Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne has told senators studying the government’s lawful access bill that it should be amended to limit the sort of information available to authorities under a new production order. The legislation, known as Bill C-22, would create a narrower court order allowing police to seek subscriber information from a service provider. Dufresne said the proposed definition of subscriber information and the range of people from whom it could be sought are broad relative to the reasonable suspicion threshold required to access it.
The government says the bill, An Act respecting lawful access, will ensure law enforcement agencies have the legal tools to prevent, investigate and respond to modern crime and protect Canadians in a manner consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree told the Senate committee on Monday that the bill is about ensuring that when a judge authorises an investigation, law enforcement has the ability to carry out that authorisation. He added that the legislation was shaped by significant engagement with stakeholders and parliamentarians, and that collaboration did not weaken it.
Where the disagreement lies
The disagreement is about scope, not about whether police should have tools. Dufresne argues that a production order with a lower threshold than a search warrant should be correspondingly narrower in what it can obtain and from whom. A broad definition of subscriber information, combined with a broad range of providers, could allow access to information that reveals more about a person’s life than the label subscriber suggests. The government argues that the order is already narrower than a full search and that judicial authorisation provides the safeguard.
The privacy bill reporting from 2 November, based on Canadian Press coverage, presents both positions without resolving them, which is appropriate at committee stage. Senate committees exist to test legislation in detail, and privacy commissioners are routinely invited to identify risks that a bill’s drafters may have underestimated. The committee’s amendments, if any, will show whether Dufresne’s warning changes the bill or is noted and set aside.
What happens next
The Senate committee will consider amendments, and the bill will return to the Senate and then to the House if changed. Privacy advocates will watch for a tighter definition of subscriber information and a clearer limit on who can be compelled to produce it. Law enforcement groups will watch for any narrowing that they argue would make investigations harder. The balance between those pressures is the real debate in Bill C-22, and it will be decided in amendments, not in slogans.
