ABLawg

Decrypting Bill C-22, Part III: Backdoors by Another Name: The Limits of C-22’s Systemic Vulnerability Safeguard

On October 26, 2026

In Law Reform, National Security, Privacy

By: Alexandra Lyn, Joel Reardon, and Michael Nesbitt

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, 1st Sess, 45th Parl, 2026 (as passed by the House of Commons 18 June 2026)

PDF Version: Decrypting Bill C-22, Part III: Backdoors by Another Name: The Limits of C-22’s Systemic Vulnerability Safeguard

Status: As of this writing, Bill C-22 has passed the House of Commons and remains at second reading in the Senate, where debate most recently resumed on 8 October 2026 (LEGISinfo, Bill C-22 (45-1)).

This is the third post in our four-part series translating the ongoing debate on Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, for non-technical and non-legal readers. By way of reminder, lawful access refers to law enforcement’s legal powers to conduct searches and seizures of private spaces and information—think searches of your home (spaces) or your computer or browsing history (information)—for investigative purposes. Bill C-22 is the government’s controversial attempt to update Canada’s lawful access regime by granting police broad new powers of search and seizure.

The 2026 Mine Financial Security Program Update: More Volatility in Liability Estimates and an Asset-to-Liability Problem with the Fort Hills Mine

By Drew Yewchuk

On October 23, 2026

In Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Documents Commented On: Annual Mine Financial Security Program Submissions 2026 Submissions for 2025 Reporting Year; Mine Financial Security Program – Security and Liability, September 29, 2026.

PDF Version: The 2026 Mine Financial Security Program Update: More Volatility in Liability Estimates and an Asset-to-Liability Problem with the Fort Hills Mine

This is the annual update following the posting of the submissions for the Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP) to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) website. See last year’s post here. The MFSP is Alberta’s troubled system for managing the financial security for the closure (decommissioning, remediation and reclamation) of oilsands and coal mines when they stop operating. For a detailed assessment of the weaknesses in the MFSP, see this 2023 paper coauthored with Martin Olszynski and Andrew Leach, “Not Fit for Purpose: Oil Sands Mines and Alberta’s Mine Financial Security Program”. In February 2025, the Alberta government made minor changes that did not address the fundamental problems with the MFSP – see our post here.

The CER Approves the Negotiated Settlement for TMX’s Tolls and Tariffs: One More Taxpayer Subsidy for Oilsands Producers

By Nigel Bankes

On October 20, 2026

In Administrative Law, Energy, Natural Resources

By: Nigel Bankes

Decision Commented On: Canadian Energy Regulator, Approval of Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Negotiated Settlement, September 28, 2026

PDF Version: The CER Approves the Negotiated Settlement for TMX’s Tolls and Tariffs: One More Taxpayer Subsidy for Oilsands Producers

On September 28, 2026 the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) approved a negotiated settlement between Trans Mountain and shippers (largely oilsands producers) on the Trans Mountain Expansion project (TMX). While one shipper took no position on the application, all other shippers filed letters in support of the application. One intervenor, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation (TWN) (not a shipper), objected to the settlement.

Decrypting Bill C-22, Part 2: Keeping Tabs: C-22 and the Year (Now Half-Year) of Metadata Retention

By Alexandra Lyn

On October 19, 2026

In Law Reform, National Security, Privacy

By: Alexandra Lyn, Joel Reardon, and Michael Nesbitt

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, 1st Sess, 45th Parl, 2026 (as passed by the House of Commons 18 June 2026)

PDF Version: Decrypting Bill C-22, Part 2: Keeping Tabs: C-22 and the Year (Now Half-Year) of Metadata Retention

This is the second post in our four-part series that translates the ongoing debate over Bill C-22 for non-technical and non-legal readers. The first post introduced Bill C-22 and provided background information to help understand the justifications and criticisms of the Bill, including a brief primer on the legal concept of “lawful access” and search and seizure law under section 8 of the Charter, which readers may wish to review as it forms a backdrop to this blog post. Part I can be found here. In that post, we promised three subsequent blog posts on three core criticisms of Bill C-22. This installment tackles one of the most far-reaching of those three core criticisms of Bill C-22: the Bill’s mandatory metadata retention provisions.