Last month, the government seemingly reversed course on its lawful access plans to grant law enforcement powers to demand warrantless access to personal information from any provider of a service in Canada. Buried in Bill C-2, a border measures bill, the lawful access provisions were the most expansive in Canadian history covering everyone from telecom providers to physicians to hotels. The bill sparked widespread opposition amid concerns that it was inconsistent with multiple Supreme Court of Canada decisions and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet it now appears that the reversal was short lived. Yesterday, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangree, Transport Minister Steve McKinnon, Secretary of State for Combatting Crime MP Ruby Sahota and a group of Liberal MPs held a press conference to urge swift passage of lawful access.
Post Tagged with: "c-12"
Government Reverses on Bill C-2: Removes Lawful Access Warrantless Demand Powers in New Border Bill
The government today reversed course on its ill-advised anti-privacy measures in Bill C-2, introducing a new border bill with the lawful access provisions (Parts 14 and 15) removed. The move is welcome given the widespread opposition to provisions that would have created the power to demand warrantless access to information from any provider of a service in Canada and increased the surveillance on Canadian networks. The sheer breadth of this proposed system was truly unprecedented and appeared entirely inconsistent with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was the immediate reaction when the bill was tabled in June (my posts here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Law Bytes podcasts on the topic here, here, and here) and there was never a credible response forthcoming from government officials. Indeed, if anything, meetings with department officials made plain that this was an embarrassingly rushed, poorly drafted piece of legislation that required a reset.
The Canadian Government’s Embarrassing Opposition to Security Breach Disclosure Legislation
Last week, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada released her vision of privacy reform, including the need for security breach disclosure legislation, order-making power, and greater transparency of warrantless disclosure. On the same day as Commissioner Stoddart released her position paper, the government was embarrassing itself in the House of Commons by formally opposing security breach disclosure legislation on the weakest of grounds. The opposition to meaningful privacy reform is particularly discouraging given the thousands of breaches that have occurred in recent years from within the government itself and its claims to be concerned with the privacy of Canadians.
The government introduced legislation featuring security breach disclosure requirements in Bill C-12 in September 2011 (itself a reintroduction of the former C-29 that was first introduced in 2010). Since first reading, the bill has not moved. It would take very little for the government to complete second reading and send the bill for study to committee, yet more than a year and a half later, the bill languishes, certain to die this summer when the government hits the parliamentary reset button. Frustrated by the inexplicable delays, NDP MP Charmaine Borg introduced a private member’s bill in February (C-475) that includes a mandatory security breach requirement roughly similar to the government’s own bill.
NDP MP Charmaine Borg Tries To Kickstart Canada’s Dormant Privacy Reform
As reports of yet another government security breach emerge, NDP MP Charmaine Borg has at least tried to kickstart the government’s dormant private sector privacy reform efforts with a private member’s bill that would add mandatory security breach disclosure requirements to the law along with new order making power. The […]
Seeking Solutions to the Mounting Social Media Privacy Concerns
Canadians are among the most active social media users in the world, yet the growing reliance on sites such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+ has generated unease with the privacy implications of massive data collection. My weekly technology law column last week (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes I was recently invited to appear before the committee and used my time to identify four areas in need of action.








