The Liberal government’s proposed border bill would empower police and the country’s spy agency to seek information from a wide range of service providers — including medical professionals, banks and car rental companies — without a warrant, government officials spelled out Thursday.
In defence of the fiercely criticized bill, federal officials held a briefing with reporters where they argued the changes are needed to stay apace with the changing crime landscape. They spoke to reporters about the “lawful access” portions of the bill under the agreement they not be quoted directly.
The Strong Borders Act, also known as Bill C-2, was introduced earlier this month and has since received a wave of backlash from civil liberties groups, academics and some opposition MPs who argue it creates new surveillance powers infringing on personal privacy and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
An official on Thursday’s call said they held the briefing to further explain the government’s rationale for moving ahead on the headline-nabbing legislation.
If passed, C-2 would compel service providers to hand over basic information to police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) without judicial sign-off. It would also create a new order compelling the production of more detailed subscriber information with judicial authorization during a criminal investigation.
Depending on the case, that production order could require third parties to hand over names, addresses, telephone numbers and what services they sought.
The officials provided a hypothetical example: CSIS receives a tip that an individual associated with a Canadian telephone number may be planning a terrorist attack. In order to investigate, CSIS must first confirm which phone company is responsible for the phone number before it can seek a production order for more details, like the associated name and address.
Critic says it’s ‘ripe for abuse’
However, the bill also allows investigators to seize data (including subscriber information) without a warrant in urgent and time-sensitive circumstances. That could include situations where a delay could lead to evidence being lost or there is an imminent threat to public safety, according to the government.
An official briefing reporters said while internet service providers will likely receive the most requests, they confirmed the definition of public service providers is sweeping.
That could include a car rental company, hotel or a financial institution. Medical professionals including hospitals, doctors and psychiatrists’ offices could also meet that definition, they said.
The official stressed that police have to believe there are reasons to suspect that the information in question will assist in a criminal investigation, and said there is a mechanism in the bill allowing service providers to apply for judicial review if they are not comfortable handing over information.
But there are also legal consequences for those who don’t comply, including thousands of dollars in fines and possible jail time.
Civil liberties groups are concerned that the federal government’s proposed Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, will give law enforcement agencies sweeping new powers, like making it easier for police to search your internet activity and data without your knowledge or a warrant.
Critics argue the bill would infringe personal privacy and could breach the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Tim McSorley, national co-ordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, said the way the bill is written is “ripe for abuse.”
“Without a warrant, police and spy agencies could demand information about our online activities based on the low threshold of reasonable suspicion,” he said in a statement Wednesday.
“Bill C-2 would undermine more than a decade of Canadian privacy-related jurisprudence to enable a massive expansion of domestic surveillance.”
On Thursday, the government also tabled a Charter statement, an analysis of whether the bill erodes Charter Rights and Freedoms.
The Justice Department document argues the access portions of the bill are Charter compliant.
It argues common law already recognizes that police, in exigent circumstances, can conduct searches that would otherwise require a warrant.
The bill has support from Canada’s police chiefs who argue the warrantless demands would garner the “bare-minimum information” but could make a difference early in an investigation. Child protection advocates have also been pushing for changes to compel internet providers to co-operate with law enforcement.
Richard Fadden, a former director of CSIS, said a phone book once allowed police “to do more or less the same” as what’s been sought in this bill — though critics argue the new warrantless requests would provide far more data.
Since introducing the bill, the federal government has argued it’s meant to keep borders secure, crack down on transnational organized crime and money laundering and stop the flow of deadly fentanyl across the border.
Canada has faced pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to beef up border security. At times, his administration has justified its trade war by pointing to the southbound flow of irregular migrants and fentanyl.
