Advocacy groups warn federal bill could give law enforcement sweeping powers to access information

Anna Triandafyllidou, a migration expert and professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, speaks about Bill C-2's potential impact.

Several advocacy groups are voicing concerns that the federal government’s border security bill could grant law enforcement sweeping powers to surveil Canadians and invade their privacy.

“It’s an extremely concerning bill,” said Matt Hatfield, executive director of OpenMedia, a community-driven organization working for a “surveillance-free and democratic internet,” in an interview with CTV News.

OpenMedia was one of hundreds of organizations represented at a demonstration on Parliament Hill last week.

The 139-page Bill C-2 — dubbed the Strong Borders Act by the Liberals — was put forward by Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree earlier this month, largely aimed at addressing the border security concerns of U.S. President Donald Trump.

The president blamed the fentanyl overdose and border concerns for his initial slate of tariffs on Canadian goods, first threatened in November and then implemented in February.

Asked repeatedly in an interview on CTV’s Power Play this month about whether the bill is primarily aimed at placating U.S. concerns, Anandasangaree acknowledged the federal government has “heard from the U.S. on some of the irritants that they have” but also said Prime Minister Mark Carney has “clearly set an agenda to ensure that our borders are more secure.”

Bill allows for some warrantless data requests

Hatfield is warning that the border bill, however, has larger privacy implications, and weakens protections against law enforcement going too far.

Department officials providing information on a not-for-attribution basis when the bill was tabled said it has three main themes: fighting organized crime and fentanyl, securing the border and offering more tools to fight financial crime.

The legislation also proposes changes to what law enforcement can do without a warrant. The background document says it would “clarify the ability of law enforcement to exercise specific powers and seize specific information without a warrant in urgent, time-sensitive circumstances.”

An example given is the “live abuse” of a child.

The sweeping legislation requires changes across a number of departments, including Public Safety and the Canadian Border Services Agency.

According to Hatfield, that means, for example, that law enforcement could request information from any core service provider — from an email provider to a rental car company, a hotel, a cell phone company, or a private healthcare facility ­— without a warrant. That could include how long you’ve been a client, how frequently you access the service, and from where you access it, among other information.

“If law enforcement believes they have a suspicion that this information could help them investigate a crime — not necessarily a crime that you’re involved in, but a crime that having that data might help them — they can make that request with no warrant or approval from a judge,” Hatfield said.

In an interview with CTV News, national coordinator with the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group Tim McSorley said that information could be used to build a profile about someone, and without their knowledge.

Stipulations in the bill to increase information sharing between law enforcement agencies also means U.S. authorities could use the rule changes to find out whether an American has accessed private Canadian health facilities to obtain an abortion, for example.

“Our concern is that opens up a system that’s ripe for abuse and overreach, and for mistakes,” McSorley said.

NDP MP and public safety and national security critic Jenny Kwan has also voiced opposition to the bill, calling it a “sweeping attack on Canadian civil liberties.”

“It would allow the RCMP and CSIS to make information demands from internet providers, banks, doctors, landlords and even therapists, without judicial oversight,” Kwan said in the House of Commons earlier this month. “This is not about border security. It is about government overreach and Big Brother tactics, plain and simple.”

In an email statement to CTV News, Justice Department spokesperson Ian McLeod said the bill puts forward a “principled approach” by proposing a “new lawful authority to demand information,” and “a new production order (i.e., lawful authority) to obtain subscriber information.”

“The amendments proposed in Bill C-2 are carefully designed to balance the privacy interests of impacted persons, while providing law enforcement the tools they need to investigate serious crimes and threats to national security,” McLeod wrote.

He also said C-2 “makes clear” that final decisions about information sharing are up to the court, and that foreign law enforcement would need ministerial approval to make a request for information.

Concerns about regulation vs legislation

Bill C-2 is formally titled “An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures.”

It was at second reading in the House of Commons before MPs broke for the summer break last week. Any other progress on the bill will have to wait until the House resumes in mid-September.

But both Hatfield and McSorley are concerned that the bill, as is, is too broad, and that the government is prepared to rely on the regulatory period after the bill has received Royal Assent to fully install safeguards.

“The government may have plans for guardrails eventually, but they’re not in the law,” McSorley said.

“The sky’s the limit, currently,” Hatfield said, pointing to the example of the bill’s lack of definition for a “service provider” as a potential sticking point and one that should have more specificity.

As is, Hatfield said, it could include anything from an online forum to a school.

Speaking to reporters on Parliament Hill shortly after tabling the bill, Anandasangaree said he’s confident there are “very important safeguards that are built in.”

“I’ve worked my entire life in the protection of human rights and civil liberty,” Anandasangaree said, when asked about the sweeping powers this bill affords law enforcement.

“So, I, in order for me to bring forward legislation, it needed to have the safeguards in place, it needed to be in line with the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” he added. “And I fundamentally believe that we strike the balance, that while expanding powers in certain instances, does have the safeguards and the protections in place to protect individual freedoms and rights.”

According to an assessment released last week from the Justice Department, proposed measures in the act could clash with sections of the Charter of Rights, including clauses protecting Canadians against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

CTV News has requested a response from the department of public safety and the department of justice.

With files from CTV News National Correspondent Abigail Bimman