Toews Insists Bill C-30 Going Ahead

by Jordan Richardson on May 17, 2012

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has stated that the Tories’ Bill C-30, the online surveillance bill, is not dead in the water as has been reported in some places. What’s more the bill is going ahead through the political process.

“Our government has been very clear, that matter will be referred to a parliamentary committee. In fact we made it clear that legislation would proceed to committee prior to second reading,” Toews said on Wednesday.

The bill was initially tabled in February and was to usher in a “new era of online surveillance” in Canada. C-30 proposed to give police and investigators extensive powers to access electronic communications of Canadian citizens. The bill also allowed investigators and intelligence services the ability to push telecommunications companies for subscriber data without a warrant.

Bill C-30, which was racking up a set-up cost of nearly $80 million, appeared to be stalled out of the gate after public outcry got in the way. The government revealed that it was in “no hurry” to pass the legislation and the bill was set to be “redesigned.”

But Toews never took the surveillance bill off his mind, continuing his implication that Canadians can either stand with C-30 or “stand with the child pornographers.” His vitriolic approach even caused concerns from within his own caucus over the privacy implications of the bill.

So what’s next?

Toews can move the bill to committee for review before any House debate on it takes place, but that hasn’t happened yet. That review, it appears, has been stalled until fall. Toews, on Wednesday, stated that it was the House leader’s responsibility to determine when C-30 actually gets nosed into committee. He also asserted that his government was not prepared to simply back away from the bill.

Commons is expected to hit recess in June and it’s not expected that the bill will face review prior to that. Toews and Co. are probably wisely waiting for some of the heat on it to die down before they reintroduce the unpopular legislation. Whether that tactic will work to pull the wool over Canadians’ eyes remains to be seen, but stranger things have happened.

Did you like this post ? TheTelecomBlog.com publishes daily news, editorial, thoughts, and controversial opinion – you can subscribe by: RSS (click here), or email (click here).

Written by: Jordan Richardson. www.digitcom.ca. Follow TheTelecomBlog.com by: RSSTwitterFacebook, or YouTube.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

Rwolf November 19, 2012 at 12:58 am

U.S. Expanding Cross-border Police Integration With Canada & Asset Forfeiture Sharing

Concurrent with Obama’s proposed law legalizing and expanding cross-border police integration in North America, Canadians earlier this year discovered introduced (Commons Bill C-30 touted to protect children on the Internet—would also give any Canadian police officer—without a warrant—the power to request Internet service providers turn over customers’ information (see section 17 of C-30); allow Canadian police to seek into Canadians’ private computers. C-30 was strongly opposed by Canadians in April 2012. Canadians further discovered Canada had signed with the United States an array of (Asset Forfeiture Sharing Agreements) for Canada to share Canadian and Americans assets civilly or criminally confiscated using Asset Forfeiture laws that resulted from U.S. and Canada sharing information gleaned from electronic surveillance of Canadian and American Citizens’ communications, e.g., emails, faxes, Internet actively, phone records.

Compare: The Obama Government wants the power (without a warrant) to introduce as evidence in U.S. Civil; Criminal and Administrative prosecutions any phone call record, email or Internet activity. Police can take out of context any innocent—hastily written email, fax or phone call record to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person’s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There are more than 350 laws/violations that can subject property to Government forfeiture that require only a civil preponderance of evidence.

The U.S. “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” (effectively eliminated) the “five year statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the statute now runs five years (from the date) government or a police agency allege they “learned” an asset became subject to forfeiture. It is foreseeable should (no warrant) government electronic surveillance be allowed; police will relentlessly sift through business and Citizens’ (government retained Internet data), emails and phone communications to discover possible criminal or civil violations. History Repeats: A corrupt or despot U.S. Government/Agency can too easily use no-warrant—(seized emails, Internet data and phone call information) to blackmail Americans, corporations and others in the same manner Hitler used his police state no warrant passed laws to extort support for the Nazi fascist government, including getting members of German parliament to pass Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees that suspended the Constitutional Freedoms of German Citizens. A Nazi Government threat of Asset Forfeiture of an individual or corporation’s assets was usually sufficient to ensure Nazi support.

Under U.S. federal civil asset forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do the crime” may (involuntarily waive) a defendant’s right to assert in their defense—the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” past for prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow U.S. Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceedings to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason: many innocent Americans, property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. Annually U.S. Government seizes Billions in assets without filing criminal charges. Increasingly local police are turning their criminal investigations over to Federal Agencies to receive an 80% rebate of forfeited assets. Federal Government is not required to charge anyone with a crime to forfeit property.

Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S. See paragraph (6) at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html

Previous post:

Next post: