Liberals table new border bill without contentious search powers for law enforcement

OTTAWA — The Carney government tabled a new version Wednesday of its flagship national and border security bill without a host of contentious search powers for law enforcement, but is not giving up on the first, controversial version of the legislation.  

Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree tabled Bill C-12, which is a near-copy of the “Strong Borders Act” (C-2) his government tabled in the spring as U.S. President Donald Trump accused Canada of poorly defending the shared border from drug smugglers.  

The new bill proposes vast changes to Canadian border security, data collection and sharing by federal authorities, anti-money laundering rules, the asylum claim system and the Canadian Coast Guard.  

But missing from the new bill are sections of C-2 allowing law enforcement sweeping new powers such as opening mail or demanding any service provider fork over limited subscriber information without a warrant. Also missing is the restriction on cash payments or donations over $10,000.  

But that doesn’t mean the government is backtracking on those powers, the minister said, as the original bill C-2 will remain in Parliament and be debated separately.  

Anandasangaree told reporters that by removing the most contentious elements of C-2 from C-12, he expects the latter bill would garner “broader support” in Parliament. But in the same breath, he said that changes were not done to placate opposition parties.  

“I do anticipate the Bill C-12 will have a great traction and likely go through the committee phase early,” he said, adding that he hopes debate on the new legislation will begin in the next several weeks.  

When asked why he tabled a new bill instead of simply amending the existing one, Anandasangaree said the amendment process was “quite cumbersome”.  

He explained that the original bill was introduced “within days” of the Carney government’s election and that subsequent feedback over the summer pushed the government to draft a new bill.  

With regards to border security, C-2 proposes to tighten rules around asylum claims, allow the RCMP to share information about registered sex offenders with domestic international partners and gives the Coast Guard a new protective security role.  

Much of the “Strong Borders Act” tabled in June had little to do with securing the border and instead granted police and intelligence agencies new, and in some cases warrantless, legal tools to obtain or intercept information.  

The bill has garnered intense criticism from privacy and civil liberty groups as well as Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. On Wednesday, Conservative House Leader Andrew Scheer said it was “embarrassing” that Anandasangaree was already changing the Carney government’s first bill.

The ability to obtain Canadians’ information and intercept communications, known as “lawful access,” is one of the most intrusive powers afforded to police and intelligence agencies.  

Lawful access rules are perennially in the middle of a tug-of-war between the needs of law enforcement to investigate threats and Canadians’ rights and expectations of privacy.  

Intelligence and police agencies have long complained that they face “significant challenges” in securing lawful access because existing rules are antiquated and poorly adapted to the digital world.  

On Wednesday, Anandasangaree said he was “quite committed” to modernizing the lawful access regime, noting Canada lags significantly behind its Five Eyes intelligence sharing partners.  

But privacy, civil liberty and even some national security advocates say the Liberals’ Bill C-2 is a profound overreach that gives police and intelligence services far too much warrantless power.  

They point to sections of the spring bill that allow authorities to issue a demand letter to any public service provider requiring them to disclose some under information.  

Anandasangaree incorrectly stated on Wednesday that the new power only allowed authorities to ask a service provider if an individual used their service. “That is the only question that can be asked. Beyond it… the police need to provide a warrant,” he said.  

But the government’s own website states that officers could demand that service providers also provide information about the “nature of the services” provided, if they have any information relating to that account, where those services were provided and for how long.  

“We’re not just talking about Rogers, Telus and Bell here,” national security law expert Leah West explained on the Secure Line podcast last month . “Your doctor, your gynecologist, your Substack, your dog groomer, anyone who is providing a service.”  

“What could be revealed is a lot more potentially privacy-intrusive because of how broad the application is.”  

Authorities only needed a reasonable ground to suspect that an offence had been or may be committed to request the information. They did not require a judge’s approval via a warrant.  

Another controversial section of the bill created what many called a “digital back door” via a new law that requires electronic service provides to make it easier for police and intelligence agencies to access their data.  

The new law could compel an organization that uses any form of electronic services geared towards people in Canada or that operates in the country to implement tools to ensure data can be extracted and provided to authorities when mandated.  

“It has the potential to introduce significant vulnerabilities into the systems we use every day for our most private communications and could also completely upend the practice of information-sharing that is the foundation for keeping the internet safe and secure,” privacy lawyer David Fraser wrote in July.  

In a recent report, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians — an intelligence oversight committee of MPs and senators — largely agreed with law enforcement agencies’ concerns about lawful access and called on the government to carefully and incrementally address the issue.  

Canadians would be “surprised to learn how difficult it actually is” for national security agencies to intercept communications and obtain information lawfully, the report noted.  

“It is time for the government to act and provide the security and intelligence community with the tools, policies, and lawful authorities they require to do the work asked of them in the manner expected by Canadians which is responsive to and protective of their privacy.”  

National Post

cnardi@postmedia.com

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.