section 184(2)(c)(i-ii) of the criminal code suggests they dont need a warrant to do full packet inspection for the purposes of running a network
criminal code of canada (part 6 - wiretap)
184. (1) Every one who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to:
(c) a person engaged in providing a telephone, telegraph or other communication service to the public who intercepts a private communication,
(i) if the interception is necessary for the purpose of providing the service,
(ii) in the course of service observing or random monitoring necessary for the purpose of mechanical or service quality control checks, or
(iii) if the interception is necessary to protect the persons rights or property directly related to providing the service;
The Criminal Code of Canada's section 184.2.c.i-ii DOES NOT warrant them to do packet sniffing. It allows them to ONLY 'sample' traffic for quality reasons. You need to remember that these rules were drafted to stop people making their own wire taps on phone technology. What the statement is saying is that: If I am a phone tech I am allowed to connect to the line to check for hums/crackels/dead-service and then do my job to fix it. With Internet traffic you may not capture a person's traffic unless a court order is issued to do so. The subject of traffic shaping is very different...They are looking into packet headers and making changes that are not a privacy issue...I recommend anyone interested in this to read the Lawful Access Consultation document on the justice.gc.ca website (google it).
meekalbot: reading/capturing a person's traffic is not necessary for keeping the system running and in court a telco would get shot down. Again those rules pertain to a pre-IP world...