Are there 'snooping provisions' in Carney's massive border bill?

Conservatives and New Democrats don't agree on much, but it appears both have issues with provisions tucked into Bill C-2, the Carney government's Strong Borders Act.

The 140-page bill would modify many existing laws, from the Criminal Code to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act and the Oceans Act.

Much of it is about the border and the movement of people and goods, licit and illicit, across that border, as its full name suggests: An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures.

But some MPs are having difficulty seeing how everything in the bill is at all "related" to the border.

"I think the title of the act is for show for the Trump administration," said New Democrat MP Jenny Kwan. "A lot of the components in the bill target Canada's own processes that have nothing to do with the U.S."

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner said C-2 includes "snooping provisions" that are "a massive poison pill."

Perhaps the most controversial parts of the bill relate to police powers and "lawful access," the ability for police to demand subscriber information from internet providers and other online companies.

Police have been seeking such powers for two decades in Canada, and there have been several attempts to pass legislation.

The last determined effort to expand police powers over the internet was made by Stephen Harper's government in 2014, when it was packaged as the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. It fell apart after Public Safety Minister Vic Toews challenged critics to either "stand with us or stand with the child pornographers."

The Carney government also turned to the spectre of child pornography to make the case for their bill.

And indeed, those who work in child protection have long advocated for a version of lawful access that would compel internet providers to co-operate with law enforcement.

"There are pieces of information that are only in the possession of [internet] companies," said Monique St. Germain, a lawyer with the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.

She said it can take months to obtain authorizations to link a computer's IP address to a suspect, and sometimes that means important evidence is lost.

And Thomas Carrique of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says communications and encryption technology used by criminals have raced ahead of existing legislation.