Justice Minister Peter MacKay appeared last week before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and was asked once again about the inclusion in Bill C-13 of an immunity provision for intermediaries for the voluntary disclosure of personal information. MacKay again suggested that warrants would be required for disclosure, yet this is simply inaccurate. The exchange:
Articles by: Michael Geist
Clement Confirms Canadian Non-Commercial Crown Copyright Licence Still Available
Treasury Board President Tony Clement has confirmed in a tweet that the federal government’s non-commercial crown copyright licence remains available. He indicates that a notice to this effect will be posted shortly. I blogged about the removal of the licence with the change in how the government handles crown copyright […]
Why Peter MacKay Is Wrong About Warrantless Access to Personal Information
The debate on Bill C-13 opened yesterday in the House of Commons with opposition MPs calling on the government to split the bill into two (cyberbullying and lawful access) and raising concerns about the voluntary disclosure provision that would give Internet providers complete criminal and civil immunity for voluntary retention and disclosure of subscriber information. When asked about the issue, Justice Minister Peter MacKay said the following:
The provision would clarify that the police officer can lawfully ask – and he points out – that individuals and groups voluntarily preserve data or provide documentation, but only when no prohibition exists against doing so. That is to suggest that organizations would still be bound by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, something known as PIPEDA, which makes it clear that an organization is entitled to voluntarily disclose personal information to the police, without the consent of the person to have the information relayed.
However police have to have lawful authority to do so. They still have to obtain a warrant. They can ask that the information be preserved and temporarily put on hold so that it cannot be deleted, but in order for police to access that information that is frozen, they must still obtain a warrant. There is no warrantless access.
Unfortunately, MacKay is wrong.
Snowden Documents Show U.S. Spy Operation at G20 in Toronto
The CBC reports that newly obtained Snowden documents reveal that the Canadian government allowed the NSA to conduct widespread surveillance during the 2010 G8 and G20 summits. The six-day spying operation was apparently conducted in close coordination with the Canadian partner.
NDP Calls on Government To Split C-13 While Stoddart Surprisingly Supports Approach
The New Democrats have called on the government to split Bill C-13, arguing that the cyberbullying provisions should be examined separately from the return of lawful access provisions. Somewhat surprisingly, outgoing Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart has expressed support for the government’s decision to include lawful access powers in the bill.
Recent Posts
Why Bill C-2 Faces a Likely Constitutional Challenge By Placing Solicitor-Client Privilege at Risk 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 237: A Conversation with Jason Woywada of BCFIPA on Political Party Privacy and Bill C-4 
Lawful Access on Steroids: Why Bill C-2’s Big Brother Tactics Combine Expansive Warrantless Disclosure with Unprecedented Secrecy 
Government Reverses on Privacy and the Charter: Department of Justice Analysis Concludes Political Party Privacy Bill Raises No Charter of Rights Effects 
“Big Brother Tactics”: Why Bill C-2’s New Warrantless Disclosure Demand Powers Extend Far Beyond Internet and Telecom Providers
