C-2 – The Strong Borders Act – introduces some significant new powers around how we manage our borders. It’s split into 16 parts, and today we’re looking at Parts 13 to 16.
You can find Parts 1 to 5 here, Parts 6 to 9 here, and 10 to 12 here.
Part 13 – Sex Offender Information Registration Act
Part 13 makes a number of changes to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, starting with allowing the information collected to be shared with police and “other law enforcement agencies”. Before the police were the only ones that could access this information.
Reporting requirements will also be changed for people who have been registered as sex offenders. Previously if they served jail time for their crimes they had to report within 7 days of being released from jail. Now they’ll also have to report if they’re given a statutory release, full parole, day parole, or a work release. They’ll also need to report to a centre after changing their license plate number or get a new car. When the offender reports in the person they report to will now be able to record any distinguishing marks, such as tattoos, that they have. Before they only needed to mark down hair and eye colour.
Part 13 also greatly increases the information the Canada Border Services Agency can share and who they can share it with. First, as mentioned earlier, they can now share information with “law enforcement agencies”. The information they can share is:
- The name, any alias, date of birth, citizenship or nationality, and sex of an offender
- The type and number of each travel document that identifies the offender and the country or organization that issued it
- The date, time, and place of the offender’s departure or entry to Canada and the country they’re going to or coming from
- If they arrive or depart by airplane, the flight code that identifies the carrier and the flight number
Finally, we get to the part of the CBSA sharing information with foreign agencies. It’s a subtle change but an important one. Previously they only shared information with foreign agencies if it “is necessary to assist them in the prevention or investigation of a crime of a sexual nature”. Now they’ll be able to share the information if “there are reasonable grounds to believe the disclosure” will help. The important note here is that that’s a pretty big softening of the language around information sharing. “Necessary” says that the law enforcement agency needs to be able to show that the investigation cannot be completed without the information the CBSA has. “Reasonable grounds to believe” says all they have to do is convince a CBSA official that knowing when, where, and how a suspect entered the country might help. Normally sharing information when you aren’t supposed to can net you a fine of $10,000 and/or 6 months in jail, but Part 13 also adds a clause that says anyone who believes they’re following the law is exempt from this.
Part 14 – Timely Access to Data and Information
Part 14 has to do with the collection of digital data. The first bit pretty much just outlines the procedures that are to be followed when the police seize data from a computer following a warrant, not a lot surprising there.
Now what should be much more worrying is the second chunk of Part 14. This will allow the police, without a warrant, to go to anyone who’s provided a service to a “subscriber” and force them to hand over information about that subscriber.
First up, a “subscriber” is basically anyone that registers an account with the service provider. That could cover ISPs, online forums, social media companies, your doctor, a pet store with a loyalty program, your gym, basically anything. The information they can demand from the provider includes:
- Information provided to receive the services, such as your name, username, address, telephone number, or email address.
- Identifiers given to you, such as account numbers.
- The type of services provided to you, the period they were provided, and information that identifies any devices or equipment used by either the subscriber or the provider.
- If the provider possesses any information regarding the subscriber.
- Where the services were provided.
- The identity of anyone else who’s provided a service to the subscriber, if known. (So for example if your doctor referred you to someone else they’d have to hand over the information on who you were referred to.)
The requirements to make these demands are simply that the police need to have reasonable grounds to suspect that you’ve done or will do something illegal and the information will help them in an investigation. Important note here is that it isn’t exclusive to the Criminal Code. Suspicion that you’re going to act against any legislation is enough for this. Considering there’s no warrant required for this I doubt there’s going to be a lot of scrutiny into these suspicions. The police can also forbid the service provider from notifying you that they demanded information for up to a year.
Now the service provider has the ability to refuse to hand over the information, but only if they inform the police that they’re going to take the order to court to have it cancelled or modified. You still won’t know about it though, and it’s entirely on the provider to fight to protect your information. This would also be the point where the judge would look at the justification for the police needing that information and decide if it’s really necessary.
The only other real condition here is that the police need to allow at least 24 hours for the provider to gather the information. Other than that they get to decide how much time will be allowed.
Part 15 – Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act
Part 15 creates a new Act, the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act, which sets out the requirements for electronic service providers to provide information to police. There isn’t a lot that’s surprising in this one, it mirrors the same type of requirements for things like a workplace maintaining operational documents, safety documents, etc. It’s pretty vague on what information the police can demand, though this Part does require a warrant. It also explicitly forbids the police from demanding that a company introduce a backdoor vulnerability to its software or devices, though they also aren’t allowed to inform you that your information’s been handed over to the police.
Part 16 – Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (Collection and Use of Personal Information)
Part 16 is pretty simple. As with the last two Parts it has to do with handing over personal information to the police without your knowledge or consent, though in this case it’s for businesses that fall under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. This is financial institutions such as banks and insurance companies. In this case the police can give them your personal information and they can use that information to monitor for any money laundering or potential terrorist activity.
Progress of C-2
C-2 is currently waiting for its Second Reading Vote.
Discover more from Commons Sense
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1 Response
[…] modifications apportées à la LERDS visent à élargir les obligations de déclaration et à assouplir les conditions légales régissant le partage d’informations. De plus, […]