Liberals accused of rushing hot-button police data interception bill

The progressive regime is beingness accused of rushing through and through Parliament a deep controversial bill that would make it easier for police and spies to tap private communications during investigations.

Two of the country's most prominent civil rights advocates — Citizen Lab and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association — issued a joint report on Tuesday calling the proposed legislation "almost certainly constitutionally fatal" and urged the government to withdraw several elements and amend several others.

"The extreme fast-tracking of this bill by the government is itself cause for concern and reason to question whether the committee process is capable of remedying the legislative proposal's many flaws," the statement said. 

It was released hours before the committee studying the bill met to hear from some of its final witnesses.

Opposition MPs on the public safety committee have also expressed concern that their study of the technical bill has been rushed.

Last week the Conservatives tabled a motion to extend the study on Bill C-22 for another eight hours in order to hear from more cabinet ministers and experts. The Liberals, who hold a majority on the committee, voted it down and instead agreed to hear from witnesses for two hours on Tuesday, before clause-by-cause consideration starts.   

While Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree said last week he's open to amending Bill C-22 to better protect encryption, he was also adamant that passing the bill isn't "optional." He has been vocal he wants to see the bill become law before Parliament breaks for the summer — which would be June 19.

"This is something that needs to happen," he said. 

Bill C-22 promises to help law enforcement and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) obtain more digital information during investigations — something the security community has been pushing for since the advent of the internet.

If it passes, the lawful access bill's first half would lower the legal threshold for law enforcement and intelligence bodies to access basic subscriber information — which would include the name, telephone number, address and email address that is linked to an account. 

Lawful access bill faces pushback from tech companies, privacy advocates

The second half of the bill — the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act (SAAIA) — has attracted the most criticism. It would force yet-to-be-defined "electronic service providers" to adapt their systems so they all have the ability to hand over information to investigators with a warrant.

The bill would also require core providers to retain metadata — which can include information such as who is sending and receiving the data — for up to one year.

Citizen Lab and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association want to see part two of the bill entirely withdrawn, arguing it creates "a surveillance capability regime" with minimal restrictions. 

"With a growing arsenal of AI-based surveillance techniques on the horizon, SAAIA's potential for intrusiveness will grow apace," said the report.

Meta, the giant behind Facebook, Instagram and the encrypted messaging app WhatsApp, has also urged the committee to separate the bill to give the second part more rigorous study.

Other U.S. Tech giants like Apple and Google argue the Canadian bill's technological demands would weaken or break encryption, a key safety measure used by activists, lawmakers, journalists and everyday Canadians to safeguard communications and other important information.

There's domestic tech concern too. Toronto-based Tailscale, a corporate VPN service, has also voiced ecurity concerns. 

Co-founder Avery Pennarun said the bill could force the company to hold on to data they promised their users they would never retain. He called out the bill's "vagueness." 

"We might be asked to install a system in the back that is watching what you're doing with [your] own corporate data," he said in an interview last week. 

"Will the government actually do that? Well, it depends. But I can't make the guarantee they won't."

Pennarun likens the type of data the government is asking companies like Tailscale to potentially retain to radioactive waste.

"You don't want to just collect a bunch of radioactive waste and keep it in your basement. It's not a good thing to have around," Pennarun said. 

"And they're asking us like, 'hey, well, we need you to keep it around just in case we want to inspect your radioactive waste.'" 

---

---