With the Government expected to table draft legislation next month, the heat on the lawful access file seems to be rising. The Globe ran a story earlier this week with a remarkably breathless and fearsome lead:
The federal government is demanding that the telecommunications industry build a wiretapping capacity into their networks that would allow authorities to conduct round-the-clock surveillance on the e-mail, Internet or phone use of more than 8,000 people at a time, sources say.
“Demanding”, because the Government intends to include the requirement in the legislation, I suppose, and that’s what law does. And “round-the-clock” surveillance? What else is there – haven’t these people seen Serpico? “Sources” in this case are presumably telcos, leaking details they’ve been given in briefing sessions ahead of the bill’s release, in an effort to sour public opinion early and take some out of the air out of what would presumably be costly technical compliance required of them. The Globe story is long on technical detail and short on policy discussion, a possible clue to its parentage.
The legislation has of course been expected since 2002, and with public consultations now behind it the Government is apparently readying the bill. Barring any major surprises, with an ineffective opposition and a government eager to ‘set things right’ with the Bush administration, the bill will make a steady if not swift progress through Parliament.
But troubling questions remain and anticipation of the legislation’s unveiling is growing. Michael Geist outlined some of the principal concerns in a recent post. For another good brief, see CIPPIC’s lawful access page.
I’m also interested to see whether the loyal opposition will be able to muster any useful contribution, with Peter MacKay as Justice critic. The Globe quotes him thusly:
Conservative justice critic Peter MacKay expressed skepticism yesterday about the measures, saying the law must be rigorously examined before the legislation is passed.
“It is typical of the contempt this government displays regularly for Parliament,” Mr. MacKay said. “It is another example of the lack of forthrightness and openness on the part of the Liberals.”
Mr. MacKay added that the bill must be complemented with adequate judicial oversights.
“Rigorous examination” and “adequate judicial oversights”. Yes, and someone will also have to check for typos.
Lord save us.