“Big Brother Tactics”: Why Bill C-2’s New Warrantless Disclosure Demand Powers Extend Far Beyond Internet and Telecom Providers

The government’s inclusion of warrantless information demand powers in Bill C-2 may make this the most dangerous lawful access proposal yet

privacy-is-dead by td-london https://flic.kr/p/62afS1 CC BY-NC 2.0

The government’s inclusion of warrantless information demand powers in Bill C-2 may make this the most dangerous lawful access proposal yet, exceeding even the 2010 bill led by Conservative Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. The initial concern regarding the bill’s warrantless disclosure demand unsurprisingly focused on whether the proposal was consistent with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence upholding the reasonable expectation of privacy in basic subscriber information (there is a strong argument it is not). The application of this new power was generally framed as a matter for telecom and Internet companies, given that companies such as Bell, Rogers, and Telus are typically the focal point for law enforcement seeking information on subscriber activity. However, it has become increasingly apparent that this is an overly restrictive reading of the provision. The Bill C-2 information demand power doesn’t just target telecom providers. It targets everyone who provides services with the prospect of near limitless targets for warrantless disclosure demands.

This broader reading was first raised by NDP MP Jenny Kwan, who stated in debate on June 11, 2025:

Bill C-2 is a sweeping attack on Canadian civil liberties. It would allow the RCMP and CSIS to make information demands from internet providers, banks, doctors, landlords and even therapists, without judicial oversight. This is not about border security. It is about government overreach and Big Brother tactics, plain and simple. It is a violation of our privacy, and it will be challenged in court.

The Globe and Mail picked up on this concern earlier this week, quoting the CCLA in reference to the warrantless access demands to physicians, abortion clinics, and hotels.

Lawful access had traditionally focused solely on telecom and Internet providers. For example, Bill C-30, the 2010 Toews’ lawful access bill, included a definition for “telecommunications service providers” and limited the subscriber information disclosure requirements to them. The Department of Justice materials on Bill C-2 state that the new power as “would allow law enforcement to seek basic information from service providers without judicial authorization”, citing as an example confirming with Bell Canada that they provide service to a phone number.

Department of Justice Bill C-2 Technical Briefing Deck, page 4

The problem is that the information demand power in Bill C-2 is not limited to telecom service providers. The bill includes a definition for an “electronic service provider” and a “core provider” but those definitions are not used in the section that establishes the information demand power. Rather, they apply to new requirements for those providers to support law enforcement by granting access to their networks.

The information demand power applies literally to anyone who provides services to the public:

A peace officer or public officer may make a demand in Form 5.‍0011 to a person who provides services to the public requiring the person to provide, in the form, manner and time specified in the demand, the following information

There is no definition or obvious limitation on the services in question or the person who provides them – it could be a telecom provider, physician, hospital, library, educational institution, or financial institution. But why stop there? The provision is so broad that your dry cleaner or barber are captured by it. If served with the appropriate form, anyone who provides services is required to confirm whether they have provided services to any subscriber, client, account, or identifier. They must also disclose whether they have any information about the subscriber, client, account or identifier as well as advise where and when they provided the service. On top of that, they must advise when they started providing the service and list the names of any other person that may have provided other services.

All of this information can be demanded without a warrant or court oversight. The person disclosing the information is barred from revealing the disclosure for a year and has only five days in which they can challenge the demand. Law enforcement must only have “reasonable grounds to suspect” that an offence has been or will be committed under any Act of Parliament. This is the lowest possible standard and the broadest possible scope extending far beyond just the Criminal Code.

The entire Bill C-2 approach represents a dramatic expansion in the notion of lawful access, moving from telecom providers to all service providers in what Kwan appropriately called “Big Brother tactics”. To bury such provisions in a border bill after repeated Supreme Court of Canada decisions affirming the privacy rights of Canadians is an absolute assault on those rights that must be firmly rejected.

Post originally appeared at https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2025/06/big-brother-tactics-why-bill-c-2s-new-warrantless-disclosure-demand-powers-extend-far-beyond-internet-and-telecom-providers/

Find me on:

Web: michaelgeist.ca

Podcast: Law Bytes

Twitter: @mgeist

LinkedIn: michaelgeist

Bluesky: mgeist.bsky.social

Mastodon: @mgeist@mas.to