Bill C‑2 ("Solid Borders Act"): issues, controversies and call to action

Une législation incompatible avec la souveraineté canadienne

TL;DR

What the government says

Aims to strengthen border security, combat organised crime and fentanyl trafficking and facilitate international cooperation
Modernises the "lawful access" tools for criminal investigations and enables faster data sharing with allies
Includes new obligations for electronic service providers, including the technical ability to intervene in communications
Tightens asylum rules and accelerates some deportations.

What opponents fear

Mass surveillance: warrantless access to subscriber data, lowered justification threshold, broad definition of "threats"
Risk of "backdoors": secret technical orders that could weaken encryption, with a ban on informing the public
Massive data sharing with the United States via the CLOUD Act and potentially other countries, including authoritarian regimes
Violations of human rights: severe restrictions on the right to asylum, accelerated deportations, disproportionate impacts on minorities
Negative economic effects: compliance costs for SMEs, loss of customer trust, potential withdrawal of some services

International parallels

Recalls the US Patriot Act and the UK Investigatory Powers Act, both of which led to abuse, controversy and loss of trust
Contrasts with the European approach focused on data protection and strict judicial oversight.

Recommended position

The bill is considered disproportionate and dangerous for privacy, civil liberties and economic competitiveness.
Support targeted alternatives that enhance security without sacrificing fundamental rights.
Act now: sign petitions, contact MPs, raise awareness among business networks and the general public.

You can take action today against this unwelcome bill by signing this OpenMedia petition: https://openmedia.org/

Introduction

Bill C‑2, named by the government “Solid Borders Act”, is a large legislative reform that touches on many areas of law: criminal law, customs, immigration and communications. It has major implications for privacy, civil liberties and the economy.

Official objectives of Bill C‑2: border security and crime fighting

The government presents Bill C‑2 as a necessary response to “strengthen our laws and protect Canadians” in the face of evolving threats. It emphasises border security, fighting crime and fentanyl trafficking, and international cooperation.

Among the main measures contained in C‑2, we note for example:

Facilitate access to digital information for investigations: C‑2 amends the Criminal Code to widen the police’s ability to access information held by telecom companies and online service providers. These requests would need only a "reasonable grounds" justification, without a warrant.
Create an "authorised assistance" framework: C‑2 institutes the Supporting Access to Information Act, which could require service providers to put technical devices in place to allow law enforcement to intercept or decode encrypted communications.
Tightening of immigration and asylum rules: C‑2 makes numerous changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including reducing grounds for appeal, speeding up removals and imposing cooperation obligations on asylum seekers.
Increased control at physical borders: the bill amends the Customs Act to broaden border agents’ powers of search and seizure, including the inspection of phones, computers and other electronic devices without a warrant.

In summary, the official narrative around C‑2 emphasises the need to modernise national security tools in the face of new threats, but says little about the impact on fundamental rights.

Increased surveillance powers: what C‑2 would actually allow

Despite the security justifications put forward, Bill C‑2 introduces unprecedented surveillance powers that go far beyond current standards.

Warrantless access to subscriber information: One of the most controversial changes is the creation of a warrantless power allowing a provider to be forced to disclose the name, address, IP number and other metadata of a subscriber on the basis of a simple written request from an investigator. This power relies on a very low threshold ("honestly believes") and can be used for any offence related to electronic communications.
Technical orders and risk of “backdoors”: In addition to access to subscriber data, the bill requires companies to deploy "technical capabilities" to comply with surveillance orders within a reasonable timeframe. In practice, this power would allow modifications to code or systems to facilitate interception, including of encrypted communications. Providers are prohibited from disclosing details of this assistance, which could introduce new backdoors unknown to the public.
International data sharing and role of the United States: A significant aspect of C‑2 is that it paves the way for increased cooperation with the United States via agreements such as the CLOUD Act. Canadian subscribers therefore risk seeing their data transmitted not only to Canadian authorities but also to US authorities, without systematic Canadian judicial oversight. If similar agreements are concluded with other countries, authoritarian regimes could also demand this information.
Other varied measures: The bill still contains other notable provisions, such as tougher action against human traffickers, increased criminalisation of "non-compliance" with residency conditions, and the possibility of ordering the early destruction of seized items.

Bringing these elements together, one can understand why critics describe C‑2 as "a multi-faceted attack on privacy and civil rights".

Arguments in favour of the bill: national security, police efficiency and international cooperation

It is important to also present the arguments of those who support or justify Bill C‑2, if only to understand their logic and avoid caricaturing the debate.

Strengthening national and public security: Supporters of C‑2 believe that current threats (terrorism, gangs, foreign interference) require enhanced surveillance tools to protect the public and prevent attacks.
Updating obsolete laws (“lawful access”): For years police services in Canada have been calling for modernisation of legal frameworks to access digital evidence. C‑2’s provisions are, according to them, indispensable to "catch up with technology" and remain effective.
Combating organised crime and fentanyl trafficking: A key part of the pro‑C‑2 narrative is the fight against the fentanyl crisis. Supporters believe that rapid access to data and communications can help dismantle criminal networks responsible for distributing these drugs.
Cooperation with allies and diplomatic credibility: As mentioned, Canada was under pressure from the United States and other allies to "harmonise" its lawful access laws. Proponents of C‑2 argue that not adopting these measures could isolate the country or harm its international cooperation.
Retention of safeguards and oversight: Finally, proponents emphasise that the bill is not without counterbalances: technical obligations would be overseen by court orders, and some decisions could be challenged in court.

In short, the positive side of the coin, as presented by the government and supporters of C‑2, rests on the promise of better security, more effective investigations and positioning Canada as a reliable partner.

Concerns and criticisms: risks for privacy, civil liberties and the rule of law

Opponents of Bill C‑2 – including jurists, former intelligence officials, civil liberties groups and migrant associations – put forward several major arguments.

Massive infringement of privacy: C‑2 is decried as "anti‑privacy" because it would authorise warrantless intrusion into personal data, creating a climate of widespread surveillance.
Democratic regression and "surveillance state": Several observers compare the direction of C‑2 to that of authoritarian countries, accusing the government of muzzling fundamental rights and threatening democracy.
Threat to the right of asylum and migrants: Another facet of the criticism concerns changes to immigration and asylum, which are deemed inhumane and contrary to Canada’s international obligations.
Lack of necessity and exaggerated problems: Critics point out that the government has not demonstrated an emergency situation that would justify these extensive powers, and that the crimes targeted are already covered by existing laws.
Risk of unconstitutionality and costly legal challenges: Several provisions of C‑2 appear to entail violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and promise complex court battles.

In short, on the negative side of the coin, Bill C‑2 is seen by its opponents as anti‑privacy, anti‑rights, anti‑economy and potentially unconstitutional.

International parallels: lessons from the US Patriot Act and other surveillance regimes

It is instructive to compare Bill C‑2 with similar legislation adopted elsewhere, in order to understand their consequences and anticipate those that C‑2 could have.

The Patriot Act (2001): Adopted in haste after the 11 September 2001 attacks, the Patriot Act considerably expanded the US government’s surveillance powers. Many cases of abusive surveillance were later revealed, leading to a rollback and partial reform in 2015 (USA Freedom Act).
The case of the United Kingdom: In 2016, the UK adopted the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA), a very intrusive law that requires providers to retain the web history of all users for a year and gives broad access to agencies. This law has been widely criticised for abuses and has been partially ruled illegal by the European courts.
Authoritarian regimes: As mentioned above, the examples of China and Russia are often cited to illustrate how state surveillance can become total, with near absolute control of communications and a lack of counterbalances.
European Union approach: By contrast, it is interesting to note that the EU has chosen a different path in recent years. Rather than adopting mass surveillance laws, it has strengthened data protection (GDPR, ePrivacy) and set up strict judicial control mechanisms, illustrating another way to ensure security while preserving freedoms.

In conclusion to this international overview, we see that extensive surveillance measures have almost always led to abuses and major disputes. Canada would do well to learn from these experiences.

Impacts for businesses and SMEs: a surveillance climate harmful to the economy?

The audience for this analysis includes business people, particularly SMEs, so it is worth discussing the consequences C‑2 could have for the economy.

Compliance costs and burden for SMEs: C‑2 would impose new technical obligations on digital service providers (email, hosting, telecoms) such as installing surveillance systems, retaining data or intercepting information. These burdens could prove heavy for small organisations, which would have to invest time and resources to comply with the law.
Customer trust and business impact: Nowadays, users – whether individuals or companies – are increasingly sensitive to the protection of their data. A perception of "widespread surveillance" could prompt some customers to turn away from services hosted in Canada, leading to a loss of revenue for domestic providers.
Reduction in functionality and fragmented market: As we saw with the example of Apple in the UK, when a law requires a manufacturer to remove encryption or a feature, there is a risk that it will withdraw completely from the market, depriving local users of certain products. This withdrawal creates a fragmented market, where technologies and services are only available in certain countries.
Climate of mistrust and productivity: Another, more diffuse aspect is the social climate. If employees and citizens know that their communications can be monitored or intercepted at any time, this creates a feeling of insecurity and mistrust, which hinders productivity and innovation.

In short, SMEs and the economy as a whole have an interest in a legal framework that is stable, proportionate and conducive to trust. The potentially negative effects of Bill C‑2 could discourage investment and hamper innovation.

Conclusion: Defending our freedoms and values – why we must oppose C‑2

After examining in detail the provisions of Bill C‑2, the justifications put forward and the many concerns it raises, it becomes clear that this is a regressive and dangerously intrusive piece of legislation.

Security and liberty are not mutually exclusive: it is possible to protect the population effectively without establishing a widespread surveillance state. International examples and experts’ criticisms show that there are targeted alternatives that are more respectful of rights.

It is also important to note the near unanimity of opposition from civil society. Seeing so many organisations, unions, academic groups and experts unite against C‑2 should alert any observer to the seriousness of the issue.

In Parliament, the debate is ongoing. Some opposition parties have already expressed their refusal to support the bill, while others want to debate it in depth and propose amendments. It is vital that MPs hear the voice of citizens and gauge the real impact of this text.

If you are a business person or a representative of an SME, your voice counts doubly. As an entrepreneur, you can testify to the potential effects on the economy and on your own business, and thus influence the debate.

In conclusion, our recommendation is firm: we must oppose Bill C‑2 and encourage its abandonment or thorough redesign. National security should not be used as a pretext to restrict freedoms without genuine justification.

The choice is simple: do we want to live in a country where the state can, without sufficient control, monitor our communications, our movements and our transactions? Or do we prefer a model where security rests on targeted and proportionate measures, and where trust and transparency are the founding values?

We therefore invite each and every one of you – citizens, economic actors – to find out, to talk about it around you and to make your voices heard. Take part in consultations, write to your elected representatives, sign petitions and support organisations that fight for the protection of rights.

Ultimately, let us say NO to Bill C‑2 and defend our freedoms civilly and firmly. It is an investment in the democratic future of our country.

A word from Blue Fox

Blue Fox is completely and vigorously opposed to this bill, which would have catastrophic consequences for individual freedoms, privacy and the digital economy. We call on our readers and partners to mobilise and assert their rights.

If you share our opinion, you can act today against this unwanted bill by signing this petition on OpenMedia: https://openmedia.org/

Sources:

Government of Canada – Backgrounder: Act aiming for rigorous border security (Public Safety Canada)
OpenMedia – Stop the Carney surveillance plan: NO to Bill C‑2 (citizen campaign)
OpenMedia – FAQ: Explanation of the dangerous new surveillance bill (C‑2)
Electronic Frontier Foundation – Bill C‑2 opens the floodgates of US surveillance
Canadian Council for Refugees – Press release: 300 organisations demand the withdrawal of C‑2
Policing Insight (Robert Diab) – Legal analysis: new search powers and the Charter
SecuriteInfo (France) – Patriot Act: everything you need to know about this controversial law

Recent success stories of free software adoption across companies of all sizes