Yeah, the so-called "lawful access" parts of Bill C-2 are especially bad. Here's constitutional law professor Michael Geist's take on it:

https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2025/06/privacy-at-risk-government-buries-lawful-access-provisions-in-new-border-bill/

"the bill creates a new “information demand” for law enforcement that does not require court oversight."

In other words, if Bill C-2 passes, the police are allowed to demand information from an ISP about someone without a warrant, and it's illegal for the ISP to refuse that demand. There's no oversight mechanism of any kind, and the only requirement is that the cop has a hunch that maybe a crime might be committed. What crime? Any crime.

Know what's a crime? Lying to a cop. So, if a cop has a reasonable suspicion that you lied to them, or will lie to them in the future, that's legal grounds for them to get access to this data from a service provider. You know that every cop going through a divorce will be using this to get info on their spouses. Why not? It's perfectly legal.

Why are these so-called "lawful access" provisions being considered? It's a sore spot with the US that Canadians have a bit more privacy than Americans. And, for some reason, despite the US being incredibly hostile, the government still wants to work on that relationship by giving away Canadians' rights.

So-called "lawful access" is a terrible idea. The supreme court already decided that Canadians have a right to privacy and that giving away this data violates that privacy. These rights shouldn't be given away for any reason, but especially not to curry favour with the US, given that the US is already violating their treaties with Canada. But, even if someone might disagree and think "lawful access" is necessary, give it its own bill. Don't tack it onto a bill about the border. This has nothing to do with the border, and it's an important enough discussion that it shouldn't be hidden in a border bill.