The controversial ‘Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act,’ or Bill C-30, is being battered around Canada and beyond right now, viewed by many as a severe intrusion into privacy and evoking images of Big Brother.

The intent of the proposed Act is to “ensure that telecommunications service providers have the capability to enable national security and law enforcement agencies to exercise their authority to intercept communications and to require telecommunications service providers to provide subscriber and other information, without unreasonably impairing the privacy of individuals, the provision of telecommunications services to Canadians or the competitiveness of the Canadian telecommunications industry,” it reads.

Kootenay-Columbia MP David Wilks Feb. 20, in an address to City of Cranbrook council, called Bill C-30 “Protecting Children From Internet Predators Act,” something that has been “renamed and renamed and renamed again.”

Wilks, a former RCMP officer, said the Act, if passed, will be similar to phone tapping and will also allow police departments around the country to improve their technological standing, which most departments have not been doing the last “10 to 15 years.”

The Act will also enable police to react to situations much more quickly, he said.

“It speeds up the investigational tool,” he said, adding that it “can be a lengthy period of time” to obtain a warrant and sometimes that can mean “it is far too late” for police to do their work effectively.

Wilks said the two “key” sections of the Act are Section 16 and 17.

Section 16 reads: “On written request by a person designated under subsection (3) that includes prescribed identifying information, every telecommunications service provider must provide the person with identifying information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address and local service provider identifier that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.”

And Section 17 cites:  17. “ Any police officer may, orally or in writing, request a telecommunications service provider to provide the officer with the information referred to in subsection 16(1) in the following circumstances:  the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that the request cannot, with reasonable diligence, be made under that subsection; (b) the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the information requested is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and (c) the information directly concerns either the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm. The police officer must inform the telecommunications service provider of his or her name, rank, badge number and the agency in which he or she is employed and state that the request is being made in exceptional circumstances and under the authority of this subsection.

(2) The telecommunications service provider must provide the information to the police officer as if the request were made by a designated person under subsection 16(1).

(3) The police officer must, within 24 hours after making a request under subsection (1), communicate to a designated person employed in the same agency as the officer all of the information relating to the request that would be necessary if it had been made under subsection 16(1) and inform that person of the circumstances referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c).

(4) On receiving the information, the designated person must in writing inform the telecommunications service provider that the request was made in exceptional circumstances under the authority of subsection (1).”

A Section that has opposition MPs and many national pundits and government-watchers worried is Section 14, which gives the police/government power to conduct surveillance, as well as provides it own surveillance equipment.

Following Wilks’ presentation to Cranbrook council, Coun. Bob Whetham noted, “What you describe as 1984 – we’ll have to deal with it.”

Coun. Gerry Warner said he has concerns the legislation will cause people to lose personal and civil rights.

Wilks replied he doesn’t believe the Act will do that.

“Most of the information they can glean from an IP address – they can get now,” he said.

To see Bill C-30 go to: https://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5380965&File=9

Ian Cobb/e-KNOW

Article Share