Hello Mr. Toews,
I just listened to your interview with Evan Solomon of the CBC, in which you stated that you have neither read nor do you understand the content of Bill C-30. Putting aside for a moment the question of why you slandered critics of the bill by stating that they "support child pornographers" when you yourself have not read the bill and cannot demonstrate an understanding of its contents, I am presently writing to you in search of an answer to the question below. In seeking an answer to this question, I will also put aside for a moment my doubts as to the wisdom of conjoining a large variety of important legislation into one Omnibus Crime Bill, thus limiting the possibilities for debate or scrutiny over the individual parts of tabled as "Omnibus". I will also ignore the recent events surrounding Vikileaks's illumination of the public records related to your personal life, Mr. Toews, except to state that now you may better understand why Canadians will not tolerate the governmental unconstitutionally spying into their affairs (although Vikileaks itself does not represent criminal or unconstitutional activity).
My question to you is the following: is it not normal parliamentary procedure for a minister (and indeed other MPs) to read and understand the legislation that is under the mandate and jurisdiction of their department, which they will be championing in public forums (in this regard, you rather childishly and boorishly denigrated critics as "supporters of child pornography"), and upon which they will be voting in the House of Commons?
Surely, such activity is in fact at the heart of the function of an MP, and most especially one who is also a senior minister, for otherwise Canadians would have elected to Parliament an incompetent and irresponsible Member. Given that in this case you, Mr. Toews, are ostensibly the Minster responsible for Public Safety, it is paramount that you competently perform this charge lest the public be endangered due to irresponsible governance.
It is now clear to all Canadians who look into the matter, in either a systemic or a cursory way, that Bill C-30 is either ill-considered and poorly-formulated, or it represents a wilful disregard for the constitutional rights granted to all Canadians. It is here that I will return to your insulting comments about child pornography. I know several victims of childhood sexual abuse, and furthermore my mother The Reverend Dorothy Hewlett (Anglican) has spent a great deal of her professional life counselling victims of childhood sexual abuse. Your casual and irresponsible invocation (use) of the horrors which abused children suffered and continue to suffer is a callous and opportunistic ploy to silence critics of what is an unconstitutional or ill-considered legislative mistake. How dare you, Mr. Toewes? You are in effect condoning the suffering of individuals as the rhetorical justification for the ignorance which Bill C-30 represents. If you are a religious person, Mr. Toews, you need to look at yourself in a mirror and then speak with your god. If you aren't religious, then please just look at yourself in a mirror for a while.
Mr. Toews, due to the fact that you do not appear to be properly performing your duties as minister, due to the fact that in the process of performing your responsibilities you insulted not those Canadians who are critical of Bill C-30 but also the victims of childhood sexual abuse whom you purport to be defending, I cannot in good conscious allow the epithet "Right Honourable" in the same sentence as your name.
VIC TOEWS'S OFFICE RESPONDS IN FORM STYLE:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.
Canada's laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.
We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.
Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.
What's needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.
For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.
Sincerely,
Vic Toews
Member of Parliament for Provencher
Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.
Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.
Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.
Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.
Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.
Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.
Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.
Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.
Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.
Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.
Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.
Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.
BOB RAE'S OFFICE RESPONDS IN SLIGHTLY LESS FORM
-LETTER STYLE
Dear Quintin Hewlett:
On behalf of Liberal Leader Bob Rae, I would like thank you for your email regarding Bill C-30, the Conservative legislation that will allow Vic Toews and Stephen Harper to creep your Facebook and read your emails.
It’s unacceptable for the Conservatives to paint this as strictly an issue of pedophilia and child pornography; Canadians deserve an honest debate on something this serious. This is a complex bill that contains numerous provisions requiring scrutiny and careful examination at Committee. A proper balance must be struck between the privacy rights of Canadians and public safety.
Privacy is a fundamental freedom enshrined in our Charter and Canadians have every right to be worried about heightened surveillance of their online activities. Liberals are seriously concerned about the lack of judicial oversight in this bill relating to subscriber data, and that forcing ISP and telecomm providers to have the capacity to trace all communications in their system could create a very slippery slope. After all, this is a governing party that has proven itself willing to violate online privacy before – like with its Facebook creeping activities during the last election.
The Liberal Party will be proposing several amendments to Bill C-30, including adding the requirement that there is judicial oversight before law enforcement can access personal subscriber information. In addition, we are calling for open and transparent hearings on this legislation. If you would like to support these proposals you can sign our petition.
Thank you for taking the time to write to the Leader of the Liberal Party.
Yours sincerely,
Colin McKoneOffice of the Liberal Leader
RESPONSE TO TOEWS
Mr. Toews,
Since you did not address my complaints about your invocation of child abuse, I will address your interpretation of Bill C-30. I have taken into consideration the "myth/fact" sheet forwarded to me by your office.
VIC TOEWS OFFICIAL RESPONSE MYTH: "Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change."
FACT: Several Provincial Privacy Commissioners have outlined the precise manner in which Bill C-30 will undermine the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Furthermore, since Canadian law protects the privacy of non-law-abiding persons in an equal manner as it law-abiding persons (the key word upon which the law rests being "person", not "law-abiding"), the government has no right to breach this privacy during the course of an investigation **without judicial oversight**. In other words, law enforcement agencies are required to obtain a search warrant in order to breach the privacy of *any* person.
VIC TOEWS OFFICIAL RESPONSE MYTH: 1: "This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities."2: "The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public."
FACT: Not only does the "modern phone book" allow real-time monitoring of the location data associated with ISP and wireless connections, but the Vic Toewes Myth is being entirely disingenuous to its own intentions. Law enforcement agencies would seek subscriber information in order to read the contents of that person's communications in order to determine evidence supporting the guilt of that person relative to the criminal intentions presumed by the law enforcement officials who initiated the investigation. Otherwise why would law enforcement bother to engage in breaching a person's privacy?
VIC TOEWS OFFICIAL RESPONSE MYTH: "Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access."
FACT: The checks and balances you indicate are entirely at the discretion of the investigating officer(s). Under the proposed bill, investigators would have to log and report the activities of their online investigation. However, there is no mechanism in the bill by which a party exterior to the investigating officer(s) has supervisory jurisdiction over the investigation except in the retrospective manner. Thus, the bill assumes an element of "faith" and "due diligence" on the part of investigating officer(s) as to the intentions behind their capacity to breach the a citizen's privacy. A hypothetical example: an officer pulls over a female driver for speeding. A few days later, that officer accesses the woman's personal information without a warrant. Under Bill C-30, there is no mechanism by which the officer will be impeded in his illegal activities; the woman's privacy will be breached.
Mr. Toews, at this point I wish to address the fact that the Bill itself, as well as your childishly irresponsible description of opponents of the bill as "supporting child pornography", casually and wilfully invokes the suffering of children for political gain. There are absolutely no provision in the bill which will specifically address the needs of victims of childhood sexual assault (as a minor example, there exists a great number of sex abuse victims who cannot afford to pay for the counselling or psychological treatment; they are left to fend for themselves), so naming the bill itself "Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act" is a unconscionable travesty, and you and your government should be absolutely ashamed for your disgusting rhetoric in relation to this issue.
Mr. Toews, It is clear to me that your government operates with a myopic and opportunistic arrogance which demonstrates the morally-bankrupt nature of your politics.
