Wiertz Sebastien - Privacy by Sebastien Wiertz (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/ahk6nh
Privacy
Why Bill C-2 Faces a Likely Constitutional Challenge By Placing Solicitor-Client Privilege at Risk
The government’s inclusion of warrantless information demand powers in Bill C-2 has attracted mounting concern, particularly the stunning decision to target everyone who provides services in Canada which creates near limitless targets for warrantless disclosure demands. Department of Justice officials have confirmed that Bill C-2 extends far beyond just telecom companies to services such as financial institutions, car rental companies, and hotels. The inclusion of professional services that frequently face strict confidentiality obligations deserves greater scrutiny as the approach virtually guarantees a constitutional challenge alongside the challenge on privacy grounds in light of the previous Supreme Court of Canada rulings in Spencer and Bykovets.
The implications for the legal community, who face strict solicitor-client confidentiality requirements, are particularly notable. Under Bill C-2, lawyers could be compelled to confirm whether they have provided services to client, whether they have information about the client, and when they provided the service, including when a person became a client. If they are aware of other service providers, they must provide that information as well. These disclosure demands come without a warrant or court oversight and lawyers could be barred from advising their clients about the demand for a year. Lawyers would undoubtedly seek to challenge the demand, but would only have five days to do so.
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 237: A Conversation with Jason Woywada of BCFIPA on Political Party Privacy and Bill C-4
The government’s unexpected privacy reform agenda includes both lawful access in Bill C-2 and the evisceration of political party privacy in Bill C-4. While Bill C-4 is framed as implementing affordability measures, it also exempts political parties from the application of privacy protections on a retroactive basis dating back to 2000.
To examine the importance of political party privacy and the implications of Bill C-4, I’ve teamed up this week with the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association for a joint podcast. Together with Executive Director Jason Woywada we recorded a conversation that touches on data and political parties, the BC litigation that seems to have sparked federal action, and the Bill C-4 provisions. The conversation can be found on both of our podcasts: this Law Bytes episode and BC FIPA Access and Privacy Online podcast.
Government Reverses on Privacy and the Charter: Department of Justice Analysis Concludes Political Party Privacy Bill Raises No Charter of Rights Effects
The Department of Justice has released its Charter Statement for Bill C-4, the affordability measures bill that also exempts political parties from the application of privacy protections on a retroactive basis dating back to 2000. The provisions give political parties virtually unlimited power to collect, use and disclose personal information with no ability for privacy commissioners to address violations. Charter statements are designed to identify Charter rights and freedoms that may potentially be engaged by a bill and provide a brief explanation of the nature of any engagement, in light of the measures being proposed. The Bill C-4 Charter statement is notable for its brevity:
The Minister of Justice has examined Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, for any inconsistency with the Charter pursuant to his obligation under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act. This review involved consideration of the objectives and features of the Bill. In reviewing the Bill, the Minister has not identified any potential effects on Charter rights and freedoms.
Government Seeks To Exempt Political Parties From Privacy Laws Even As CRTC Reports They Are Leading Source of Spam Complaints
I have previously written about Bill C-4, legislation framed as an affordability measures bill, but which also exempts political parties from the application of privacy protections on a retroactive basis dating back to 2000. The provisions give political parties virtually unlimited power to collect, use and disclose personal information with no ability for privacy commissioners to address violations. Minister François Philippe Champagne has avoided mentioning the privacy provisions when discussing the bill and not a single Liberal MP has discussed it during House of Commons debates.
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 236: Robert Diab on the Return of Lawful Access
Lawful access is back. Bill C-2, the government’s border bill, includes a new information demand power that would result in warrantless disclosure of information about a subscriber, a new international production order, and requirements for providers to assist law enforcement in working with their networks.
There will no doubt be multiple podcast episodes devoted to this bill in the coming months. To get started, Robert Diab, a law professor at Thompson Rivers University and the co-author of a recent text on Search and Seizure joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss the historical context of lawful access and the key provisions in this bill.
Recent Posts
Why Bill C-2 Faces a Likely Constitutional Challenge By Placing Solicitor-Client Privilege at Risk 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 237: A Conversation with Jason Woywada of BCFIPA on Political Party Privacy and Bill C-4 
Lawful Access on Steroids: Why Bill C-2’s Big Brother Tactics Combine Expansive Warrantless Disclosure with Unprecedented Secrecy 
Government Reverses on Privacy and the Charter: Department of Justice Analysis Concludes Political Party Privacy Bill Raises No Charter of Rights Effects 
“Big Brother Tactics”: Why Bill C-2’s New Warrantless Disclosure Demand Powers Extend Far Beyond Internet and Telecom Providers
