Strategies around both timing and messaging helped the success of the effort to halt Bill C-30. First, opponents began campaigning even before the bill was introduced. “We made sure we did so early -- after we knew the initiative was coming, but before the government was ready to push forward with it in a serious way,” notes Israel. “For example, we hosted a roundtable amongst interested parties with representatives from a broad range of groups and individuals…within a month or so of the legislation's revival in early 2011. Having our coalition in place and operating early/preemptively was critical, in my mind.”

By the time Bill C-30 officially came under consideration, around 40,000 people had already signed the Stop Online Spying petition. That number eventually rose to around 147,000 signatures.                            

As for messaging, CIPPIC and others had to find ways of countering the government’s talking points. For example, the government asserted that nothing privacy-invasive was afoot, and tried to describe online data as being similar to information that could be found in a phonebook. Yet C-30 opponents used the analogy of footprints, which could be used to track one’s every step, to debunk the claim.

The coalition also showed that the need for this legislation had yet to be demonstrated, resulting in over-broad powers that had little to do with the actual problems law enforcement claimed it was trying to solve in the technical realm. Finally, the legislation was presented in Parliament as 'child pornography' legislation. The coalition debunked this myth by explaining in detail how the bill had little, if anything, to do with child exploitation.

“This ability to provide the full range of messaging (and to do it early) in a coordinated manner was critical,” notes Israel. “It ensured all of our messaging was substantively on point, while raising general awareness, providing the press with enough information to understand the true nature of the legislation. When the government announced that 'this legislation is about child pornography,' for example, the media could directly access sources explaining very clearly and directly, with references to the legislation, how this was not the case.”