Posts Tagged ‘C-30’

The return of C-30?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 15, 2012 - 0 Comments

Police chiefs are pushing for the resurrection of the government’s “lawful access” legislation.

In recent weeks, Canada’s police chiefs have launched an aggressive campaign – using online videos, Twitter blasts and letters to the editor – to jumpstart discussion about controversial Bill C-30 …  Tim Smith, spokesman for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said this week the association decided to resurrect discussion on Bill C-30 after becoming concerned over the summer that the government was going to let the bill “die on the order paper” or that the government might introduce a watered-down version of the bill.

“We were given no indication that they were moving forward with C-30. We then made the decision to re-launch our effort. Out of courtesy we made them aware of the launch a few days before,” Smith said. “Since the launch of the campaign, there has been some discussion (with the government), but nothing towards firmly establishing the direction the government will take on this.”

All our previous coverage of C-30 is compiled here.

  • Vic Toews stands, the government waits, the public disagrees

    By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 27, 2012 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

    The Public Safety Minister attempts to defend himself.

    Let me be clear: Bill C-30 creates no new powers to access the content of e-mails, web-browsing history or phone calls beyond that which already exists in Canadian law.

    Some have accused me of not reading a bill I’ve been involved in shaping for over half a decade. Ironically, when I read most media coverage of C-30, I am struck by just how poorly the bill is understood by many writers.

    All the same, the Harper government isn’t ready to move forward with the legislation. Perhaps because, when presented with certain measures contained in the bill, a majority of Canadians express disagreement.

  • Vic Toews stands with Vic Toews

    By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 3:52 PM - 0 Comments

    The Public Safety Minister writes to the National Post to counter the suggestion he was not entirely well-acquainted with his own legislation.

    At no point was I “surprised” during that interview. The text of the bill accords in every respect with my expressed understanding.

    And that should be no surprise. I’ve been involved in the broader discussion on how to ensure our laws are brought up to speed with rapidly evolving technology since I was the Attorney General in Manitoba over a decade ago.

    Matt Gurney’s not convinced. My feeling when this first became news was that Mr. Toews’ comments on The House could be interpreted two ways: that he was previously unaware of the content of Section 17 or that he had not before heard the interpretation of Section 17 that Evan Solomon was offering. And I think I tend to believe the latter is closer to what the minister was trying to say.

    Update 4:55pm. I am reminded that a previous attempt by Mr. Toews to correct the record via letter to the editor proved problematic.

  • You either stand with Vic Toews or…

    By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 10:20 AM - 0 Comments

    Stockwell Day, one of Mr. Toews’ predecessors at Public Safety, explains his position on C-30.

    “People have been saying, did I say something different than other ministers have said? I did say that I don’t think police should be given any more powers, that anything they do should have to accompany a judicial warrant,” Day said, referring to comments he made in 2007. ”I think what we need to do is reserve judgment on [bill C-30] … because the government’s made a very clear statement they’re open to revision on it.”

  • How to salvage C-30

    By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 10:27 AM - 0 Comments

    David Fraser offers four amendments.

    There are many, many problems with the warrantless access to customer data in Bill C-30, known as the lawful access bill. The main problem pointed to by the proponents of the Bill is that it takes too long to get a warrant that requires an internet service provider to hand over customer name and address information that corresponds with an IP address. If that is really the problem they are trying to address, it would be best to address it by making the warrant-seeking process more efficient and limit warrantless requests to circumstances where there is a real emergency.

    Ivor Tossell explains the dangers contained in the present bill.

  • Vic Toews v. C-30

    By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 2:39 PM - 0 Comments

    Also from the Public Safety Minister’s interview with The House, there seems to be some confusion as to what the Harper government’s online surveillance legislation actually entails.

    In an interview airing Saturday on CBC Radio’sThe House, Toews said his understanding of the bill is that police can only request information from the ISPs where they are conducting “a specific criminal investigation.” But Section 17 of the ‘Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act’ outlines “exceptional circumstances” under which “any police officer” can ask an ISP to turn over personal client information.

    “I’d certainly like to see an explanation of that,” Toews told host Evan Solomon after a week of public backlash against Bill C-30, which would require internet service providers to turn over client information without a warrant. ”This is the first time that I’m hearing this somehow extends ordinary police emergency powers [to telecommunications]. In my opinion, it doesn’t. And it shouldn’t.”

    iPolitics has a longer transcript of the exchange. Here is the text of Section 17. Continue…

From Macleans