By Ken Macon – Reclaim The Net
A proposed Canadian law aimed at tightening border control is sparking intense backlash about granting authorities broad access to personal data without court approval.
Bill C‑2, titled the Strong Borders Act, could allow police, intelligence agents, and other officials to demand information from any service provider about a person’s activities.
The law permits inquiries into whether someone has used a particular service, such as a clinic, hotel, or medical office.
Authorities could ask when the service began or ended and whether the provider holds any additional data on the individual. No judicial authorization would be required for this level of access.
Legal experts warn the threshold for these demands is alarmingly low. Officials only need to suspect a possible violation of any federal law. Providers served with a demand must comply quickly and are forbidden from disclosing that they received one. There is a narrow five-day window to challenge the request in court.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) has raised serious concerns about the law’s implications for privacy.
“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,” said Tamir Israel, CCLA’s director of privacy, surveillance, and technology.
He added that healthcare workers could be compelled to reveal if someone is a patient unless they act fast to contest the request. While lawyers might rely on solicitor-client privilege, other service providers would not have the same protections.
So far, the government has not published a Charter compliance review for Bill C‑2, despite having done so for similar legislation in the past. Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree insists the measures are limited and comply with constitutional safeguards. Privacy experts remain unconvinced.
Kate Robertson from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto criticized the bill’s lack of precision.
“It appears to be a power of unlimited scope to ask what services people use in any aspect of their life…or online digital services that are equally broad in scope and deeply personal,” she said.
The legislation would also empower officials to obtain subscriber information, such as the municipality a person lives in, from internet providers without involving a judge. In the past, such surveillance focused solely on telecom companies. Bill C‑2 expands the definition of who can be asked for information to include any service provider.
The phrase “any person who provides services to the public” is so broad that it could cover hospitals, schools, financial institutions, or even barbers and dry cleaners. Under this language, a business would be required to confirm whether they have provided services to an individual, reveal any related data, list the timeframes, and disclose any known referrals to other services.
NDP MP Jenny Kwan warned the bill could let authorities construct detailed profiles of individuals’ lives by tracing connections between service providers.
“Canadians who voted for Carney never asked for this,” she said.
She also raised concerns that landlords might be ordered to share information about tenants without any court process.
The Privacy Commissioner’s office is currently reviewing the bill. The government has not yet responded to questions about its scope or intent.
Privacy advocates argue that this proposal surpasses even the controversial 2010 surveillance bill led by then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. While earlier laws confined data demands to telecom firms, Bill C‑2 removes such limits and introduces powers that could impact anyone offering a public service.
With no clear definition of which services fall under the law, and only minimal legal thresholds required for data access, experts warn that Bill C‑2 represents a serious departure from long-established privacy norms. If adopted, it could mark the most intrusive expansion of state surveillance in Canada’s recent history.