Why the U.S. is noticing this Canadian security bill

A progressive regime bank bill that proposes gift constabulary and spies easier access to information during investigations has fallen into the crosshairs of U.S. Tech giants and two American congressional committees, threatening to become the latest irritant in the Canada-U.S. Relationship.

The bill, this government’s second attempt at passing lawful access legislation, has already garnered intense domestic scrutiny from privacy and civil rights advocates, and is now attracting attention south of the border. 

Late last week, the heads of two American congressional committees sent a letter to federal Public Safety Minister Anandasangaree calling for changes.

Republicans Jim Jordan, chair of the U.S. Judiciary committee, and Brian Mast, who oversees the foreign affairs committee, argued the Canadian bill would "drastically expand Canada’s surveillance and data-access powers in ways that create significant cross-border risks to the security and data privacy of Americans."

"American companies operating in Canada would face a difficult choice: compromising the security of their entire user base — including U.S. Citizens — or risking exclusion from the Canadian market," the letter said.

"Either outcome harms U.S. National security and economic interests by undermining trust in American technology and inviting reciprocal demands from other nations." 

Tech giants 'misinterpreting' lawful access safeguards: public safety minister

At issue is Part 2 of Bill C-22, which would require telecommunication, internet and social media companies to adapt their systems to allow police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) easier access to data for investigations, provided they have a warrant. It would also require core providers to retain metadata for up to one year. 

"The government will have the power to order the large communications companies to retain information about where you go, who you communicate with, literally for an entire year," said Michael Geist, the University of Ottawa’s Canada Research Chair in internet and e-commerce law, and a vocal critic of the bill.

"This creates essentially a surveillance map," he said. 

That database would be of interest to hackers and hostile actors, he argues. Companies impacted by the bill say the demand would force them to create back doors, opening them up to adversaries.

"If we're starting to mess with the privacy and security of Americans, it shouldn't surprise anyone to see congressional leaders say, 'Hold on a second, Canada, we're uncomfortable with where this legislation is headed,'" Geist said. 

It's far from the first time that Canadian legislation targeting social media and technology based in the U.S has raised hackles south of the border.

Last summer, the federal government scrapped the digital services tax in a move largely seen as a way to appease U.S. President Donald Trump during stalled trade negotiations. Had it proceeded, giant companies like Amazon, Apple, Airbnb, Google, Meta and Uber would have taxed three per cent on the money they make from Canadian users and customers. 

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has targeted Canada's Online Streaming Act —  which attempts to make foreign streaming companies such as Netflix and Disney+ pay into Canadian funds for domestic content production — ahead of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement review. 

Geist said the growing momentum against Bill C-22 could become another nuisance in the relationship. 

"In many ways this is a much bigger issue because it's not just about the cost to the companies, but it's also about the privacy and security of Americans alongside Canadians," he said.

As first reported by the Globe and Mail, the encrypted messaging service Signal said it would withdraw from Canada if asked to comply with the bill. 

Apple, which uses encryption to secure users' health data, the location of family members, messages, photos, financial information and more, has also suggested it might withdraw some of its privacy services if Bill C-22 is passed as is.

Last year the company removed its strongest data security tool — the Advanced Data Protection program — from customers in the U.K. After the British government asked for access to encrypted data from users. 

Meta, the company behind Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, has also weighed in publicly, warning that the Liberals' lawful access bill would compromise their encryption services and turn them into surveillance tools for the government. 

In an interview, Rachel Curran, Meta's director of public policy in Canada, said the company has not been in contact with the U.S. Government and is hopeful their concerns can be addressed through amendments. 

"The [Canadian] government says that it's not its intent to undermine or weaken encryption, so if we can clarify that in the legislation, I think that would be fantastic," she said. 

Curran did point to the Trump administration's involvement last year in the row between Apple and the British government. U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard wrote a letter to British lawmakers saying the order for Apple to create a “back door" is a "clear and egregious violation of Americans’ privacy and civil liberty." 

"That has become a bit of a flashpoint between the U.K. And the U.S. In a geopolitical sense, so there are, I think, larger implications to conflicts like this that companies get involved in," Curran said.

"But hopefully we don't get there with Bill C-22."

Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police president and Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Thomas Carrique is paying attention to the U.S. Conversation about the bill and looking to respond to the U.S. Congress letter.

"We certainly want to make sure that profit margins are not being prioritized over public safety," he said. "And is it because it's costly for service providers to do, or is it truly a privacy issue that warrants further discussion and the appropriate safeguards?"

Carrique said "day in and day out," investigators are unable get at judicially authorized evidence because service providers won't provide access.  

"I would ask those naysayers to actually speak to the victims of crime, speak to survivors who have lost a loved one, speak to somebody who has been human trafficked, speak to someone whose child has been exploited over the internet, speak to somebody who's been extorted, speak to somebody who's been the victim of a drive-by shooting," he said. 

"These are all crimes that absolutely rely on digital evidence." 

Another player keen to see the bill pass is the Winnipeg-based Canadian Centre for Child Protection. The charity's technology has issued 141 million take-down notices on child sexual abuse material since 2017. 

But Monique St. Germain, the centre's general counsel, pointed to Statistics Canada data that shows the vast majority of online sexual offences against children don't result in charges. 

"While we understand that trade is important and we understand that maintaining good relations with our neighbour to the south is also important, we are a sovereign country and we have the ability to put laws in place that we believe are going to help our own citizens," she said. 

"So from our perspective, the longer we delay on this, the higher risks we are posing not just for children but for Canadians in general." 

In the face of increased pushback, the minister's office has been steadily pumping out content online in the last week, arguing the legislation does not compel companies to weaken encryption or create systemic vulnerabilities. The department has also made the case that other Five Eyes countries, including the United States, have lawful access regimes. 

During a news conference Wednesday, Anandasangaree said large tech is "using this as an opportunity to double down."

"Tech giants are misinterpreting some of the safeguards that are already built in, including ensuring that encryption is not in any way interrupted as part of Bill-22," he said. 

Anandasangaree suggested he'd be responding to the U.S. Congressmen, telling reporters that "we have more education to do."

"We have to better inform not just Canadians, but all who are following the bill on the safeguards that are critically built into this bill," he said.

---

---