Bill C-30: Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act

Bill C-30: Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act () was a proposed amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada introduced by the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper on February 14, 2012, during the 41st Canadian Parliament.Bill C-30: Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, 41st Parliament, 1st session. Similar legislation had been unsuccessfully proposed in the past, by both Liberal and Conservative governments, and mirrored legislation introduced in other countries.

The bill would have granted authorities new powers to monitor and track the digital activities of Canadians in real-time, required service providers to log information about their customers and turn it over if requested, and made back door entrances mandatory allowing remote access of individuals' electronic information, each without needing a warrant. Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act showed that the government desired to use the expanded powers in cases not involving criminality.

The bill did not mention children, or internet predators, other than in its title. Critics stated that the "feel-good name" was unrelated to the content of the bill, and chosen simply to "sell legislation to the public", and that authorities would likely use the powers to harass peaceful protestors and activists.First Perspective, Human rights lawyer warns feds’ internet surveillance bill could lead to massive internet sweep

The bill was widely opposed, particularly after Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told an opposition MP that he could "either stand with us or with the child pornographers" during a debate. The government ultimately withdrew the bill in 2013, acknowledging that opposition.

The government introduced another bill later in 2013, Bill C-13, dealing with legal access to electronic data. Bill C-13 did not include the provisions from bill C-30 which had attracted the most criticism. Bill C-13 passed in December 2014, under the name Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act.

History of Bill C-30 There had been several previous attempts to introduce lawful access legislation, allowing police to avoid the necessity of a warrant to obtain information, since 1999 when the Liberal Party of Canada first proposed it. However, none of those proposed bills had passed. Bill C-30 largely mirrored previous bills C-50, C-51 and C-52, introduced by the Conservative government, but which had died upon the dissolution of Parliament for the 2011 federal election. NDP MPs Anne Minh-Thu Quach and Carol Hughes criticised the Liberal party's opposition to this bill, given their previous support for near-identical legislation in the past.

In 2007, Toews's predecessor as public safety minister, Stockwell Day stated that "we have not and we will not be proposing legislation to grant police the powers to get information from internet providers without a warrant". Toews dismissed the comment, and stated that the requirement for court oversight of police was "an additional burden on the criminal justice system."

On February 14, 2012 Toews formally tabled Bill C-30 under the name Lawful Access Act, but withdrew the bill an hour later and resubmitted it with a "last minute change", Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act" instead.

Content of bill

The bill would have allowed authorities to demand access to subscriber information from both ISPs and telephone providers without needing to obtain a warrant from a judge, and would have required telecommunications providers to ensure that there was a back door entrance to allow all communications to be intercepted when desired.

The bill would have granted these powers to police agencies, and also to Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Competition Bureau officials, as well as anybody appointed by the Minister of Public Safety to carry out such actions. The bill would also have allowed any of these persons to make copies of the data taken from citizens' digital devices, without oversight or a right of appeal.

The bill would have prohibited ISPs from answering affirmatively if a customer asked them whether authorities had been searching their data.David T.S. Fraser, The hidden gag order in Bill C-30 (aka the lawful access bill)

The bill would have increased the number of actions that can be legally carried out by police officers without a warrant. Section 487.11 of the Criminal Code allowed a police officer to "exercise any of the powers described in subsection 487(1) or 492.1(1) without a warrant". Under Bill C-30, the section would be amended to include "exercise any of the powers described in section 487, 492.1 or 492.2 without a warrant".

Section 487 of the Criminal Code, allows a police officer to search a building and "use any computer system at the building or place to search any data contained in or available to the computer system", would be left unchanged by Bill C-30. Section 492.1 was to be amended by Bill C-30 to allow a police officer to obtain location tracking data by means of a tracking device and "install, activate, use, maintain, monitor and remove the tracking device, including covertly". Section 492.2 was also to be amended by Bill C-30 to allow a police officer to obtain transmission data by means of a transmission data recorder and "install, activate, use, maintain, monitor and remove the transmission data recorder, including covertly".C-30 ArchiveCriminal Code Archive

In Bill C-30, tracking data was defined as "data that relates to the location of a transaction, individual or thing". Transmission data had a more complicated definition, but essentially refers to meta-data that is attached to a message/communication in order to aid in its transmission to its intended destination, such as IP address, phone number, time, duration, size.

Section 64 of the bill was a final "catch-all" that said that if the government decided it overlooked any additional abilities it believed it needed to fulfill "generally, for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act", it could have retroactively added those abilities to the law.

Responses to the bill

All four opposition parties, the NDP, Liberals, Bloc Québécois, and Green Party were opposed to the lawful access provisions of C-30. In addition, John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest), David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon) and Rob Anders (Calgary West) were among the Conservative MPs who opposed the bill. Political criticism from the Liberals, NDP and Greens suggested it was hypocritical for the Conservatives to introduce the bill, after scrapping both the long-form census and gun registry in the name of privacy.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May dubbed the bill's title as propaganda, stating that "other than the fact it’s for propaganda purposes, there’s no reason to call it about Internet predators". She suggested that the Conservatives were trying to use the rhetorical ploy of appealing to the sake of children to garner support. The Province, a newspaper in British Columbia, suggested a more accurate name might be the "Spying on Every Single Canadian any Time We Feel Like it Act".

The bill was supported by many Canadian police agencies. Supporters of the bill stated that all of Canada's attorneys general also support the bill, while critics challenged that statement as untrue.

A coalition of citizens and civil liberties organizations formed the StopSpying.ca coalition in June 2011 to speak out against lawful access. The coalition was led by OpenMedia.ca and was considered responsible for leading the public outcry against Bill C-30.

The Canadian Network Operators Consortium noted that smaller, independent ISPs would likely be unable to afford expensive new equipment to allow authorities real-time monitoring of their customers and may have to discontinue business. The Ministry of Public Safety had estimated that the initial cost to the government to implement the bill would be $80 million over four years, and $6.7 million dollars each year after that. The ISPs responded that the cost could be much higher. According to the CBC, the costs would have either translated as higher telecommunications costs for Canadian consumers, or increased federal taxes to pay for the program.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Lawyer magazine suggested that provisions in the bill could violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and be challenged before the Supreme Court as unreasonable search and seizure of digital information.

Opposition focused on the provisions that would allow law enforcement agencies and government-appointed inspectors to access identifying information from ISPs on demand, without a warrant. Documents leaked online showed the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police asking members to find examples of cases that would have profited from lawful access, but no cases had been found, leading critics to charge that police were already able to prosecute predators successfully in Canada with existing legislation.

The international advocacy group Reporters Without Borders opined the bill went too far, and failed to account for "respect for people’s private lives and the presumption of innocence". Federal deputy privacy commissioner Chantal Bernier argued the proposed powers are too broad: "As the legislation is written now, it could impact any law-abiding Canadian citizen."

Media outlets largely panned the bill's proposals: the National Post characterised the bill as "an electronic prisoner's bracelet on every Canadian"; columnist Ivor Tossell of The Globe and Mail said it presented "real dangers"; and the Toronto Star argued that it was the "most grotesque intrusion into our lives".

The University of Ottawa's Michael Geist said the legislation intended to build "an extensive online surveillance infrastructure". Ann Cavoukian, the Ontario Privacy Commissioner, warned that the collected information would be a "gold mine" for potential hackers. All of the nation's privacy commissioners issued a joint statement condemning the bill. Liberal MP Sean Casey satirically asked Toews and Rob Nicholson, the Minister of Justice, to openly divulge their own web surfing histories.

Surveys conducted in February 2012 showed that between 53 and 66 per cent of Canadians opposed the bill being passed.

Similar legislation in other countries

Government officials stated that similar legislation has been introduced in several other countries already, including the United States, Great Britain and Australia. However, critics responded that other countries should serve as a warning to Canada, noting the many errors and broad overreach of their legislation, with police requesting the private information for mundane tasks such as determining school district eligibility.

Similar legislation has been drafted in the Philippines despite being met with up to eight petitions filed with the highest court in the Philippines questioning the constitutionality of the legislation. The Filipino legislation is intended, like the Canadian bill, to prevent cybersex, online child pornography, identity theft, and spamming. However, in addition to these crimes, the Filipino bill also makes libel a cybercrime punishable by up to twelve years. It is generally this last issue that has privacy and right’s groups concerned over the legislation. “It violates Filipinos' rights to free expression and it is wholly incompatible with the Philippine government's obligations under international law,” said Brad Adams, Asia director of US-based Human Rights Watch.