Over the past week or so I’ve received a number of emails regarding our government’s introduction of Bill C-30, Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. Since many of those emails contain false and sometimes confusing information, I thought I would take this opportunity to respond as fully as I can.

Let me begin by indicating to you what the problem is, what the current state of the law is, what C-30 proposes to do and what the government intends to do with respect to C-30 to make sure it balances the interests of protection and privacy before it becomes law.

However, at the outset allow me to correct the most- frequent mentioned piece of misinformation which is, “The Bill will allow the government to read my personal emails and track my online history.” This is false!

The Problem

The Global Internet, cellular phones and social media have been widely adopted and enjoyed by Canadians, young and old. Many of us have been affected by computer viruses, spam and increasingly, bank or credit card fraud. If you use the internet, even minimally, you know this to be true. These new medias are also being used as a safe haven for serious criminal activity – identity theft, child and sexual exploitation, gangs, organized crime and national security threats. Obtaining content or monitoring (tracking) communication requires a warrant now and this provision remains with C-30.

Canadian authorities currently operate with investigative powers largely developed in the 1970’s. No one would disagree that technology has changed dramatically over the past 35 years or so. These changes have left law enforcement without the tools they need to deal with crime and national security threats which have made it more difficult to conduct investigations.
Bill C-30 will equip police with the tools they need to ensure criminals and terrorist groups do not exploit modern communication technologies to hide their illegal activities. All proposed provisions in C-30 are designed to help strike the proper balance between investigative needs and privacy protection. Some of those provisions include reports to the Privacy Commissioner and notification to a person within 120 days when a request has been made.

Basic subscriber information
Basic subscriber information (BSI) is an on-going challenge for law enforcement to obtain. In some cases Internet Service Providers, (ISP’s) provide the information, others will not, or often there are lengthy delays. This is because compliance with a police request is “voluntary.” The RCMP’s National Child Exploitation Centre states that “in 2010, the average response time for these requests was 12 days.” During this time, victims continue to be victimized. Bill C-30 will simply make compliance mandatory.

Basic subscriber information is often required at the early stages of police investigations. This information can already be provided without a warrant under existing legislation, but again, only on a voluntary basis. This results in inconsistent access and delays, specifically in cases of “exceptional circumstances,” like bomb threats or kidnappings. These are detailed in Section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. This will continue to be the case with C-30.

However, the Bill will also introduce strict controls and protections for the release of basic subscriber information, including record-keeping and audits, which do not exist today.

Under C-30, Telecommunications service providers (TSPs) would be required to provide only basic subscriber information to designated police officials upon request. This identifying information would be limited to a subscriber’s name, address, phone number, email address, IP address, and the name of their service provider. In this way, it’s not a great deal unlike a phone book many of us are more familiar with. A phone book provides basic information about your name, your address, phone number and postal code. The electronic provisions in C-30 do not provide access to the contents of an individual’s communications like email or web site history.

Let me be very clear; C-30 is directed at criminals, not law-abiding citizens and I will support measures which give law enforcement officials the tools they need to protect Canadians from criminals. However, I understand some may have legitimate concerns that any tool must be balanced in such way so as to protect their privacy.

C-30 Next Steps

Normally the legislative process includes the following steps:

1.The introduction of a Bill or First reading
2.A Bill then comes back to the House for Second reading, at which point it is usually referred to a committee for study, consideration, amendment and a referral back to the House for Third reading
3.At Third reading the House votes on a Bill, which may or may not have been amended for approval
4.If a Bill is approved at Third reading by the House, it goes to the Senate, where it goes through a similar process
5.If a Bill is then approved by the Senate it receives Royal Assent and then becomes a law

In the case of C-30, we have taken the unusual procedural step of referring it to committee before second reading because we recognize the importance of making sure it achieves the balance I have described above. That is why I encourage you to read the Bill for yourself and not just rely on what various groups are saying, and who may or may not understand C-30.
You can find the Bill here. If you have the opportunity to do that, and if you still have concerns, feel free to contact me with any suggestions you have about how the Bill could be changed to achieve its objective; that is to give police the tools they need to investigate criminal activity while balancing your right to privacy.

Yours truly,
Bev Shipley, MP