations with the United States, comes at a cost to taxpayers, however, as the government promised a $600 million payout to the audio and audiovisual sectors to cover the anticipated lost revenues. Canadian Culture Minister Marc Miller framed the move entirely in terms of affordability and consumer choice, cautioning that the Commission's requirements could be borne by Canadian consumers in the form of higher prices. That risk has been obvious since the government introduced the legislation years ago. In fact, it is close to word-for-word for the case I made before the Commission in December 2023 that consumer interests, competition, and affordability belonged at the centre of broadcast and Internet policy.

The government unveils its long-awaited national AI strategy this morning. AI Minister Evan Solomon has made it clear that the strategy will emphasize trust , noting that Canadians will only embrace the technology if they are confident their privacy is protected and safeguards are in place against potential harms. The privacy assurances are likely to take the form of a new private-sector privacy bill that includes European-style rules, stronger penalties, and the possibility of recognizing privacy as a fundamental right. The government has proposed as much before, adding fundamental-rights language to the Consumer Privacy Protection Act in Bill C-27 before that bill died on the order paper. But the government is, at the same time, pressuring the public safety committee to pass Bill C-22, whose mandatory metadata retention regime is the single largest privacy risk in Canada in years and one that comparable countries have already struck down as a violation of the fundamental right to privacy. The disconnect is dizzying: the government cannot claim privacy as a fundamental right in the morning and enact mandatory metadata retention that overrides it in the afternoon.

The government today released its much-anticipated national AI strategy , an ambitious plan featuring a myriad of new programs and initiatives to support AI adoption. The strategy emphasizes trust, framing its approach as “AI for All.” Spending dominates the announcement, with money sprinkled across the economy as the government bets on the economic returns that flow from widespread AI adoption. Yet spending money is the easy part. What stands out is the deferral of many of the hard policy choices. The government has no plans for AI-specific regulation, instead relying on updated privacy rules and a reintroduction of online safety legislation. AI Minister Evan Solomon started the process by noting that the prior government had “over-indexed” on regulatory plans, and that perspective remains largely unchanged. There are real risks in bad legislation (see yesterday's reset of the Online Streaming Act ), but the Canadian government will never outspend the market on AI. For the Canadian government, supporting AI development must primarily involve creating the legal and regulatory frameworks that facilitate investment, trust, and adoption, and deferring the hard choices to later does not help.