The introduction of Bill C-2, also known as the Strong Borders Act, has ignited a heated debate over privacy rights in Canada. Read the entire legislation, which is still being eyed closely. Its purpose is to increase the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and police forces. Civil liberty groups caution that these provisions threaten to openly destroy individual privacy rights. They argue that these measures could contravene Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Bill C-2 expands the ability for CSIS and police to obtain sensitive and personal information from any organization. This can include abortion clinics, hotels, and medical professionals and they can do so without a warrant. Civil liberties groups and skeptical opposition lawmakers are sounding the alarm. They are deeply concerned about the collateral damage this could do to individual rights. The bill’s sweeping scope has led many to raise alarm over the lack of transparency around what it will mean for Canadians.
The Citizen Lab, a leading research think tank specializing in digital privacy, has issued an extensive critique of the proposed legislation. Their report raises serious alarm about the breadth of powers that Bill C-2 would give law enforcement. Kate Robertson, a senior researcher at the Citizen Lab, emphasized that the government was opaque. She emphasized that they still haven’t shown the complete scope of these powers.
“It appears to be a power of unlimited scope to ask what services people use in any aspect of their life, whether that’s in person, treatments at clinics, or various services in the community, or online digital services that are equally broad in scope and deeply personal and reveal our intimate thoughts, our beliefs, our opinions, and health concerns.” – Kate Robertson
Additionally, the report warns that Bill C-2 may result in the investigation of anyone who has received services from an abortion clinic in Canada. This would be a huge win for states with extreme reproductive laws, such as Mississippi. This worry only increases the apprehension that sensitive health data might be made available to foreign governments.
Additionally, the bill would require landlords to report information on tenants, without warrants or due process. This sweeping mandate gives police and CSIS the ability to seek out granular information. For example, they could ask whether the prescribing physician is aware of any other specialty care a patient is receiving. Robertson emphasized the dangerous precedent this set for personal healthcare providers who could be subjected to hidden patient data requests.
“Even health providers could face secret demands and would need to hire a lawyer and challenge these in court within five days of receiving them if they wished to avoid revealing that you are their client.” – Kate Robertson
Opposition voices have clearly been heard and have made their displeasure known with the proposed legislation. Jenny Kwan, the New Democratic Party’s public safety and immigration critic, stated that the provisions in Bill C-2 lay “the foundation for a surveillance state.” She lambasted the government’s attempt to force legislation on Canadians that they had not requested.
“Canadians who voted for Carney never asked for this.” – Jenny Kwan
Kwan’s comments are an indication of the general fear that critics of Bill C-2 have over the misuse of discretionary power that the bill would allow. The bill’s provisions could enable officials to create detailed profiles of individuals by tracking their interactions with various services—information that could be used against them.
The Citizen Lab report asserts that the data and surveillance powers outlined in Bill C-2 resemble frameworks typically favored by U.S. officials. The bill is woefully vague regarding its plan to establish new data-sharing agreements. It doesn’t say whether these agreements will be undertaken with the United States or other countries.
“The 2AP would specifically authorize searches and seizures of private data, in circumstances that fall short of international human rights obligations requiring independent authorization and review for just cause.” – The Citizen Lab report
Justice Canada officials informed Robertson that certain provisions of Bill C-2 aim to facilitate Canada’s compliance with a new data-sharing treaty known as the “Second Additional Protocol” to the Budapest Convention. This treaty has a particular focus on improving international cooperation between countries on issues of cybersecurity and law enforcement.
Critics are still right to be worried about what treaties like this would mean. Tamir Israel, director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association’s privacy, surveillance, and technologies program, voiced concerns regarding potential agreements or arrangements with foreign states that could jeopardize Canadians’ privacy rights.
“With these powers, any official tasked with enforcing a federal law could go to the company you rented a car from or the hotel you stayed at and paint a detailed picture of your activities simply by confirming the various companies you interacted with.” – Tamir Israel
With conversations about Bill C-2 still ongoing, civil liberties advocates are calling on lawmakers to be more accountable and transparent. For instance, they emphasize the need to assess whether or not the bill respects Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To date, the federal government has yet to release this congressionally mandated review.
