OTTAWA — While most Canadians slept, Liberals pushed through a series of changes watering down their controversial bill facilitating police and intelligence agencies’ ability to intercept and collect personal information.
Starting late Wednesday night and going into the early morning Thursday, members of the House of Commons public safety committee blitzed through amendments of the contentious lawful access reform Bill C-22.
Lawful access, or the ability to obtain Canadians’ private information and intercept communications, is one of the most intrusive powers afforded to police and intelligence agencies.
On Wednesday night, the committee passed all of two dozen government amendments to the bill, while the Liberals voted against and defeated most changes proposed by opposition parties.
The changes are likely to assuage some, but far from all, of the wide range of criticism of the bill by opposition parties, tech giants, privacy and civil liberties groups, legal associations and academics.
One of the most significant Liberal amendments was to water down a controversial requirement for electronic service providers to retain clients’ metadata from a maximum of one year to six months. It also limits the metadata retained to elements deemed essential to an investigation.
The move is notable because three weeks ago, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree told reporters he would not dilute the retention obligation, arguing police needed it because investigators sometimes need months to figure out what evidence they’re looking for.
The metadata retention clause had privacy and security specialists up in arms, arguing that one year was far too long and a violation of Canadians’ right to privacy. Police witnesses said they’d prefer a two- or three-year period.
Canada is the only G7 country without a lawful access regime designed in the digital age. Bill C-22 is the federal government’s ninth attempt at lawful access reform in over three decades and is divided into two parts.
The first — generally supported by all parties — proposes that police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) be able to approach telecommunications companies and ask them if, yes or no, an individual is a client before having to get a warrant.
It then sets out a new path for authorities to obtain client information from the companies with the appropriate warrant.
The second part of C-22 is far more contentious.
It proposes new obligations to electronic service providers to organize and retain various types of client data in a way that makes it obtainable by law enforcement or CSIS with a warrant.
That means that if passed, the bill would compel electronic service providers to store and make information like device locations or cameras available to police or CSIS with the requisite warrant. That could be used to track a person’s live location in case they pose a threat to national security or are in danger, the government cited as examples.
The only exception is if the service provider convinces the government that such a requirement — tagged as a “backdoor” by critics — would create a “systemic vulnerability” in their systems.
Tech giants such as Apple, Meta and Google and many other encrypted services providers such as messaging platform Signal and VPN provider NordVPN have aggressively criticized Bill C-22, arguing that the original version could allow the government to force them to decrypt users’ encrypted data for police.
On Wednesday night, the Liberals added a clause to the bill which specifies that “no obligations under this Act are to be construed as compelling an electronic service provider to decrypt… any information that is encrypted” or create a new key to unlock the information.
They also lowered the bar for what constitutes a “systemic vulnerability,” presumably giving companies more leeway to push back against a government requirement to collect, retain and make Canadians’ data available to police if it could undermine cybersecurity.
Liberals voted against a Conservative amendment to give law enforcement agents the power, with the requisite judicial authorization, to compel the owner of a device to unlock it and fork over data as required by the warrant.
Part two of the C-22 gives the public safety minister the power to issue secret orders compelling specific service providers to put in place systems to retain and make client data available to law enforcement with the appropriate warrant. The orders have to be authorized by the intelligence commissioner, an independent watchdog.
The secret order-making power did not sit well with most witnesses who spoke to the bill at committee. On Wednesday evening, the Liberals passed amendments limiting the orders to a maximum of two years and giving the minister discretion to make certain parts of it public.
The exceptional late-night sitting was made necessary after Liberals passed a “guillotine” motion that cut off debate of the bill and forced MPs to vote on amendments in quick succession. The government said it needed to do so to end Conservative filibustering.
Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party vehemently lambasted the government for the move, arguing the Liberals were using their majority to ram an extremely sensitive bill through Parliament.
Conservative MP Rhonda Kirkland was on the verge of tears as she told the committee that the gagging of debate on the bill was one of the most disappointing things she’s experienced in Parliament.
“We’re going to pass or vote on nearly 100 amendments without discussing them, without understanding them, or… helping Canadians understand them,” Kirkland said, her voice quivering.
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 newsletters here.
