It was “elbows up” during the federal election campaign as Mark Carney’sLiberals portrayed themselves as fierce fighters against U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration’s slide towards authoritarianism. But now it’s “elbows down” as the prime minister’s new government tries to appease Trump’s White House and puts Canadians’ privacy rights and those of asylum seekers on the chopping block.
The “Strong Borders Act,” a sweeping omnibus bill was tabled Tuesday. It has 16 parts, and amends more than a dozen laws in ways that affect the rights of citizens and non-citizens, measures that Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree stated were a response to “some of the concerns that have been posed by the White House.” But it also includes long-standing requests by Canadian law enforcement agencies who waited for an opportune time to slide through legislative changes.
Those changes include allowing Canada Post to open any mail, including letters, based on vague criteria as well as allowing law enforcement agencies to get your IP address without a warrant, changes the government is making following court decisions that found Canadians’ Charter rights — the right to privacy, to determine when, how and to what extent you wish to release private information — had been breached by authorities. Now, they’ll have a right to get that information.
But that’s not all, police will be able to ask digital service providers — who are heavily regulated by the federal government — to hand over your personal data voluntarily and it will protect them from being sued, if they do so.
Not only does the new legislation lower the bar for information sharing with the United States on particular cases, the bill also gives the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), two outfits that do not currently have civilian oversight bodies, new powers. It also creates a new law that tells electronic service providers that they “must not disclose … information related to a systemic vulnerability or potential systemic vulnerability in electronic protections employed by that electronic service provider,” raising all sorts of privacy red flags and concerns about a slide towards secrecy demanded by the state.
“I am very alarmed,” Aislin Jackson, policy staff counsel at the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), told the Star on Tuesday. “It’s making sweeping changes that risk undermining privacy protection across the country.”
Those who work with refugees are also alarmed.
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first piece of legislation pulls away the welcome mat for asylum seekers. It makes it nearly impossible for those who have been in Canada for more than a year, either as students, permanent residents, or temporary workers, and those who’ve snuck into Canada between land border crossings and have been here for more than two weeks, from having their asylum cases heard.
“A lot of people are going to get rejected because they’re not going to have an opportunity to explain for themselves why they would be in danger when they go back (home),” said Adam Sadinsky, an immigration and refugee lawyer with Silcoff Shacter in Toronto.
On Parliament Hill, the NDP’s Jenny Kwan described the law as “violating people’s due process and taking away people’s basic rights,” and also noted that it will drive people underground.
A problem that could be fixed by beefing up the immigration system — staffing and resources — will instead encourage those who are in Canada, and fear being deported to their home country, to stay here illegally. It will make it much more difficult for federal, provincial and municipal authorities to know who is living here, where they are, and what services they need. And it may simply move staffing and resource pressures away from the Immigration and Refugee Board toward the federal court, who will now hear more requests for stays to remain in Canada and for judicial review of unfavourable decisions.
On CBC, Anandasangaree said his “comprehensive bill” was directly linked with what is happening at the Canada-U.S. border, but it also “responds to … the mandate (Canadians) gave us on April the 28th.”
Does it? Are these the values that Canadians voted to uphold?
