The adage “Don’t waste a crisis” has a new and unfortunate application with Bill C-2, legislation to radically infringe on the privacy of Canadians under dubious justifications.
Bill C-2, introduced on June 3 as the “Strong Borders Act,” has made border security, the fentanyl crisis, and transnational crime the pretense to introduce new policing powers at the expense of Canadian privacy. However, some measures contained in the 130-page piece of legislation seem to be a poor mismatch to a sensible, focused response to these legitimate challenges.
If passed, the new bill will become illegal for any business, profession, or charity to accept cash payments of more than $10,000, even if they come in “a prescribed series of related transactions” installments. It does not matter if such payments are for a legal product or service.
In a post to X, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms warned that if this precedent is allowed, it would be easy for the federal government to lower the amounts in the future.
“Restricting the use of cash is a dangerous step towards tyranny and totalitarianism,” the Centre explained. “Cash gives citizens privacy, autonomy, and freedom from surveillance by government and by banks, credit card companies, and other corporations. If we cherish our privacy, we need to defend our freedom to choose cash, in the amount of our choosing.”
Meanwhile, more shadowy strategies would remain outside of this law’s provisions. As Tristan Hopper of the National Post points out, “If you want to hand $10,000 in cash to your local Globalize the Intifada vigil, The [legislation] has no quarrel with you.”
Like the dystopian movie Minority Report, the government now wants to intercept pre-crimes. An internet provider would be forced to reveal the names, locations, and “pseudonyms” of their customers (and more) without warrant. The new threshold is a “reasonable grounds to suspect” that an offence “has been or will be committed.”
Such an “information demand” can be made not only by police, but by any “peace officer” or “public officer,” a remarkably broad swath of people. Internet providers who refuse can be fined.
In a lengthy analysis, University of Ottawa internet law policy expert Dr. Michael Geist said law enforcement has tried to get such powers for years. In 2014, they were set back by a Supreme Court ruling that said Canadians had a “reasonable expectation of privacy in the subscriber information” on the internet and a police request to disclose that “amounts to a search.”
Geist said, “Bill C-2 overreaches by including measures on internet subscriber data that have nothing to do with border safety or security but raise privacy and civil liberties concerns that are bound to spark opposition.”
After Bill C-2 was tabled, Calgary Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner warned in the House of Commons, “[T]he government could target whatever it deems to be spreading hateful content. Bill C-2 would combine with Bill C-63 to essentially form Voltron-type censorship. The government has not indicated what policy concerns, aside from vague references to security, these provisions are needed for. These snooping provisions are a massive poison pill that should not have been included in this bill.”
Bloc Quebecois MP Rhéal Fortin wondered why the bill couldn’t be tweaked: “Would it not be possible to limit the ability to conduct searches without a warrant? This could include the obligation to prove that obtaining a warrant is impossible.”
If the bill passes, Canada Post will, for the first time, have the “authority to open mail in certain circumstances,” namely “reasonable grounds” for suspicion, as outlined earlier. That’s a weak reason to snoop. Unfortunately, the post-911-era has seen much domestic spying amped up in ways that the public would never have accepted, apart from an alleged crisis.
In 2015, the Harper Conservatives introduced the overbearing Bill C-51, widely criticized for enabling broad surveillance and police powers under wide and vague criteria. In 2017, the Trudeau Liberals introduced mass surveillance with little oversight under Bill C-59. Neither bill prevented the Nova Scotia “mass casualty” event where Gabriel Wortman set fires and shot 22 people to death over a 13-hour killing spree in 2020.
Hopefully this dubious surveillance trend suffers a setback. It happened in the U.S., albeit almost 100 years ago.
In 1917, three weeks after the U.S. declared war on Germany, it launched the Cipher Bureau, designed to intercept foreign telegraph communications. Almost all cable companies were involved in this illegal effort in turning over the cable of foreign embassies and consulates.
The initiative continued long after the war ended but was finally shut down in 1929 by U.S. Secretary of State Henry L. Stimpson. As he would later state in his memoirs, “Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail.” Unfortunately, the Canadian government wants to act in a very ungentlemanly manner. Citizens beware.
