Mr. Toews mixes the message

Enlarge Image

(DALE CUMMINGS/ WINNIPEG FREE PRESS)

The Internet has evolved into a basic commodity Canadians depend on for business, information, entertainment and social contact. Like food, shelter and water, it won't be long before access to the worldwide web is considered a human right.

It's unfortunate, therefore, that the Harper government, which has never excelled at communications and public relations, has fumbled the discussion on how to balance the right to privacy against the need to investigate crimes.

Canadians are suspicious of any effort that might be construed as limiting their ability to roam free on the Internet in private, or to make phone calls without worrying Big Brother might be listening to every word.

So it was the duty of government to deliver clear, crisp information on why police need expanded powers.

Instead, amateur politics took precedence over principle, starting with the atrociously named Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.

The legislation is intended for a wide range of criminal activities linked to modern communications -- everything from extortion and money laundering to human trafficking and terrorism -- but child protection was obviously considered the easiest way to market a complicated concept.

Rather than tone down the name-calling, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews drew a line in the sand with his crude (and not very original): "You can either stand with us or with the child pornographers."

The emotional debate -- one anonymous critic has responded by violating Mr. Toews privacy on the Internet -- has been the subject of much misinformation and disinformation, but some of it could have been avoided if the Tories had provided thorough information before tabling the bill and involved Canadians more directly in the issue.

Critics have exaggerated the "warrantless" aspects of the bill. In fact, police will only be able to acquire basic information that is already widely available -- name, address and phone number -- from communication providers without a warrant, much the way they do now.

In fact, a red-light camera or computer check of an automobile licence gives police similar information, while public utilities and other organizations already co-operate in criminal investigations without requiring a warrant, which will still be needed if officers want to seize a computer or the information on it.

Police will not be "watching the surfing habits of Canadians," as some headlines breathlessly screamed, but they will certainly have that ability, much the way they have the right to break down a door if they have a warrant.

The legislation would actually enhance transparency and accountability by requiring records be kept and audited to ensure even the most simple information is only being sought for criminal investigations or other serious matters, such as suicide prevention.

The fact is the police need the ability in certain cases to determine who owns a particular computer and where they live, just as they may need to know who owns a particular cellphone if it is involved in a criminal incident.

That doesn't mean the legislation cannot be improved or tweaked, but the world has moved into cyberspace and so must the police if they are to remain relevant and effective. The legislation is not an attempt to spy on Canadians, but rather an effort to make it safer for everyone.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition February 16, 2012 A10