Canada Removes Data Access Powers from Border Bill After Criticism

The Canadian government has removed rules that would have let police get internet data without a warrant from a border security bill. This happened because many people and groups were unhappy. The government says it wants to pass the border rules first and will look at the data access rules later.
By Newsroom | Canada, Privacy |

The Canadian government has taken a significant step back from its proposed "lawful access" provisions, removing a contentious measure that would have allowed law enforcement easier access to Canadians' internet data without a warrant. This move follows widespread criticism and appears to be a strategic decision to advance other parts of the legislation, particularly those concerning border security. The original bill, C-2, faced considerable backlash from privacy advocates, legal experts, and opposition parties who argued it was an overreach that threatened fundamental privacy rights and was introduced without adequate public debate or justification.

Liberals likely to table new, narrower lawful access bill after blowback to C-2: sources - 1

Background: Bill C-2 and the Privacy Controversy

In June 2025, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-2, a broad piece of legislation primarily focused on border security and immigration. However, embedded within this bill were significant provisions related to "lawful access," specifically the ability for law enforcement to obtain subscriber information without a warrant.

Read More: Canadian Athletes Use Social Media to Connect with Fans

Liberals likely to table new, narrower lawful access bill after blowback to C-2: sources - 2

  • Core Concerns: Critics pointed to several key elements of the original proposal:

  • Warrantless access to basic subscriber information.

  • Secret ministerial directives to telecommunications providers.

  • Mandates for companies to build surveillance-enabling technologies.

  • Packaging Strategy: The lawful access measures were "buried" within the larger border security framework, a tactic that drew accusations of obscuring the privacy implications and bypassing public scrutiny.

  • Opposition and Criticism: From its introduction, Bill C-2 encountered strong opposition.

  • Civil Society and Experts: Groups like CIPPIC and legal scholars quickly condemned the bill as an "overreach" that endangered privacy. They argued the government offered no "credible response" to these concerns.

  • Opposition Parties: Parties like the NDP and Conservatives signaled they would not support the bill as it stood. The Conservatives, in particular, indicated they would block the border and immigration measures unless the police search powers were removed, threatening the minority Liberal government's ability to pass key legislation.

  • Transparency Issues: The bill was criticized for its lack of public consultation and evidence justifying the expanded surveillance powers.

The Shift: From C-2 to C-12

Facing mounting pressure and the potential failure of Bill C-2 to pass, the government made a pivotal decision to split the legislation.

Read More: Ring Stops Deal with Flock Safety After Ad Causes Worry

Liberals likely to table new, narrower lawful access bill after blowback to C-2: sources - 3

  • Strategic Separation: The government chose to remove the controversial lawful access provisions from the border security bill and pursue them separately. This resulted in a new bill, Bill C-12, which focuses on border security and immigration matters, largely replicating the original C-2 but without the "lawful access" components.

  • Bill C-2's Fate: Bill C-2, in its original form, has reportedly been "mothballed," meaning it will likely not be advanced for the remainder of the government's term.

  • Timing and Rationale: The government stated this was not a reversal due to pressure from the Prime Minister's Office but rather a tactical decision to ensure the border security measures could advance. By isolating the controversial lawful access powers, the government aimed to gain support for the remaining parts of its agenda.

Evidence of the Change

Several sources confirm the government's decision to bifurcate the legislation and remove the lawful access powers.

Read More: Ottawa: From Hard Bytown to Capital City Fun

Liberals likely to table new, narrower lawful access bill after blowback to C-2: sources - 4

  • Globalnews.ca (October 8, 2025): Reports that the government "tabled new border bill legislation that does not include that provision [warrantless data demands], but say they will still pursue it under separate legislation." Bill C-12 is described as replicating "most of what was contained on Bill C-2 in regards to the border, immigration and combatting fentanyl."

  • Michael Geist (October 8, 2025): Notes the government "reversed course on its ill-advised anti-privacy measures in Bill C-2, introducing a new border bill with the lawful access provisions… removed." The author suggests the government sought an "off-ramp" due to opposition.

  • CBC News (November 22, 2025): Mentions that legislative tracks are now separate, with Bill C-12 going first. It also indicates that the NDP would not support Bill C-12 "as-is or with the amendments the Conservatives are proposing," highlighting ongoing political complexities.

Deep Dive: The Lawful Access Provisions

The lawful access measures, central to the controversy, aimed to expand government and law enforcement capabilities in accessing digital information.

Warrantless Data Access

  • The Core Issue: Section 487.0121 of the proposed legislation would have allowed peace officers to demand specific information from service providers.

  • Scope of Information: This included verifying if a person or account was served by the provider, identifying the service period, and potentially the location where services were provided. It also included identifying other potential service providers.

  • Distinction from Warrants: This power was distinguished from requiring a warrant to obtain further subscriber information or content. Critics, however, argued it was a significant step towards warrantless access, particularly when combined with other provisions. Michael Geist likened it to asking a bank if someone is a client but not requesting account details – a preliminary step to broader access.

Ministerial Directives and Technical Requirements

  • Secret Directives: The bill reportedly included powers for ministerial directives to telecommunications companies, which could be issued secretly.

  • Surveillance Technology: It also proposed requiring companies to integrate technologies that facilitate surveillance into their systems. These aspects were not explicitly detailed in the provided summaries but were part of the broader criticisms leveled against Bill C-2 by civil society groups.

Expert and Political Reactions

The government's decision to separate the lawful access provisions elicited various reactions.

Read More: Meta May Add Face ID to Smart Glasses, People Worried About Privacy

"The government today reversed course on its ill-advised anti-privacy measures in Bill C-2, introducing a new border bill with the lawful access provisions (Parts 14 and 15) removed." - Michael Geist, October 8, 2025

"Civil society groups, legal scholars, and opposition MPs quickly criticized the bill as an overreach that threatened core privacy protections." - CIPPIC, December 8, 2025

"Kwan, the party’s immigration and public safety critic, said that she doesn't see a world where the NDP would support Bill C-12 as-is or with the amendments the Conservatives are proposing." - CBC News, November 22, 2025

This indicates that while the lawful access issue may be separated, political challenges and scrutiny of the remaining legislation persist. The opposition's stance suggests that amendments or further negotiations might be required for Bill C-12 to pass, even without the controversial data access clauses.

Conclusion and Implications

The government's decision to remove lawful access provisions from Bill C-2 and advance them separately through Bill C-12 represents a significant tactical shift in response to strong public and political opposition.

Read More: Winter Storm Warning for Southern Ontario: Snow, Ice Expected

  • Immediate Impact: This move aims to de-escalate the privacy controversy, allowing the government to pursue its border security and immigration agenda with Bill C-12. It also signals a potential pathway for the government to eventually introduce the lawful access measures again, albeit under different legislative circumstances.

  • Lingering Concerns: Privacy advocates and legal experts remain wary. The separation strategy raises questions about the government's long-term intentions regarding data access. The criticism that Bill C-2 was introduced without sufficient transparency or evidence suggests these concerns are not easily dismissed.

  • Future Legislative Landscape: The future of the removed lawful access provisions remains uncertain. Whether they will be reintroduced as standalone legislation, under a revised approach, or shelved entirely is a matter of ongoing observation. The political dynamics, particularly the ongoing stances of opposition parties like the NDP and Conservatives on Bill C-12, will shape the legislative path forward. The "blowback" to C-2 demonstrates that public and expert scrutiny can influence government policy, particularly concerning civil liberties and privacy.

Sources Used:

Read More: Meta May Add Face Scanning to Smart Glasses Again

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What did the Canadian government change in the border bill?
The government took out rules that would have let police get internet user information without a warrant.
Q: Why did the government change the bill?
Many groups and people were worried this would hurt privacy rights. They spoke out against the rules.
Q: What happens to the removed rules?
The government plans to deal with these data access rules separately later. They want to pass the border security parts of the bill first.