The announcement that the so-called “Protecting children from Internet Predators Act,” originally called “lawful access,” and dubbed so effectively by openmedia.ca as the “online spying bill,” C-30 will be withdrawn is news worth celebrating.

The elements of success are also worth identifying and noting for the next campaign.  I don’t think this bill would ever have been withdrawn if not for the amazing on-line community.  The work of openmedia.ca was critical.  That they were ready and fully prepared with great tv ads, which ended up more watched on youtube and discussed by media than actually appearing in paid for advertising spots really increased awareness.

Some think Vic Toews’ now infamous “Stand with us or with child pornographers” was a gaffe.  I think that the lumping of opponents to the government’s agenda with child pornographers was  PMO-approved, spin-doctor messaging.  Otherwise, why the very last minute change in the title of the bill from “Lawful Access” to “Protecting children from internet predators act?”  The change was so very last minute that, at First Reading, no copies of the bill with the correct title were available in the advance lock-up nor in the Opposition Lobby.   All the circulated versions still read “lawful access.”  Only the PMO could have approved a change in the bill’s title.

I do not think the effort to reduce barriers to warrantless access are over, but we should pause and say “Thank you!!” to openmedia.ca, to all of you who signed petitions, wrote letters and used social media to spread the word.

It is proof that citizen engagement still works!! And we need to encourage each other and use the tools that worked to be watchful for any new legislation to the same ends as C-30.  We also need to see the potential from this victory to demand climate action, justice for First Nations, protection of our waters and wilderness.  Ultimately, the fight of our lives is likely to use the tools of effective citizenship in a democracy to protect democracy itself.

So, thank you! Celebrate! And re-commit to being an engaged and effective citizen.

The post The Death of Bill C-30 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May: Madam Speaker, when I ask my hon. colleague from Halifax West about the legislation, I add parenthetically that the hon. member and I were classmates at Dalhousie Law School in the same years and I want to ask him a legal question.

I look at the legislation and I do not see, as the Conservative members have pointed out, anything that lets police read our emails. I do see an unwarranted invasion of our privacy. How does hon. member feel about the fact that without warrant and without any suspicion of any crime, significant information would be turned over to law enforcement authorities?

Hon. Geoff Regan: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. classmate. I do not know how often that is said in the House. We often say hon. colleague, hon. friend but not often hon. classmate, so it is nice to be talking about the law with a young classmate from a few years ago.

The idea that without warrant investigators could have access to personal information that, as most Canadians feel, ought to be private is very disturbing and disconcerting. That is the question. What can we find as a balance to ensure police officers have the tools they need so they can quickly get the authorization they need to do the investigation and stop people who are engaging in child pornography from distributing it or taking part in any way in that kind of activity? We have to do that, while at the same time protect Canadians who are law-abiding computer users going about their activities online in a legitimate way, but who ought to be able to do that privately, without someone watching what they are doing. Therefore, it is very disturbing and that is the question with which the committee has to grapple.

The attitude of trying to figure this out is how a government ought to bring this kind of bill to the House, not saying it knows what it is doing and that it is not listening to anybody else and that if it is challenged, it will attack. It is by taking a much more open approach and being open to criticism and to changes.

The post Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and Freedoms (C) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to clear up a mystery for me. I attended the briefing held by the Minister of Public Safety on the morning of the bill’s first reading. There were no copies available for us in that lock-up, which was unheard of in my experience. I did get a copy of the bill called the lawful access act when I went to the opposition lobby.

I would like to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary why the bill was changed to the offensive title of protecting children from Internet predators act. When was the decision taken? Why was the decision taken at the last minute, with the result that there were no copies of the bill available in the opposition lobby at first reading?

Candice Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, that relates to the process as opposed to the actual details of the bill. Some might not find the title offensive. I am sorry if my colleague does find it offensive.

It is important for us to talk about the specifics of the bill. If there are ways that we can improve it, to continue to protect Canadians’ privacy while at the same time giving police the tools that they need, then let us do that. I am glad the member has the bill today and she had the bill in a timely manner.

I respectfully say I do not think at this point in time that dealing with this silly motion by the Liberals is a really important issue.

The post Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and Freedoms (B) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May: Madam Speaker, in the context of his very helpful comments about Bill C-30, I ask the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis about the following.

I put it to him that in the last number of years we have seen a sequence of decisions that have undermined the charter, the rule of law and respect for these institutions, beginning with the elimination of the Law Reform Commission, including the elimination of the court challenges program, as well as the government’s ignoring of the decision of the courts relating to the charter rights of Omar Khadr.

In that context, I wonder if we are seeing, as this opposition motion seems to suggest, a lack of understanding of the critical importance of the charter in our daily lives.

Francis Scarpaleggia: Madam Speaker, that is an interesting comment and it may be very true.

Canadians look to the government for guidance on issues and to reaffirm values such as those in the charter. Yet we see the government not being enthusiastic about supporting the charter or the rule of law. For example, we saw the Minister of Public Safety, I think for the third time in six weeks, being told by the court that he was wrong in refusing a prisoner transfer. In fact, he had no legal basis for making his decision.

Therefore, when we have a minister of the crown constantly forcing the courts to override him, that leaves a question in the minds of many Canadians as to whether our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is indeed sacrosanct.

The post Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and Freedoms appeared first on Elizabeth May.

A Greater Victoria MP says the federal government’s contentious Internet privacy bill – named the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act – is pure propaganda.

Elizabeth May, MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands, says the bill is laden with problems that should concern Canadians who don’t want their privacy severely intruded upon.

“I find the bill troubling on substantive levels, but I also find it really offensive that the communications and marketing strategy (for the bill) is to equate anyone with deep concerns about this bill with child pornographers,” said May, leader of the federal Green Party.

View the full original article >>

The post Saanich MP calls Internet privacy bill ‘propaganda’ appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Will the hon. member for Yukon also oppose Bill C-30, as I intend to do?

Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, personally I do not see the comparison between holding information in a database that is already going through the Internet in a manner that allows the proliferation of child pornography in our country in the same fashion as the database with the long gun registry.

As a long gun owner, I need to physically fill out paperwork and go through screening. That information is supplied to a registry that has been fraught with errors, a registry that sent back to me registration information for firearms I did not even own. That in and of itself risked putting me in a criminal position.

They are very different systems.

In my mind, the lawful access legislation is a good body of legislation that would shut down the heinous and sick crimes of pedophilia and child pornography that exist in our country. I will be voting in support of that. The privacy laws for Canadians in that legislation, as the minister made very clear, are going to be protected. I have read the bill and I am confident that the strict provisions for warrant applications would absolutely ensure the privacy of Canadians and also consumer and corporate competitiveness, which is an excellent step.

The post Ending The Long-Gun Registry Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Speaker: I have not heard anything to this point that indicates it is a point a order. It seems that it is a continuation of debate over what was said or positions that were taken. If members want to follow up on it, they can do so at a future question period, but not through points of order.

The post Point of Order – Oral Questions appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Every bill is introduced upon motion….

It further states, in Standing Order 68(3), that:

(3) No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.

I raise this looking for guidance. The copy of the bill that was distributed throughout the opposition lobbies referred to the bill as having a short title that was “the lawful access act”. However, having been briefed by the minister’s staff and representatives of the Department for Public Safety and the Department of Justice, we were informed earlier this morning in private, but without any copies of the legislation, that the bill was to have a short title, “protecting children from Internet predators act”.

I checked and found that the versions were distributed to all members of Parliament, at least to the opposition benches. I do not know whether the Conservatives received the proper copy. It appears to me that there is a significant chance that Bill C-30 was tabled in a way that violates Standing Order 68(3) and, therefore, was imperfect in its tabling and should be withdrawn.

This is a novel question for me in my brief time in the House but it suggests that it was a last minute public relations change to move from the short title “lawful access act” to “protecting children from Internet predators act”.

I raise this issue with you, Mr. Speaker, to have your guidance as to whether the imperfection in the way the bill was distributed to members affected the imperfection in the way it was delivered to the House itself.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her point of order and her intervention in this matter. We will look at that issue and get back to the House as would be necessary.

The post Point of Order – Short Title of Bill C-30 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“We are proposing measures to bring our laws into the 21st century and to provide the police with the lawful tools that they need,” Mr. Toews said to the MP for Lac-Saint-Louis, Quebec. “He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”

Mr. Toews’ remark prompted immediate condemnation from Green Party leader Elizabeth May and others:

Kady O’Malley
@kady Ah, civil debate. @ElizabethMay: Vic Toews just said in QP that opposing on-line spying bill = siding w child pornographers! #hw

Elizabeth May MP
@ElizabethMay @kady It just keeps on getting worse. Whenever I think we’ve hit rock bottom, Toews gets out a shovel. #hw

Michael Geist
@mgeist Vic Toews Has Been Smearing Lawful Access Critics For Weeks: a look at comments dating back to Nov 2011 is.gd/uA1twm

View the full original article >>

The post Online surveillance bill critics are siding with ‘child pornographers’: Vic Toews appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Former Bill C-50, C-51 and C-52 will be brought forward as part of an omnibus crime bill, though they deal with internet surveillance laws. “This proposed legislation has critical implications for data security and deserves proper Parliamentary hearings,” said May.  “Folding these issues into a larger bill with no hearings is unacceptable.”

The proposed legislation would force every phone and Internet provider to provide access to subscriber data without a warrant, even when that information is not part of any investigation. A recent survey conducted by the office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada found eight in ten of those polled “opposed giving police and intelligence agencies the power to access e-mail records and other Internet usage data without a warrant from the courts.”

“”It’s like having a CCTV camera in your home, and at your office watching every email you send, every phone call you make and every web site you click on. It’s creepy, it violates personal security and is inappropriate. The police should not be reading your email without a warrant first,” said Emma Jane Hogbin, Green Party Science and Technology Critic.

Privacy Commissioner of Canada Jennifer Stoddart, and her provincial and territorial counterparts, have objected to the proposed legislations because of privacy risks, stating in a letter that they have concerns over “the absence of limits on the access powers, the wide scope of information required to be collected and provided by telecommunications companies without a warrant and the inadequacy of internal controls and the legislative gaps in the oversight model.”

“I’ve been hearing from other Canadians that they share the concerns of the privacy Commissioner.  Canadian law enforcement obviously needs access to a certain amount of data in order to properly investigate crimes.  But these bills push that access way over the top to a point where it becomes an infringement on civil liberties. I encourage Citizens to work with OpenMedia.ca to educate their fellow Canadians about this plan for invasive surveillance,” said May.

The post Electronic surveillance laws go too far appeared first on Elizabeth May.