Privacy—Carney Wants to Make it a Thing of the Past

Have you wondered lately whether Apple, Google, Telus and the Canadian government really care about your privacy? They say they do. Then, why is the Carney government willing to make it easier to hack your personal information? And why is Mr. Carney prepared to share your information with our own spy agencies and those of foreign nations?

How many of you remember Bill C-26? That bill (An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts), died with the prorogation of Parliament and the launch of the federal election. But it's back!

The new bill, known as Bill C-8, is almost identical to the old C-26, and it appears this new Parliament is prepared to fast-track it, since its predecessor had already made it through 3^rd reading but was stalled by some last-minute statements made by Senator Denise Batters.

Bill C-26 had two stated goals: the first, to bolster cyber security and to make it more difficult for malicious actors to hack into the sensitive information of governments, businesses and individuals. That goal we applaud. The second element is much more concerning and-in fact-runs counter to the first goal. In this aspect, C-26 (and now C-8) would give the government-and its agencies-greater powers to force telecommunications providers to violate the private and personal data of their customers and to pass this information back to the government. One of the ways they want to make that information more accessible is by weakening encryption processes. Yes, the same encryption systems that we all rely on to protect ourselves from hackers and foreign interests.

That's problematic on the face of it, as customers assume their 'encrypted' data-medical records, financial records, passwords and political communications-is secure. If service providers are routinely required to transfer sensitive information to government agencies, then trust-always fragile in a digital environment-is broken, and customers, citizens, patients no longer have confidence in the institutions on which they rely. On top of that, the very process of weakening encryption standards opens every account-including the government itself and the military-to ever-evolving technologies employed by hackers, both domestic and foreign.

Canadians witnessed the harm done by the enforcement of government edicts through the banks when the bank accounts of private citizens were blocked and seized during the Freedom Convoy. If one may have thought that established banking institutions would refuse to be used as punitive tools for an oppressive government, that illusion was swept away in a hurry.

How much greater vulnerability will Canadians be exposed to if the same oppressive government-under a fresh mandate-has power to twist the arm of a service provider (possibly with massive fines) to hand over private documents that until now were considered secure from the prying eyes of government?

Last year, Open Media produced a comprehensive analysis of the dangers inherent in privacy-reducing 'security measures' in regard to C-26. The same concerns apply to C-8.

In addition, C-8 would authorize the government to order a service provider to suspend and deny services (ie. access to the internet) to an individual on "reasonable grounds". There is no definition of "reasonable grounds"; one assumes it will be like the violation of Charter rights that took place during Covid, where the government routinely issued orders without scientific evidence or "reasonable" circumstances . . . as its says in the Charter, "in a free and democratic society."

Another aspect of C-8 is the self-authorization of the government to conduct its privacy invasion in secrecy. We normally associate secrecy with nefarious purposes. When our government wants to implement draconian measures in secret, it's safe to assume it has something it wants to hide.

Of course, this government has a history of ignoring privacy concerns. It routinely supports jurisdictions that allow biological males to impose their naked presence in what have always been considered private, secure spaces for women and girls-female washrooms, change rooms and showers. The only place where Prime Minister Carney and his loyal supporters really care about privacy is in the back rooms where they devise their sinister schemes.

The Christian Heritage Party supports the legitimate use of public information to track and prosecute criminals and occasionally-with a warrant based on indisputable evidence to support it-a request for personal information critical to justice. We recognize there is a balance between security for society and the privacy rights of individuals. It should not be easy for governments to misuse their power. We stand for the robust and enforceable protection of private information and the development and use of hack-proof encryption.