Encrypted messaging services, social media companies, VPN providers, civil liberty organizations, everyday Canadians, even the U.S. judiciary and foreign affairs committees, have increasingly sounded the alarm about Bill C-22, “an act respecting lawful access.”

And a theologically grounded case could be made that these entities and others dissenting against Bill C-22 are in the right.

Privacy infringement concerns are teeming because of a provision in the bill that could require “core providers” of electronic services to collect and retain the metadata — data that provides data about other data — of Canadians for up to a year. It could be theoretically deployed to create a surveillance watch web, tracking the movements of each Canadian and monitoring their communications.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, Windscribe, NordVPN, Express VPN, Proton VPN Apple, Meta, Signal and congressional bodies are articulating the concern that the backdoors into these electronic service providers’ (ESP) products compromise user privacy and security promises, and it could create vulnerabilities ripe for exploitation from hostile actors. There is also a secrecy order attached to vague obligations compelling ESPs to “provide all reasonable assistance” to the Minister of Public Safety, Gary Anandasangaree, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP, employees of other police forces and peace officers.

Signal and Windscribe are among the companies that have signalled intent to pull out of operations in Canada if this bill remains unchanged.

Theologically, consider the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2492: “Everyone should observe an appropriate reserve concerning persons' private lives. Those in charge of communications should maintain a fair balance between the requirements of the common good and respect for individual rights.”

A faulty rationale is being offered by proponents of Bill C-22 about how there is a need for such intrusive tools to keep up with the threats of the modern world and to remain in lockstep with allies around the world.

The argument by Anandasangaree and his allies does not hold water, as the United States and member nations of the European Union predominantly do not have broad metadata retention timelines. Canada would very much become an outlier with Australia, which mandates two years of metadata preservation.

The arc of the society in constitutional republics and parliamentary democracy — and a vision of the world championed by a God of expansive goodness — is always supposed to point towards freedom. This bill, as is, and highly likely in any form, is a violation of that sacred ideal.

Advertisement

A contemporary and widely shared Church document with insights about the right to privacy is Antiqua et Nova: Note on the Relationship Between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence, jointly released by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education on Jan. 28, 2025.

Antiqua et Nova states: “The Church has also affirmed the right to the legitimate respect for a private life in the context of affirming the person’s right to a good reputation, defense of their physical and mental integrity and freedom from harm or undue intrusion.”

The document also alludes to how “advances in AI-powered data processing and analysis now make it possible to infer patterns in a person’s behaviour and thinking from even a small amount of information, making the role of data privacy even more imperative as a safeguard for the dignity and relational nature of the human person.”

Most recently, in the just-released encyclical Magnifica humanitas, Pope Leo warned of the “social control made possible by the massive collection of data and use of algorithmic systems. When every action — movements, purchases, relationships and preferences — leaves a trace, a new form of power emerges, namely the power to profile, predict and influence behaviour, often without individuals being fully aware of it.”

The Pope further pronounced the need for “clear rules, transparency, the possibility of recourse and proportionate limits on the use of intrusive technologies.”

Now, to transcend the specific categorization of digital confidentiality for a 30,000-foot Christian view of privacy, it must be indicated that Jesus Christ clearly valued discretion. He told His disciples in Matthew 6:4 to ensure “that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret Himself shall reward thee openly.” Also from Matthew 6:5-8, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and other hypocrites for their exhibitionism.

“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men … but when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father who is unseen,” said Jesus.

Advertisement

There is a plethora of examples throughout the Gospels — the Garden of Gethsemane, the 40 days in the desert, after performing miracles — where Jesus retreated from the crowds and His disciples for quiet prayer time with His Heavenly Father.

Do not expect the federal government to suddenly adopt Jesus’ and the Vatican’s convictions towards privacy, but Anandasangaree has signalled a willingness in recent days to possibly make amendments to Bill C-22 to better protect encryption and lessen the murkiness over what metadata would be requested. He also expressed an urgency to pass this legislation. The last possible House of Commons sitting date before the summer recess is June 19.