It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canadian Politics: Canada's Patriot Act

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
The Canadian Parliament introduced a sweeping surveillance bill called "The Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act" on November 15, 2005. Critics compare the bill to the permanent US Patriot Act now before the Senate, and say it "is a gross violation of Canadian civil liberties, of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and of our Constitutional entitlements." An article on the Global Research Canada website provides links to five Canada-US documents, and says:

"These reports and agreements reveal a very disturbing fact. Prime Minister Martin and his Ministers are not setting policy for Canada. They are taking instructions from the USA's president Bush and doing his bidding. The background force driving all the Leaders of Canada, Mexico and USA are the Chief Executive officers of the most influential corporations of those three countries."

See: Towards the Canadian Homeland Security State


1. The discussion paper of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives posted on their website November 2, 2005 called, "Building a 21st Century Canada- United States Partnership in North America, April 2004".

See: www.ceocouncil.ca...

2. "The Canada-US Smart Border Declaration" with a 30 point action Plan signed December 12,2001.

See: www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca...

3. "The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement" signed by President Bush, President Fox and Martin in March, 2005.

See: www.pm.gc.ca...

4. "The Report of Ministers to the Leaders" (President Bush, President Fox, Prime Minister Martin) -SPP- (Security and Prosperity Partnership)- North America, June 2005

See: www.fac-aec.gc.ca...

Anne McLellan, Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, David Emerson, Minister of Industry, and Pierre Pettigrew, Minister of Foreign Affairs are the reporting Ministers for Canada.

5. Report of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America called "Building A North American Community."

See: Trilateral Task Force Recommendations,
www.usembassycanada.gov...




posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
That is very interesting, soficrow.
I must have been sleeping or simply not paying attention to things happening in Canada. I was not aware that they had a version of the Patriot Act.

Interesting.




seekerof



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow


"These reports and agreements reveal a very disturbing fact. Prime Minister Martin and his Ministers are not setting policy for Canada. They are taking instructions from the USA's president Bush and doing his bidding.


This basically sums it up best.

A North American community indeed.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I have to admit, I don't know a whole lot about the Patriot act in the US. From what I have heard, it sacrifices freedom for security.

Regarding the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act (MITA), I had heard about it before on the local news. I had only heard that they are trying to pass a bill that will allow a more high tech way of spying on criminal suspects.

Here is some information from the government of Canada's web site.

www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca...


The Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act (MITA) is intended to ensure that telecommunications service providers build and maintain an interception capability on their networks that allows for the lawful interception of communications by law enforcement agencies and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). Similar legislation is already in place in many countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Australia. This Act will also require service providers to provide subscriber contact information upon request and in accordance with strict privacy safeguards. The following is an overview of key provisions within MITA.
...
Under MITA, telecommunications service providers will also be required to provide to designated officials, upon request, a subscriber’s contact information. This includes a subscriber’s name and address, telephone number, e-mail address, Internet Protocol address and similar basic identifiers.


This could be used to get rid of the anonymity we have become comfortable with on the Internet.

Here is more from the web site.
www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca...


Lawful interception is not used to monitor everyone’s telephone and Internet communications and MITA will not change that. The interception of communications can only be done with legal authority and MITA will not change in any way existing authorities to intercept communications. The Government of Canada is firmly committed to protecting the privacy rights of Canadians.
...
MITA will not provide law enforcement or CSIS with any new interception powers. Interception powers exist in the Criminal Code (since 1974), Canadian Security Intelligence Services Act (since 1984) and other Acts of Parliament. MITA will not change these existing authorities in any way.
...
There are currently a variety of practices in releasing subscriber contact information. In some instances services providers may request a warrant and in others they may not. What MITA will do is put in place a consistent way of doing things.


www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca...


The Government of Canada is firmly committed to protecting the privacy rights of Canadians. This legislation is the result of extensive consultations and reflects the valuable input of many stakeholders including policing organizations, the telecommunications industry, privacy commissioners and human rights advocates. The privacy considerations included in this proposed legislation strike the right balance between the needs of police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to maintain their investigative capabilities in the face of new technology while respecting Canadians’ privacy.



Here is a link to the proposed legislation.

BILL C-74l



BILL C-74
RECOMMENDATION
Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled “An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to facilitate the lawful interception of information transmitted by means of those facilities and respecting the provision of telecommunications subscriber information”.


The bill, like any other, is long and complicated. I'm not able to read it thoroughly at this time.
Regarding our privacy and abuse of the act, here is what I've found in the bill.



The purpose of this Act is to ensure that telecommunications service providers have the capability to enable national security and law enforcement agencies to exercise their authority to intercept communications, and to require service providers to provide subscriber and other information, without unreasonably impairing the privacy of individuals, the provision of telecommunications services to Canadians or the competitiveness of the Canadian telecommunications industry.




The Privacy Commissioner may, on reasonable notice, conduct an audit of the practices of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Commissioner of Competition to ensure compliance with sections 17 to 19 and the regulations made for the purposes of those sections and of the internal management and information systems and controls concerning requests made under sections 17 and 18. The provisions of the Privacy Act apply, with any necessary modifications, in respect of the audit as if it were an investigation under that Act.




2) Before making an order, the Governor in Council shall consider


(a) the extent to which the exemption would adversely affect national security or law enforcement;


(b) whether the telecommunications service providers can comply with the obligations from which they would be exempted;


(c) whether the costs of compliance with those obligations would have an unreasonable adverse effect on the business of the telecommunications service providers; and


(d) whether compliance with those obligations would unreasonably impair the provision of telecommunications services to Canadians or the competitiveness of the Canadian telecommunications industry.



OFFENCES
50. No person shall do any of the following things in performing any obligation under this Act or in any application, declaration or report made under it:

(a) knowingly make a false or misleading statement or knowingly provide false or misleading information; or

(b) knowingly omit to state a material fact or to provide material information.


Like I said I haven't gone through the bill thoroughly, but so far I'm not very concerned about MITA violating my privacy.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Thanks Umbrax. Great research.


Re: "without unreasonably impairing the privacy of individuals"

Can you please provide the official definition of "unreasonably" that you find so reassuring?

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
To be honest I don't find the governments web site reassuring.
I'm just going by the actual bill itself.
The government can write anything on a web page but it doesn't mean anything unless it is supported in the actual bill.

From what I've read so far I'm not very concerned about MITA violating my privacy. Getting into the bill further and with better comprehension may change my opinion.

I do find bills and contracts hard to read.
I think they do that on purpose
.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax

From what I've read so far I'm not very concerned about MITA violating my privacy. Getting into the bill further and with better comprehension may change my opinion.

I do find bills and contracts hard to read.
I think they do that on purpose
.




Yes, they do. And the key to determining impact lies in how the word "unreasonably" is defined. If it's not defined, they can do anything they want - and just say it's reasonable. That's how law works, and legislation is law.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Thanks Soficrow for this thread, it can be pretty hard in this country to berate Paul and and his party for fear of people looking at you like you have 2 heads. What is disturbing though, is that, the threat they have always alloted to the opposition, (that they are in cahoots with the U.S.) is BS and furthermore they themselves have once again denied the Canadian people of the truth. This is defintely calling the pot black when it comes to hidden agendas.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   
I have not finished reading the bill yet but my first impression of MITA is not positive. I don't feel comforted by this Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada statement about it.



The lawful interception of communications is provided for in legislation including the Criminal Code and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and always requires legal authority.

There are already provisions in place to handle requests for the information. Why is further legislation required? Unless perhaps they are trying to slip something by us.




Law enforcement agencies and CSIS also require timely access to accurate subscriber information. Subscriber information under MITA is basic contact information, such as that found in a phone book, and includes a subscriber’s name, address, telephone number, e‑mail or Internet address.

Hmmm, just like the phone book except the phone book gives you the option of being unlisted.



While in some cases the information is provided upon request, in others search warrants are requested before disclosing this information.

Subscriber information is often required at the beginning of an investigation or for general policing duties. In these circumstances, the police may not be able to get a warrant given the little information available to them, and the time it would take in order to gather the necessary information for a warrant, where it is possible, can be critical to an investigation.

Ah, now I get it. This would allow them access to information they might not have been entitled to because they were unable to gather enough evidence to get a warrant. That's an interesting reversal in policy.

Just think of all the time they can save when they don't have to collect all that pesky evidence to get a warrant. And the sheer genius of effectively raising all of our ISP bills when the providers pass the cost of 'interception capabilities' to us.


Returning to wireless data and unlisted phone numbers.... The timing and irony of this weeks cover story in MacLean's is not to be missed. Read about how the magazine purchased records of all the phone calls made by a Quebec Privacy Commissioner on her government-issued Blackberry. It seems to be quite relevant to this topic.



When police are investigating a crime and want phone records, they must seek a court order. Recent commissions of inquiry, like Justice John Gomery's probe of Adscam or the investigation into the computer leasing fiasco at Toronto city hall, had to issue subpoenas to compel telecom companies to share such data. Government efforts to expand their phone monitoring powers as part of the war on terror are being fought tooth and nail by privacy and civil liberties organizations. Most Canadians consider their call records privileged information, and the courts have backed them up time and time again.

Yet Maclean's was able to purchase the privacy commissioner's phone logs online from a U.S. data broker, no questions asked. For about US$200 per order, Locatecell.com delivered months of long-distance records from her Bell Canada home and cottage accounts. They were also able to access her Telus Mobility cellphone call logs for October -- a monthly bill she probably hadn't even received at the time. And all the Internet requests were turned around in a matter of hours. (In a test run, the company was also able to obtain the cell records of a senior Maclean's editor from Fido, a division of Rogers, the company that owns this magazine.) Reverse phone number lookup engines on federal government and phone company websites provided the identities of many of the people Stoddart called, or who called her. On Sept. 15, for example, there was a call from her Montreal home to a relative in Frelighsburgh, Que. On Oct. 15, she called the house of one of her communications advisers from her cellphone. And on Oct. 27, she twice called the desk of another. While many of the numbers on the bills were cellphones or unlisted, anyone looking to fill in the blanks would only have to call until they hit voicemail recordings.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
IMO - This bill is predictable - part of the legal "harmonization" required under NAFTA.

...I call it the Corporate State of North America. I've written about it here on ATS:

US Brokers Continental Corporate Takeover: Update March 22, 2005

Patriot Act II. Update

USA, Inc: Executive Clemency for Executive Killers

A Military-Governmental-Industrial Conspiracy?






posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Excellent research on this topic people.

I've been uncomfortable with Canada's use of "security certificates" since I learned about them some years back.

This new legislation is Canada getting on the G8 security bandwagon. Everybody is doing it.

As for the interpretation of specific provisions and terms like "reasonable" it will be left up to judges to interpret the law. It always amazes me that these issues hardly raise any fuss in Canada. We get away with lots of things because of our "Dudley Do Right" image. But we're just as bad as anyone else.

Take a look at the leadership of the G8 right now. Italy has scandal ridden Berlusconi. France is in deep trouble with innefective leadership. Britain has Blair, the US has Bush, Australia has Howard. We have Martin's scandal ridden government, etc.

A real crisis of leadership all around with apathetic populations. Sadly, the corporate plutocracy is well entrenched and they're getting their way with us.
.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I've sent pleading emails to the leaders of all the parties, including the BQ, to stop this bill or at least drag out any kind of passage until after an election.

I am not really technically smart, so maybe someone can answer this for me. If we have interception capability built-in so the government can eavesdrop on our cellphones, Blackberries and internet habits, does this pose any sort of security risk? Is there any possibility that someone other than the authorities could use this? How hard would this be to protect? You can see from the above article I posted they can't even protect their own cellphone records.




posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphacenturi
Thanks Soficrow for this thread, it can be pretty hard in this country to berate Paul and and his party for fear of people looking at you like you have 2 heads.


Really? I thought most people thoroughly reviled the Liberals but hate the Conservatives more.



What is disturbing though, is that, the threat they have always alloted to the opposition, (that they are in cahoots with the U.S.) is BS and furthermore they themselves have once again denied the Canadian people of the truth. This is defintely calling the pot black when it comes to hidden agendas.


Well Harper is all for Security Certificates and I'm sure if he got a Majority he would tighten the legislation further. Remember to them if you got nothing to hide you got nothing to worry about(both the Libs and Cons think this way)

The only politicians I've heard attacking these policies is Layton(I'm sure the Greens are objecting as well but who really listens to them in Canadian politics anyway, they're policies make too much sense )

[edit on 19-11-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 19-11-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gools

Take a look at the leadership of the G8 right now. Italy has scandal ridden Berlusconi. France is in deep trouble with innefective leadership. Britain has Blair, the US has Bush, Australia has Howard. We have Martin's scandal ridden government, etc.

A real crisis of leadership all around with apathetic populations. Sadly, the corporate plutocracy is well entrenched and they're getting their way with us.
.



Thanks Gools.

Am fairly brain dead this am - and had to look up plutocracy:

plutocracy
1 [U] a system of government in which the richest people in a country rule or have power:
It's time we put an end to plutocracy.
2 [C] a country where the richest people have power




That's it of course. But I wonder why they dumped Lord Black.


Anyway - IMO - the rich guys used trade law, and revised corporate law, to enstate corporations where monarchies used to be. It's almost a done deal.

What can we do to protect ourselves at this point?

In Canada, the Liberals suck, the Conservatives are worse - and the NDP is not a player. What can be done?


.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
In Canada, the Liberals suck, the Conservatives are worse - and the NDP is not a player. What can be done?


Revolution? Anarchy? Something has to change when the people of Canada feel they have to vote for corruption to keep destruction out of power. It looks like minority governments are here to stay for a while.
Personally I don't think anything will change, we need a hero.


Majic's Political Easter Egg: Be the first to post the year in which the Federal Militia Act (which created a Canadian army) was passed in this thread and send Majic a U2U with a link to your post, and you will be awarded 500 PTS points.

[edit on 7/15/2006 by Majic]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 07:52 AM
link   


Majic's Political Easter Egg: Be the first to post the year in which the Federal Militia Act (which created a Canadian army) was passed in this thread and send Majic a U2U with a link to your post, and you will be awarded 500 PTS points.

[edit on 7/15/2006 by Majic]


1868 -The first Federal Militia Act is passed, creating a Canadian army.



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Majic's Political Easter Eggs


Originally posted by JacKatMtn
1868 -The first Federal Militia Act is passed, creating a Canadian army.

Correct! It occurs to me that this question may have been somewhat ambiguous, since there have been several kinds of militia acts and amendments in Canada's history, but this was the act which first created what could be considered a Canadian Army.

www.cmhg.gc.ca...

For your service, you have been awarded 500 PTS Points.

Nicely done.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Do any of the other Canadian members here belive that the MITA is simply an add on to the current War Measures Act?

If and when invovked the WMW provides the current governement with extreme and extensive political and social powers beyond the nature of natural governement which can be for an indefinate period of time.

In myopinion the MITA is just an extension of the WMA but can be used with out inciting political upheavial, more to the point, political upheaval in Quebec.

Arctinull



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join