I have sent the following open letter to the Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews:
Dear Minister Toews,
As you are aware, a growing number of questions are being raised -- in Parliament, in legal circles and in the media -- about potential lawful access legislation. I recognize that rapid developments in communication technologies are creating new challenges for law enforcement and national security authorities and that the Internet cannot be a lawless zone. However, in light of this recent public discussion, I feel it is important to set out once more my Office's own deep concerns prior to the reintroduction of legislation. This is why I have decided to write a letter to you, which I am making public.
My provincial and territorial privacy colleagues have also been seized by this issue and together we have called upon the federal government in 2009 and in 2011 to take a cautious approach to legislative proposals to create an expanded surveillance regime that would have serious repercussions for privacy rights. As your government prepares to bring forward legislation, I believe I have an obligation to outline my concerns about the potential impact on the privacy of Canadians.
Read together, the provisions of the lawful access bills from the last session of Parliament (C-50, C-51, and C-52) would have had a significant impact on our privacy rights. By expanding the legal tools of the state to conduct surveillance and access private information, and by reducing the depth of judicial scrutiny, the previous bills would have allowed government to subject more individuals to surveillance and scrutiny. In brief, these bills went far beyond simply maintaining investigative capacity or modernizing search powers. Rather, they added significant new capabilities for investigators to track, and search and seize digital information about individuals.
Canadians expect their government to respect their fundamental rights and freedoms. Your government has made firm and repeated commitments to the importance of privacy. Consequently, when new surveillance powers are proposed in law, the burden of proof is with government to demonstrate the necessity, legal proportionality and practical effectiveness of these new powers. The government must also be prepared to demonstrate how the model it is proposing is the least privacy-invasive alternative possible.
Despite repeated calls, no systematic case has yet been made to justify the extent of the new investigative capabilities that would have been created by the bills. Canadian authorities have yet to provide the public with evidence to suggest that CSIS or Canadian police cannot perform their duties under the current regime. One-off cases and isolated incidents should not prove the rule, nor should exigent or emergency circumstances, for which there are already Criminal Code provisions.
As well, if the concern of law enforcement agencies is that it is difficult to obtain warrants or judicial authorization in a timely way, these administrative challenges should be addressed by administrative solutions rather than by weakening long-standing legal principles that uphold Canadians' fundamental freedoms.
I am also concerned about the adoption of lower thresholds for obtaining personal information from commercial enterprises. The new powers envisaged are not limited to specific, serious offences or urgent or exceptional situations. In the case of access to subscriber data, there is not even a requirement for the commission of a crime to justify access to personal information -- real names, home address, unlisted numbers, email addresses, IP addresses and much more -- without a warrant. Only prior court authorization provides the rigorous privacy protection Canadians expect.
In my view, the government has not convincingly demonstrated that there are no less privacy-invasive alternatives available to achieve its stated purpose.
Should Parliament ultimately opt to allow law enforcement and national security authorities to circumvent the courts to obtain personal information, we believe the oversight and reporting safeguards must be significantly strengthened.
The true importance of privacy protection is that it underpins our democratic freedoms. It allows us to exercise these freedoms openly, without fear, mistrust or censorship. This is why caution is so critical, to avoid the possible erosion of our free, open society.
To date, Canadians have not been given sufficient justification for the new powers when other, less intrusive alternatives could be explored. A focussed, tailored approach is vital.
As the government considers the reintroduction of the lawful access legislation I would respectfully ask that you take these comments into consideration.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Stoddart
Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Michael Geist: Government's Lawful Access Claims Stand on a Shaky Foundation
Tamir Israel: Online Spying Legislation: Why We Should Be Concerned
Privacy watchdog reiterates lawful access concerns
Laws for 21st century: A guide to Canada's proposed cyber investigation bills
in depthLawful access FAQs: Clearing confusion about 'surveillance' proposals
A government which rules in secrecy will, sooner or later, be burned by the flame of truth.
Why do they feel the need to destroy all of the legally obtained information in the Gun Registry (soon to be shut down) but they are free to go to private businesses and ask to be given all of the information they have on us?
At the very least, this is inconsistent with claims that the Government of Canada has to respect the privacy of its citizens. What they are really doing is giving us the outward impression that they do respect our privacy by no longer asking for the information from us directly but behind the scenes, giving themselves the ability to collect much more personal and confidential information about us.
To say the least, this is disturbing.
Sadly, despite the insanity of Bill C10 and now this contempt for citizen rights, the Occupy Canada movement appears rudderless to most Canadians.
Here's hoping this letter to the Canadian people turns some lights on.
We must STOP HARPER or Canada will not be recognizable in the near future.
It's a piss-poor constitution we have. It was brought in amid much hoo-hah but did nothing to democratize the country, it only entrenched the powers of the first ministers further. Trudeau just wanted to sever the remaining negligible ties to the UK and was willing to do whatever the first ministers wanted to get it passed, and did so without getting Quebec to the table, which has caused all kinds of red-herring reform discussions and referenda since.......Trudeau was no more of a democrat than Harper was, he was a high-society elitist quite content to manipulate our authoritarian post-colonial system to his own ends. Reform discussions in Canada - launched by the now completely corrupt part of the same name reincarnated as the Tories - revolved around simply democratizing the Senate, which wouldn't have accomplished much at all - now that same crowd stack it with their cronies.
The American Occupy movement is organizing what amounts to a citizens' constitutional assembly next July 4 in Philadelphia. The Canadian movement needs to do the same, simple complaining alone is not enough. The mandate of our current government is the Crown and the parliamentary system; but it has no real mandate, real support, from the populace at large. We need something that does (have support from the populace at large), and the emergence of new media that bypasses the corporate lockdown of the national networks and establishment news services.
We need a new poiltical system. I don't know what that is, but LOTS of ideas were fielded by Canadians from all walks of life during the Spicer and Charest Commission hearings, which should be dusted off and re-examined (the media and politicians swept them all under the rug since). Icelanders are creating a new constitution by citizens - no politicians, lawyers etc allowed to take part - and so can we.