The story goes something like this:
In 1986, when they were in Mr Havelaar's English 11 class at Robron Secondary, Mike and Kevin persuaded him to let them do a Super-8 film about skiing on Mt Washington for their final project. It was a huge success, and next year, when they were in his English 12 class, they repeated with an equally well-received slide-show on the same subject.
According to them, they were rather indifferent students, so they, after graduation (at least Mike; I'm not sure about Kevin) rather than heading for university or college, instead went skiing.
Mike subsequently became Mike Douglas, founding member of the "New Canadian Air Force" and "godfather of freeskiing" (according to the Wikipedia page) a professional skier presently a documentary filmmaker specializing in ski films. Kevin Fogolin today is a professional forester and principal in Dynamic Avalanche Consulting. Both live in Whistler; both still live to ski; both have, in effect, turned skiing into careers.
There are corrections to this story, but they are minor: there must have been two English 11 teachers involved, because according to my records only Kevin was in my English 11 class, while both were in my English 12 class. The film was indeed excellent (I saw it again when they were here recently) and they both graduated with a B in English 12. In other words, they both scored well above average.
I wouldn't have known any of this if I hadn't looked it up. If, in the 25 or so intervening years I ever heard mention of either of these men, I certainly didn't connect their names with those of former students.
Then Mike phoned. He had to jog my memory about the film before I had even a vague recollection. He was doing a film involving Kevin and a helicopter accident in the Coast Range in winter a couple of years ago that he, the pilot, and one other walked away from. Both he and Kevin remembered the film they had made in English 11 fondly: could they come and interview me about it?
I honestly had little relevant to say. At the time a major project was a requirement of my senior English courses; usually these were research essays. And I cannot have been of much help: I didn't use a Super-8 camera myself, although I'd had a few students do film projects before. But I did remember there had been a film, and did I remember Kevin's name and that he had been a really pleasant kid. So I said "sure".
Whether anything comes of that somewhat awkward interview, it was more than interesting to meet these two after so many years, and it struck me that there has to be something of a reflection implicit in their stories.
No one, not even the boys they were at the time, could have projected their career trajectories when they were in high school. The jobs they do today hadn't even been invented yet when they graduated. And even if there had been such careers, there's nothing to suggest two friends from a town as small as Campbell River would have opted for them or could have made the grade. If there was any sign of the determination and work habits it took to get them to accomplish what they have to date, this wasn't evident in school, although they might perhaps have been extrapolated from the the time they spent on the mountain.
Hindsight is always perfect, and any narrative only makes sense as edited by the teller in retrospect, so when Mike claims his Grade 11 film-making experience was influential, I believe him but don't take any of the credit. His present career is a logical extension of innumerable decisions, coupled with a considerable native talent.
But it is a good thing he and Kevin got the opportunity in Grade 11, and other worthy school objectives or bureaucratic hurdles didn't get in the way.
The considerable resources pushed at secondary career counselling have always struck me as something of an expensive and unrealistic pipe dream. Stories like those of Mike and Kevin don't do anything to change my opinion.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Takeaway from Victoria
Congratulations to the Victoria NDP campaign team, who got the vote out and their man elected.
But it was close: 37.2% NDP vs 34.3% for the Greens. Denise Savoie won Victoria handily for the NDP in the last three elections, with over 50% of the popular vote last time, so what can the results mean?
One cannot fault the candidate, distinguished lawyer Murray Rankin, whose record speaks for itself. Besides, he missed Denise Savoie's popular vote when she won the first time in 2006, by only 1.2%. His stand on the sewage plant may have cost him some votes, but his position was the only one that was principled. (And he was and is right: Victoria cannot continue to pump essentially untreated sewage into the Straits of Juan de Fuca; this issue should have been dealt with years ago, and the fact that it is more expensive now should be irrelevant. All the rest of us on Vancouver Island dealt with this issue years ago. I don't necessarily expect more from Liberals and Conservatives, but the Greens ought to be embarrassed by their pandering non-position.)
I think we should pay attention to the runner-up, Donald Galloway, another lawyer with impeccable law credentials. With him as the candidate the Greens in Victoria went from 11.6% (highest popular vote percentage to that point) in 2011 to 34.3%, a gain of 22.7%. Not too shabby.
Also, I suspect, entirely unrepeatable.
I have no particular knowledge here, but I think we've seen this picture before: in Saanich, during the last federal election, when Elizabeth May's team beat Conservative cabinet minister Gary Lunn by some 9%.
There is no doubt the "May Team" is a formidable political organization. There is also no doubt that it is financed by and made up of enthusiasts from all the Victoria-area constituencies. Thanks to their work Elizabeth May has become a political power on the south Island. (I would have voted for her myself had I been living in Saanich during the last election. Almost anything is preferable to Gary Lunn, and Elizabeth May is a huge improvement!)
There is also no doubt that Donald Galloway was able to call on the May Team and on Elizabeth May and that they delivered big-time. The reason they didn't win is that they were up against the lower-Island NDP: 7 provincial constituencies, only two of which are not currently represented by NDP MLAs, all of which have strong NDP organizations.
So why won't there be a repeat in the next federal election? That's because the team is Elizabeth's, and the Conservatives will continue to throw everything (including dirty tricks) they can at her to try to take the seat back. She'll need the bodies and the money in her fight; there won't be enough left for other candidates in the area. Prediction: next federal election watch the Green vote in Victoria go back to traditional numbers; if Justin Trudeau becomes Liberal leader, watch the Liberal vote increase dramatically.
On the other hand, I believe there is an immediate implication for next May's provincial election. As I've said before, I don't think Green Party provincial leader Jane Sterk has a chance in Victoria-Beacon Hill against Carole James. Undoubtedly some Greens will gravitate there, but I expect the bulk of May's troops will probably move to support professor Andrew Weaver in OakBay-Gordon Head. With (in my opinion) a relatively weak incumbent and a demonstrably weak NDP candidate, he actually has an excellent chance of being the first Green elected to the BC Legislature, provided he finds an organization to do the work on the ground.
And it wouldn't be a bad thing for an NDP goverment to have a Green in the Leg.
But it was close: 37.2% NDP vs 34.3% for the Greens. Denise Savoie won Victoria handily for the NDP in the last three elections, with over 50% of the popular vote last time, so what can the results mean?
One cannot fault the candidate, distinguished lawyer Murray Rankin, whose record speaks for itself. Besides, he missed Denise Savoie's popular vote when she won the first time in 2006, by only 1.2%. His stand on the sewage plant may have cost him some votes, but his position was the only one that was principled. (And he was and is right: Victoria cannot continue to pump essentially untreated sewage into the Straits of Juan de Fuca; this issue should have been dealt with years ago, and the fact that it is more expensive now should be irrelevant. All the rest of us on Vancouver Island dealt with this issue years ago. I don't necessarily expect more from Liberals and Conservatives, but the Greens ought to be embarrassed by their pandering non-position.)
I think we should pay attention to the runner-up, Donald Galloway, another lawyer with impeccable law credentials. With him as the candidate the Greens in Victoria went from 11.6% (highest popular vote percentage to that point) in 2011 to 34.3%, a gain of 22.7%. Not too shabby.
Also, I suspect, entirely unrepeatable.
I have no particular knowledge here, but I think we've seen this picture before: in Saanich, during the last federal election, when Elizabeth May's team beat Conservative cabinet minister Gary Lunn by some 9%.
There is no doubt the "May Team" is a formidable political organization. There is also no doubt that it is financed by and made up of enthusiasts from all the Victoria-area constituencies. Thanks to their work Elizabeth May has become a political power on the south Island. (I would have voted for her myself had I been living in Saanich during the last election. Almost anything is preferable to Gary Lunn, and Elizabeth May is a huge improvement!)
There is also no doubt that Donald Galloway was able to call on the May Team and on Elizabeth May and that they delivered big-time. The reason they didn't win is that they were up against the lower-Island NDP: 7 provincial constituencies, only two of which are not currently represented by NDP MLAs, all of which have strong NDP organizations.
So why won't there be a repeat in the next federal election? That's because the team is Elizabeth's, and the Conservatives will continue to throw everything (including dirty tricks) they can at her to try to take the seat back. She'll need the bodies and the money in her fight; there won't be enough left for other candidates in the area. Prediction: next federal election watch the Green vote in Victoria go back to traditional numbers; if Justin Trudeau becomes Liberal leader, watch the Liberal vote increase dramatically.
On the other hand, I believe there is an immediate implication for next May's provincial election. As I've said before, I don't think Green Party provincial leader Jane Sterk has a chance in Victoria-Beacon Hill against Carole James. Undoubtedly some Greens will gravitate there, but I expect the bulk of May's troops will probably move to support professor Andrew Weaver in OakBay-Gordon Head. With (in my opinion) a relatively weak incumbent and a demonstrably weak NDP candidate, he actually has an excellent chance of being the first Green elected to the BC Legislature, provided he finds an organization to do the work on the ground.
And it wouldn't be a bad thing for an NDP goverment to have a Green in the Leg.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
RCMP attitude: an opportunity missed
It's 9:30 AM on a grey Tuesday in November. A 68-year old man and his dog exit the car parked on the side of the Airport Road in Campbell River. The man has glasses, a goatee, and a backpack and is wearing a baseball cap and hiking boots. The dog, a black Standard Poodle inexplicably named "Pumpkin" is wearing a bright blue collar. They're setting out on their daily walk.
As they approach the gate on the Erickson Main, the logging road behind the airport that leads to the Duncan Bay Main, the man notices a black truck with a black canopy backed right up to the "NO PARKING" sign.
Although he knows most of the vehicles of the regular dog-walkers, he doesn't recognize this one, and wonders if maybe they'll meet a new dog. And it reminds him of an incident he witnessed last summer, when he encountered a furious person with a gate key who wanted to exit and couldn't because of another truck.
The man lets the dog off the leash as soon as they're on the logging road. The dog, nose down, heads up the road and the man follows.
When the dog turns the first corner, the man suddenly hears barking. Then, rounding the corner, he sees a furious Shepherd cross straining at the end of a short leash. This dog is accompanied by two bullet-shaped men, one of whom is holding the leash and saying something. Both men have yellow stripes down their pant legs.
The man says, "Here, Pumpkin". But Pumpkin is in dog-meeting mode, so that's the only thing in his small mind.
The policeman holding the Shepherd says, "Don't come here" and something that is drowned out by the Shepherd's fury.
So the man yells, "Pumpkin, Come!" Then starts to explain, "Sorry, he's not my dog, and sometimes he just doesn't..." But Pumpkin, now less than 50 feet from the Shepherd, has already figured out that this is not a dog he wants to meet, so he just stands. The man grabs Pumpkin's collar and puts him back on his leash.
The Shephered is still going nuts at the end of his leash as the man and his Poodle pass by on the other side of the road.
The Constable holding the dog exclaims, "You should be more careful when you see a police vehicle."
To which the man replies, "I didn't see a police vehicle."
"We're parked right in front of the gate!"
"And where does it say 'police' on that vehicle?"
As the constables and their dog round the corner, the man hears, "I suppose you wouldn't recognize a school bus either!"
Good one, Constable. And great job on the PR.
As they approach the gate on the Erickson Main, the logging road behind the airport that leads to the Duncan Bay Main, the man notices a black truck with a black canopy backed right up to the "NO PARKING" sign. Although he knows most of the vehicles of the regular dog-walkers, he doesn't recognize this one, and wonders if maybe they'll meet a new dog. And it reminds him of an incident he witnessed last summer, when he encountered a furious person with a gate key who wanted to exit and couldn't because of another truck.
The man lets the dog off the leash as soon as they're on the logging road. The dog, nose down, heads up the road and the man follows.
When the dog turns the first corner, the man suddenly hears barking. Then, rounding the corner, he sees a furious Shepherd cross straining at the end of a short leash. This dog is accompanied by two bullet-shaped men, one of whom is holding the leash and saying something. Both men have yellow stripes down their pant legs.
The man says, "Here, Pumpkin". But Pumpkin is in dog-meeting mode, so that's the only thing in his small mind.
The policeman holding the Shepherd says, "Don't come here" and something that is drowned out by the Shepherd's fury.
So the man yells, "Pumpkin, Come!" Then starts to explain, "Sorry, he's not my dog, and sometimes he just doesn't..." But Pumpkin, now less than 50 feet from the Shepherd, has already figured out that this is not a dog he wants to meet, so he just stands. The man grabs Pumpkin's collar and puts him back on his leash.
The Shephered is still going nuts at the end of his leash as the man and his Poodle pass by on the other side of the road.
The Constable holding the dog exclaims, "You should be more careful when you see a police vehicle."
To which the man replies, "I didn't see a police vehicle."
"We're parked right in front of the gate!"
"And where does it say 'police' on that vehicle?"
As the constables and their dog round the corner, the man hears, "I suppose you wouldn't recognize a school bus either!"
Good one, Constable. And great job on the PR.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Some notes on an election to come
Today Colin Hansen announced he won't seek re-election in Vancouver-Quilchina. This probably means Chrisie Clark won't be running in Vancouver-Point Grey, a seat she holds presently and would almost certainly lose.
That is, if she runs at all: I'm still waiting for the "bombshell" announcement that she has some personal exigency that necessitates resignation...
I wonder what Mr "HST" Hansen has waiting for him in the wings?
I cannot believe the rumour that Stockwell Day is lining up to take Christie's place: he has experience losing, and doesn't appear to enjoy it. Is it even possible he has a big enough ego to be persuaded he could right the BCLiberal ship by May? (Not to mention the impossibility of seeing Stockwell Day as ANY kind of Liberal!)
A few days ago Dr. Andrew Weaver, Nobel laureate, announced he is going to run for the Greens in Oak Bay-Gordon Head against the less-than-formidable Ida Chong.
He should, just by reputation, be a shoo-in; if I lived in that constituency, I'd have to find reasons not to vote for him before choosing someone else.
Of course, it's possible there may be reasons I don't know about: apparently he ran for a school board position in Victoria in 2002 and came in 15th out of 19. But that was before he became famous.
I don't suppose there's any way the NDP will decline to run a candidate, especially as the constituency association has already selected Jessica van der Veen, who lost to Ida by over 500 votes last time.
And of course Ida has, thanks largely to a failed recall campaign, actually formed an organization in the interim. So I'm guessing Ida squeaks in again.
Unless, of course, Weaver can convince enough Liberal and NDP voters to vote for him.
Like Elizabeth May federally.
And Oak Bay has a long history of supporting disparate candidates: think Scott Wallace, Brian Smith, Elizabeth Cull, and latterly Ida Chong.
If he can get any kind of organization whatever behind him, I wouldn't put up any bets against Weaver.
Jane Sterk, the Green leader, is running in the next-door constituency, Victoria-Beacon Hill, against NDPer Carole James, the incumbent, who won with over 55% of the vote in 2009. That's going to be a model campaign, managed by our own Paul Barnett, and Carole has done nothing but improve her electability, so it's not hard to predict the winner.
That is, if she runs at all: I'm still waiting for the "bombshell" announcement that she has some personal exigency that necessitates resignation...
I wonder what Mr "HST" Hansen has waiting for him in the wings?
I cannot believe the rumour that Stockwell Day is lining up to take Christie's place: he has experience losing, and doesn't appear to enjoy it. Is it even possible he has a big enough ego to be persuaded he could right the BCLiberal ship by May? (Not to mention the impossibility of seeing Stockwell Day as ANY kind of Liberal!)
A few days ago Dr. Andrew Weaver, Nobel laureate, announced he is going to run for the Greens in Oak Bay-Gordon Head against the less-than-formidable Ida Chong.
He should, just by reputation, be a shoo-in; if I lived in that constituency, I'd have to find reasons not to vote for him before choosing someone else.
Of course, it's possible there may be reasons I don't know about: apparently he ran for a school board position in Victoria in 2002 and came in 15th out of 19. But that was before he became famous.
I don't suppose there's any way the NDP will decline to run a candidate, especially as the constituency association has already selected Jessica van der Veen, who lost to Ida by over 500 votes last time.
And of course Ida has, thanks largely to a failed recall campaign, actually formed an organization in the interim. So I'm guessing Ida squeaks in again.
Unless, of course, Weaver can convince enough Liberal and NDP voters to vote for him.
Like Elizabeth May federally.
And Oak Bay has a long history of supporting disparate candidates: think Scott Wallace, Brian Smith, Elizabeth Cull, and latterly Ida Chong.
If he can get any kind of organization whatever behind him, I wouldn't put up any bets against Weaver.
Jane Sterk, the Green leader, is running in the next-door constituency, Victoria-Beacon Hill, against NDPer Carole James, the incumbent, who won with over 55% of the vote in 2009. That's going to be a model campaign, managed by our own Paul Barnett, and Carole has done nothing but improve her electability, so it's not hard to predict the winner.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
letter to Terry Lake, BC Minister of Environment
The Galloping Beaver (Tuesday, May 12, 2012) finally prompted me to add my voice:
Dear Dr. Lake,
I was astonished to recently discover that your government has apparently given up the right of BC to review and decide on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project.
As BC would accept almost all the risk and receive almost none of the benefits, it seems to me the very least we should have is a final decision on the project; I find it hard to believe that any BC government would have willingly given up the right to decide on an issue of this magnitude and importance.
Consequently, please inform the Federal Government that the government of BC now wishes to reclaim the right to both review this project and decide on whether it will proceed.
Yours very sincerely,
Dear Dr. Lake,
I was astonished to recently discover that your government has apparently given up the right of BC to review and decide on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project.
As BC would accept almost all the risk and receive almost none of the benefits, it seems to me the very least we should have is a final decision on the project; I find it hard to believe that any BC government would have willingly given up the right to decide on an issue of this magnitude and importance.
Consequently, please inform the Federal Government that the government of BC now wishes to reclaim the right to both review this project and decide on whether it will proceed.
Yours very sincerely,
Friday, April 13, 2012
Express Written Authority
A few weeks ago, when GrandDog Eli was visiting Campbell River from his current home in Victoria we decided to do one of our regular walks, along the Piggott Main to the Lost Lake Main and up the hill that overlooks the entire area. About 10km out and back.
We pulled off the highway at Cranberry. As we came to where the Oyster River Main leaves the Duncan Bay Main, I noticed a prominent red-and-white sign, declaring the road and lands to be private property, not to be trespassed. However, we've been walking here for years so I ignored it and carried on over the Oyster River to the Piggott Main, where I parked the car.
Another sign; same message.
Then another, at the Black Creek Main. And another, at the Lost Lake Main.
Clearly, TimberWest was trying to send a message, and, also clearly, it wasn't very friendly.
But there were others using the road, and no visible signs of enforcement, so we carried on with the walk.
However, by the time I got home I'd decided to play their game and get the "Express Written Authority" they had apparently decided to require.
So I went to the web site.
Guess what? That "authority" is unavailable:
Which leaves responsible, law-abiding people like me in an interesting position: TimberWest owns much of the east coast of Vancouver Island. It's roads provide access to many significant public areas, including much of Strathcona Park. Do I follow this edict? Or do I continue to use their roads as I've been doing for most of my life?
It doesn't help TimberWest's case that the website's cited reasons for the ban (vandalism and fire suppression costs) aren't solved by that ban: people like me, who might pay attention to it, aren't part of the problem; people who are won't be deterred by a few signs.
Over the years Eli and I have encountered many people on our walks along TimberWest roads. Besides the loggers, road builders, tree-planters, herbicide-sprayers, and truckers one might logically expect to meet on logging roads and their surrounding lands, we have encountered literally hundreds of salal-pickers, fishermen, hunters, gold-panners, quad, dirtbike, and snowmobile drivers, horse-riders, cyclists, target and skeet shooters, tourists, campers, mushroom-pickers, wood-cutters, and, of course, dogs and hikers like ourselves. According to the posted signs, all these "trespassers" are no longer welcome on TimberWest's "private lands & roads".
It seems, somehow, not very Canadian.
And is certainly, given the vast areas we're talking about, unenforceable.
We've walked TimberWest roads several times since I first noticed those signs. I'm happy to report that the fishermen, gold-panners, quad drivers, and dog-walkers appear to be undeterred, and are still using the roads and lands and streams and lakes. Like me, the vast majority obviously haven't acquired permission to do so.
Like me, they obviously plan to continue.
We pulled off the highway at Cranberry. As we came to where the Oyster River Main leaves the Duncan Bay Main, I noticed a prominent red-and-white sign, declaring the road and lands to be private property, not to be trespassed. However, we've been walking here for years so I ignored it and carried on over the Oyster River to the Piggott Main, where I parked the car.
Another sign; same message.
Then another, at the Black Creek Main. And another, at the Lost Lake Main.
Clearly, TimberWest was trying to send a message, and, also clearly, it wasn't very friendly.
But there were others using the road, and no visible signs of enforcement, so we carried on with the walk.
However, by the time I got home I'd decided to play their game and get the "Express Written Authority" they had apparently decided to require.
So I went to the web site.
Guess what? That "authority" is unavailable:
It doesn't help TimberWest's case that the website's cited reasons for the ban (vandalism and fire suppression costs) aren't solved by that ban: people like me, who might pay attention to it, aren't part of the problem; people who are won't be deterred by a few signs.
Over the years Eli and I have encountered many people on our walks along TimberWest roads. Besides the loggers, road builders, tree-planters, herbicide-sprayers, and truckers one might logically expect to meet on logging roads and their surrounding lands, we have encountered literally hundreds of salal-pickers, fishermen, hunters, gold-panners, quad, dirtbike, and snowmobile drivers, horse-riders, cyclists, target and skeet shooters, tourists, campers, mushroom-pickers, wood-cutters, and, of course, dogs and hikers like ourselves. According to the posted signs, all these "trespassers" are no longer welcome on TimberWest's "private lands & roads".
It seems, somehow, not very Canadian.
And is certainly, given the vast areas we're talking about, unenforceable.
We've walked TimberWest roads several times since I first noticed those signs. I'm happy to report that the fishermen, gold-panners, quad drivers, and dog-walkers appear to be undeterred, and are still using the roads and lands and streams and lakes. Like me, the vast majority obviously haven't acquired permission to do so.
Like me, they obviously plan to continue.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Make us all believers, Tom!
About a month ago I fielded a call from an energetic, assured, young-sounding operative of the Thomas Mulcair campaign. By this time we'd already sent in our contribution and he was checking up to see how we thought they were doing.
And they could still count on our votes, right?
Recognizing a pitch for further funds, I had to stifle an impulse to put him off before engaging. I explained that yes, he could count on my vote. Mulcair, for me, was the most likely to give voice to my visceral dislike of Harperites and all they stand for, and that was, and remains, my over-riding priority.
(Hell, this 40-year-card-carrying activist NDPer has proven before that I have no trouble voting Liberal if I think it will keep Conservatives at bay!)
However, not on the first ballot. There I was planning to vote Nathan Cullen (who had by far the most original proposal, involving electoral cooperation with the Liberals) with Mulcair (whose plan instead was to move the party more towards where it could be a logical choice for Harper-hating Liberals) my second choice. I explained that although I had doubts that Cullen's French skills were up to the task, he'd certainly fall off before the last ballot, so that my most important vote would go to Mulcair.
The young man tried his best: Had I considered that my vote might pull Cullen into second place, and that he might consequently either be removing Mulcair from the race or end up facing him in the final? After all, Cullen was from BC, and BC had the largest block of votes.
Not going to happen, I said, noting he clearly wasn't from BC if he talked “block” of votes! I also pointed out that, although my contacts are reasonably good, at the time I didn't know anyone else who planned to vote Cullen #1.
In fact, I rather thought the final would see Mulcair facing Peggy Nash, in a sort of “centrist interloper vs staunch unionist” scenario. In my defense, the venerated Ed Broadbent had yet to turn the Topp tide, which I believe sank her chances. (Not Ed's finest hour, I thought, although a godsend for the press, which finally scented some blood.)
Anyway, I'm delighted to have been proved mostly correct, and that Thomas Mulcair, a man whom I first appreciated when he was the Minister of the Environment in Jean Charest's Liberal Quebec government, is our new leader.
Make us all believers, Tom!
And they could still count on our votes, right?
Recognizing a pitch for further funds, I had to stifle an impulse to put him off before engaging. I explained that yes, he could count on my vote. Mulcair, for me, was the most likely to give voice to my visceral dislike of Harperites and all they stand for, and that was, and remains, my over-riding priority.
(Hell, this 40-year-card-carrying activist NDPer has proven before that I have no trouble voting Liberal if I think it will keep Conservatives at bay!)
However, not on the first ballot. There I was planning to vote Nathan Cullen (who had by far the most original proposal, involving electoral cooperation with the Liberals) with Mulcair (whose plan instead was to move the party more towards where it could be a logical choice for Harper-hating Liberals) my second choice. I explained that although I had doubts that Cullen's French skills were up to the task, he'd certainly fall off before the last ballot, so that my most important vote would go to Mulcair.
The young man tried his best: Had I considered that my vote might pull Cullen into second place, and that he might consequently either be removing Mulcair from the race or end up facing him in the final? After all, Cullen was from BC, and BC had the largest block of votes.
Not going to happen, I said, noting he clearly wasn't from BC if he talked “block” of votes! I also pointed out that, although my contacts are reasonably good, at the time I didn't know anyone else who planned to vote Cullen #1.
In fact, I rather thought the final would see Mulcair facing Peggy Nash, in a sort of “centrist interloper vs staunch unionist” scenario. In my defense, the venerated Ed Broadbent had yet to turn the Topp tide, which I believe sank her chances. (Not Ed's finest hour, I thought, although a godsend for the press, which finally scented some blood.)
Anyway, I'm delighted to have been proved mostly correct, and that Thomas Mulcair, a man whom I first appreciated when he was the Minister of the Environment in Jean Charest's Liberal Quebec government, is our new leader.
Make us all believers, Tom!
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Big wind
We live in a windy part of the world, so seeing the rain flowing uphill on Marina Boulevard just outside the front door is not a new phenomenon for us. However, since we built here it has lessened as the lots in our part of Rockland have filled up and the trees have grown.
So last Monday's wind storm, from which significant areas of Campbell River have not yet recovered, was an interesting experience: the most violent since we've lived here.
Happily, the house, while it groaned a lot, survived without damage, and we were without power only 12 hours. In fact, we had a fine time reading, feeding the fire, commenting on the weather, and making coffee on the camp stove.
It wasn't till the wind died and the sun came out that we noticed the remains of the green house (in this blog: "Paean to polyurethane" from November 7, 2010) and the fact that a major pine tree in the park across the way was down.
At least it didn't launch.
So last Monday's wind storm, from which significant areas of Campbell River have not yet recovered, was an interesting experience: the most violent since we've lived here.
Happily, the house, while it groaned a lot, survived without damage, and we were without power only 12 hours. In fact, we had a fine time reading, feeding the fire, commenting on the weather, and making coffee on the camp stove.
It wasn't till the wind died and the sun came out that we noticed the remains of the green house (in this blog: "Paean to polyurethane" from November 7, 2010) and the fact that a major pine tree in the park across the way was down.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Dear John...
This morning a headline on the front page of the Globe and Mail read:
Which, in a tangential way, reminded me of recent correspondence I've had with John Duncan, our MP:
10 February, 2012
Topic: distressed by C-11
Dear Mr Duncan,
I am distressed by the implications of your government's Bill C-11, and trust you will follow the wishes of the vast majority of your constituents by not supporting it.
We are particularly upset by the proposals that allow private interests to control what we do online through digital locks and website-blocking. These, among other consequences, could severely threaten both our democratic rights, by stifling free expression, and our commercial interests, by curbing internet innovation.
Yours very sincerely,
To which he replied:
Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding The Copyright Modernization Act. I read your correspondence with interest and I appreciate you bringing your suggestions to my attention.
I share your concern that privacy concerns must be reflected in our legislation. We must balance the right to privacy with the need to access for criminal investigation processes and this will no doubt constitute significant debate in the House of Commons.
I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to my colleague, The Honourable Christian Paradis, Minister of Industry, for his review and response.
Sincerely,
...and on the 14th
Topic: even more distressed
Dear Mr Duncan,
I am astonished to find myself once more writing to you to urge you not to support a piece of proposed legislation, having done so only a couple of weeks ago on the issue of C-11.
This time it's C-30.
I am 67 years old and retired. Like many of my peers, I spend a lot of time on the internet. While my travels there are not in any way controversial, it offends me that people like me could, under the proposed legislation, be caught up in a police troll among internet providers, without me being aware of it and without anyone requiring a warrant.
It offends me even more that I will have to pay for this intrusion on my privacy by paying my internet provider for the costs associated with the program.
I do not know anyone, not my wife, nor my children, nor my friends, nor even my 96-year old father (also still active on his computer) who is not equally offended.
And, by the way, Mr Toews' comments likening our opposition to this bill to support for child molestation is an unspeakable affront which will not be forgotten unless retracted.
Yours very sincerely,
In response of which I received a generic justification of the legislation. I looked it over briefly, couldn't find an answer to even one of my objections, and deleted it.
I'll include it below, but suggest you read Ivor Tossell's Globe article, which succinctly explains why C-30 as presented to the legislature is an actual threat.
OTTAWA
Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding An Act to enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act (IPCECA) and to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts
Our Government is committed to keeping our streets and communities safe.
We are committed to ensuring that criminals, sexual predators, gangs and terrorists cannot exploit technology to hide their illegal activities.
While technology has advanced significantly over the past four decades, the legal frameworks and investigative tools available to the police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) have not kept pace with this evolution.
This proposed legislation would provide law enforcement and CSIS with the modern investigative tools they need to help fight crime and national security threats.
The Bill would also strengthen and add new safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians.
The proposed legislation will enhance Canada’s ability to work with its international partners to combat crime and terrorism.
I have attached answers to Frequently Asked Questions about this legislation to address your concerns.
Sincerely,
Hon. John Duncan, P.C., MP
Vancouver Island North
Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
BILL C-30
An Act to enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act (IPCECA) and to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts
Q1. How will this Bill protect children from Internet predators?
• This legislation will provide law enforcement agencies with an investigative tool kit that is tailored to modern technology. This will give police the tools they need to investigate crimes committed against children in the online context more effectively.
• For example, by enabling police to have more timely and consistent access to basic subscriber information, the identity of suspects may be determined sooner so that investigations can progress more efficiently. The sooner an investigation can be undertaken, the sooner victimized children can be removed from harm’s way.
Q2. What is lawful interception?
• The lawful interception of communications is a vital tool used by law enforcement and national security agencies to investigate crimes, such as child pornography, drug trafficking, and murder, as well as threats to national security.
• Lawful interception involves listening to, recording or acquiring a communication or its meaning. To be lawful, law enforcement and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) may only effect an interception under the authority of the Criminal Code or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
• The Criminal Code places a number of restrictions on the use of interceptions. Their use is restricted to only listed serious criminal offences, such as terrorist acts, murder, hijacking, or arms trafficking. This investigative technique is authorized once it has passed the Criminal Code’s highest judicial test, including the condition of investigative necessity.
• Subject to certain, very limited exceptions, police and CSIS may only intercept communications upon authorization from a judge.
Q3. How much is this Bill going to cost the Government of Canada?
• This Bill will cost the government approximately $34 million for the first 4 years, and approximately $19 million per year after that.
o To implement the new statute, when averaged out, the cost will be approximately $20 million annually for Public Safety, the RCMP and CSIS for the first 4 years, and $6.7 million per year after that. The funding was set aside in Budget 2006, and the majority of those funds will be used to support the telecommunications industry where authorities need to address urgent investigative gaps.
o The framework proposed under the new statute will be more cost-effective than the current one. Today, law enforcement and national security agencies work with telecommunications service providers – on a case-by-case basis – to put in place needed technical solutions. But these solutions quickly become obsolete as telecommunications service providers update their networks.
o The remaining funds are for the proposed legislative amendments and the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime and its Additional Protocol on Xenophobia and Racism, and would be incurred by the departments of Justice, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and the RCMP.
Q4. Why is the Government ignoring privacy advocates’ concerns with the new legislation?
• This legislation has been modified as a consequence of consultations held with various stakeholders, including privacy commissioners and privacy advocates.
• These consultations led to significant changes designed to strengthen the privacy safeguards contained in the proposed Act.
• The identifiers to be provided under the basic subscriber information provisions were limited to only those specified in legislation, as opposed to listing them in the regulations.
• The number of identifiers that authorities can receive upon request was reduced from 11 to 6, leaving only the customer name, address, email address, telephone number, IP address and name of the telecommunications service provider.
Q5. Can you provide evidence that police are unable to perform their duties under the current regime?
• The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that police will be able to perform their jobs more efficiently, while maintaining a required level of accountability and transparency. The Bill will bring existing lawful authorities up to date to ensure that law enforcement have an investigative tool kit that is tailored to modern technology.
• One such example is that, today, telecommunications service providers may provide authorities, without a warrant, with basic subscriber information under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. The problem is that there is no consistency across the country in how service providers respond to these requests: sometimes they respond in a timely manner, but often they respond only after considerable delays, if at all.
• Specifically:
o according to the RCMP’s National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, in 2010, the average response time for a basic subscriber information request was 13 days, and only 72.5% of requests were fulfilled;
o one telecommunications service provider only responds to basic subscriber information requests on Fridays, regardless of when the requests are submitted; and
o another telecommunications service provider only accepts BSI requests via email, which can be problematic in emergencies.
Q6. Can police create a profile or track someone using IP addresses?
• The basic subscriber information provision does not give law enforcement the lawful authority to monitor websites for the purpose of creating profiles of individuals, or to track individuals. Under this legislation, police may request the name and address associated with an IP address using a basic subscriber information request.
• Requests for information from a telecommunications service provider about the website surfing activity or the real-time whereabouts of an individual would need to be made under production orders, warrants or wiretap authorizations contained in the Criminal Code.
Q7. Why can’t the police and law enforcement agencies get a warrant every time they need basic subscriber information?
• Basic subscriber information is often required at the beginning of an investigation and is considered to be “pre-warrant” information. The basic subscriber information that is provided is much less intrusive than what can be obtained with a warrant.
• Policing also includes several responsibilities that do not involve the investigation of crimes, and as such would not be applicable in a warrant context. These general policing duties often involve police seeking to identify contact information to, for example, notify next-of-kin in a traffic accident, return property, or assist lost or runaway individuals.
Q8. How will basic subscriber information requests be protected from abuse?
• The Bill would provide more checks and balances than exist currently relating to requests for this type of information by:
o limiting those who can request basic subscriber information to designated officials (with an exception for emergencies), to a maximum of five designated officials per organization or 5% of the organization’s workforce (whichever is greater);
o putting procedures in place for mandatory record keeping of all requests;
o stipulating that requests be made only to perform a duty or function of the designated official’s agency;
o mandating regular internal audits and requiring that reports on the findings of these audits be provided to the responsible Minister and to the responsible external review bodies (such as the Privacy Commissioner); and
o requiring that telecommunications service providers comply with the confidentiality and security measures included in the regulations.
• The Bill expressly reconfirms the role of review bodies to audit the basic subscriber information controls of an agency within their jurisdiction – such as the Privacy Commissioner for the RCMP and Competition Bureau, and the Security Intelligence Review Committee for CSIS – at any time.
Q9. Will this Bill put small telecommunications service providers out of business?
• The legislation contains a number of mechanisms to minimize the cost to service providers and ensure they are not unduly burdened. These include:
o requiring telecommunications service providers to build intercept capability into new equipment only. Companies are not required to add this capability to equipment in use before the Bill comes into force, as it is much more cost effective to include the intercept capability at the design stage;
o an 18-month transition period to allow telecommunications service providers time to adjust their network planning so that requirements are factored in during the design stage of new networks; and
o an additional 18-month transition period for small providers (less than 100,000 subscribers).
• Exemptions may be granted to telecommunications service providers for up to three years. Such exemptions can be used, where appropriate, in order to permit innovative technologies to be brought to the marketplace prior to being fully compliant with the requirements of the Act.
• Service providers will have flexibility in finding the most cost efficient solution for their particular networks based on their business practices.
• Telecommunications service providers will also be compensated when they assist with interceptions or provide basic subscriber information.
Q10. Is the Government lowering the threshold for existing warrants and orders?
• Existing authorization thresholds will not be lowered by this legislation. All thresholds for new and existing warrants and orders were developed to be consistent with current practice and with the reasonable expectation of privacy attached to the types of information involved.
• These proposals are about bringing existing lawful authorities up to date. This bill provides law enforcement agencies with a tool kit that is tailored to modern technology and modern investigative techniques. Privacy protections have been enhanced, and additional safeguards have been included to ensure the appropriate balance is struck between protecting privacy and ensuring the safety of Canadians.
• The amendments to the tracking warrant would increase the threshold for a tracking warrant to reasonable grounds to believe in situations involving the tracking of an individual’s movement using a thing usually worn or carried by that person. The current threshold for tracking warrants of reasonable grounds to suspect will remain for other types of tracking (such as tracking a vehicle). This amendment would take into account advancements in tracking technology as well as their heightened privacy impact.
Q11. Why is the warrant process for wiretapping being streamlined? How will this improve investigations?
• The streamlining process proposed in the Bill will improve efficiency and accountability by permitting investigators who are applying for court authorizations to intercept private communications to simultaneously apply to the same judge who issued that authorization, for other warrants or orders related to the same investigation, such as a transmission data recorder warrant.
• This will ensure that a single judge sees the entire investigative picture. In addition, it will allow for all the warrants and orders to be sealed simultaneously until a judge orders disclosure.
Q12. Why is it necessary to amend the provision in the Criminal Code that allows for the interception of private communications in exceptional circumstances (s. 184.4)?
• In 2008, in R. v. Tse (otherwise known as the Six Accused Persons case) the British Columbia Supreme Court struck down the s.184.4 wiretap provision allowing for the interception of private communications in exceptional circumstances on the grounds that there was a lack of oversight, a lack of notice to intercepted parties and a lack of reporting requirements to Parliament. The court gave Parliament until September 2011 (since extended) to make it compliant under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Subsequent decisions in Ontario and Quebec have also raised concerns about the constitutional safeguards related to that provision.
• The Government considers that s.184.4 is already compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nonetheless, to improve the amount of information available on the use of interceptions of private communications in exceptional circumstances and to enhance transparency and accountability, the Bill adds a new annual public reporting requirement, as well as an after-the-fact requirement to notify an individual that their private communications were intercepted.
• Collectively, these requirements would ensure that persons whose private communications are intercepted are notified and that information relating to the number of times police avail themselves of this authority is publicly available. These safeguards will ensure that individual rights and liberties are protected, while law enforcement continues to be able to rely on this important investigative tool.
Green radicals targeted
CSIS and the RCMP have identified Greenpeace and PETA as extremist groups that pose a threat to Canadians.
Which, in a tangential way, reminded me of recent correspondence I've had with John Duncan, our MP:
10 February, 2012
Topic: distressed by C-11
Dear Mr Duncan,
I am distressed by the implications of your government's Bill C-11, and trust you will follow the wishes of the vast majority of your constituents by not supporting it.
We are particularly upset by the proposals that allow private interests to control what we do online through digital locks and website-blocking. These, among other consequences, could severely threaten both our democratic rights, by stifling free expression, and our commercial interests, by curbing internet innovation.
Yours very sincerely,
To which he replied:
Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding The Copyright Modernization Act. I read your correspondence with interest and I appreciate you bringing your suggestions to my attention.
I share your concern that privacy concerns must be reflected in our legislation. We must balance the right to privacy with the need to access for criminal investigation processes and this will no doubt constitute significant debate in the House of Commons.
I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to my colleague, The Honourable Christian Paradis, Minister of Industry, for his review and response.
Sincerely,
...and on the 14th
Topic: even more distressed
Dear Mr Duncan,
I am astonished to find myself once more writing to you to urge you not to support a piece of proposed legislation, having done so only a couple of weeks ago on the issue of C-11.
This time it's C-30.
I am 67 years old and retired. Like many of my peers, I spend a lot of time on the internet. While my travels there are not in any way controversial, it offends me that people like me could, under the proposed legislation, be caught up in a police troll among internet providers, without me being aware of it and without anyone requiring a warrant.
It offends me even more that I will have to pay for this intrusion on my privacy by paying my internet provider for the costs associated with the program.
I do not know anyone, not my wife, nor my children, nor my friends, nor even my 96-year old father (also still active on his computer) who is not equally offended.
And, by the way, Mr Toews' comments likening our opposition to this bill to support for child molestation is an unspeakable affront which will not be forgotten unless retracted.
Yours very sincerely,
In response of which I received a generic justification of the legislation. I looked it over briefly, couldn't find an answer to even one of my objections, and deleted it.
I'll include it below, but suggest you read Ivor Tossell's Globe article, which succinctly explains why C-30 as presented to the legislature is an actual threat.
OTTAWA
Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding An Act to enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act (IPCECA) and to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts
Our Government is committed to keeping our streets and communities safe.
We are committed to ensuring that criminals, sexual predators, gangs and terrorists cannot exploit technology to hide their illegal activities.
While technology has advanced significantly over the past four decades, the legal frameworks and investigative tools available to the police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) have not kept pace with this evolution.
This proposed legislation would provide law enforcement and CSIS with the modern investigative tools they need to help fight crime and national security threats.
The Bill would also strengthen and add new safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians.
The proposed legislation will enhance Canada’s ability to work with its international partners to combat crime and terrorism.
I have attached answers to Frequently Asked Questions about this legislation to address your concerns.
Sincerely,
Hon. John Duncan, P.C., MP
Vancouver Island North
Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
BILL C-30
An Act to enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act (IPCECA) and to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts
Q1. How will this Bill protect children from Internet predators?
• This legislation will provide law enforcement agencies with an investigative tool kit that is tailored to modern technology. This will give police the tools they need to investigate crimes committed against children in the online context more effectively.
• For example, by enabling police to have more timely and consistent access to basic subscriber information, the identity of suspects may be determined sooner so that investigations can progress more efficiently. The sooner an investigation can be undertaken, the sooner victimized children can be removed from harm’s way.
Q2. What is lawful interception?
• The lawful interception of communications is a vital tool used by law enforcement and national security agencies to investigate crimes, such as child pornography, drug trafficking, and murder, as well as threats to national security.
• Lawful interception involves listening to, recording or acquiring a communication or its meaning. To be lawful, law enforcement and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) may only effect an interception under the authority of the Criminal Code or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
• The Criminal Code places a number of restrictions on the use of interceptions. Their use is restricted to only listed serious criminal offences, such as terrorist acts, murder, hijacking, or arms trafficking. This investigative technique is authorized once it has passed the Criminal Code’s highest judicial test, including the condition of investigative necessity.
• Subject to certain, very limited exceptions, police and CSIS may only intercept communications upon authorization from a judge.
Q3. How much is this Bill going to cost the Government of Canada?
• This Bill will cost the government approximately $34 million for the first 4 years, and approximately $19 million per year after that.
o To implement the new statute, when averaged out, the cost will be approximately $20 million annually for Public Safety, the RCMP and CSIS for the first 4 years, and $6.7 million per year after that. The funding was set aside in Budget 2006, and the majority of those funds will be used to support the telecommunications industry where authorities need to address urgent investigative gaps.
o The framework proposed under the new statute will be more cost-effective than the current one. Today, law enforcement and national security agencies work with telecommunications service providers – on a case-by-case basis – to put in place needed technical solutions. But these solutions quickly become obsolete as telecommunications service providers update their networks.
o The remaining funds are for the proposed legislative amendments and the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime and its Additional Protocol on Xenophobia and Racism, and would be incurred by the departments of Justice, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and the RCMP.
Q4. Why is the Government ignoring privacy advocates’ concerns with the new legislation?
• This legislation has been modified as a consequence of consultations held with various stakeholders, including privacy commissioners and privacy advocates.
• These consultations led to significant changes designed to strengthen the privacy safeguards contained in the proposed Act.
• The identifiers to be provided under the basic subscriber information provisions were limited to only those specified in legislation, as opposed to listing them in the regulations.
• The number of identifiers that authorities can receive upon request was reduced from 11 to 6, leaving only the customer name, address, email address, telephone number, IP address and name of the telecommunications service provider.
Q5. Can you provide evidence that police are unable to perform their duties under the current regime?
• The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that police will be able to perform their jobs more efficiently, while maintaining a required level of accountability and transparency. The Bill will bring existing lawful authorities up to date to ensure that law enforcement have an investigative tool kit that is tailored to modern technology.
• One such example is that, today, telecommunications service providers may provide authorities, without a warrant, with basic subscriber information under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. The problem is that there is no consistency across the country in how service providers respond to these requests: sometimes they respond in a timely manner, but often they respond only after considerable delays, if at all.
• Specifically:
o according to the RCMP’s National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, in 2010, the average response time for a basic subscriber information request was 13 days, and only 72.5% of requests were fulfilled;
o one telecommunications service provider only responds to basic subscriber information requests on Fridays, regardless of when the requests are submitted; and
o another telecommunications service provider only accepts BSI requests via email, which can be problematic in emergencies.
Q6. Can police create a profile or track someone using IP addresses?
• The basic subscriber information provision does not give law enforcement the lawful authority to monitor websites for the purpose of creating profiles of individuals, or to track individuals. Under this legislation, police may request the name and address associated with an IP address using a basic subscriber information request.
• Requests for information from a telecommunications service provider about the website surfing activity or the real-time whereabouts of an individual would need to be made under production orders, warrants or wiretap authorizations contained in the Criminal Code.
Q7. Why can’t the police and law enforcement agencies get a warrant every time they need basic subscriber information?
• Basic subscriber information is often required at the beginning of an investigation and is considered to be “pre-warrant” information. The basic subscriber information that is provided is much less intrusive than what can be obtained with a warrant.
• Policing also includes several responsibilities that do not involve the investigation of crimes, and as such would not be applicable in a warrant context. These general policing duties often involve police seeking to identify contact information to, for example, notify next-of-kin in a traffic accident, return property, or assist lost or runaway individuals.
Q8. How will basic subscriber information requests be protected from abuse?
• The Bill would provide more checks and balances than exist currently relating to requests for this type of information by:
o limiting those who can request basic subscriber information to designated officials (with an exception for emergencies), to a maximum of five designated officials per organization or 5% of the organization’s workforce (whichever is greater);
o putting procedures in place for mandatory record keeping of all requests;
o stipulating that requests be made only to perform a duty or function of the designated official’s agency;
o mandating regular internal audits and requiring that reports on the findings of these audits be provided to the responsible Minister and to the responsible external review bodies (such as the Privacy Commissioner); and
o requiring that telecommunications service providers comply with the confidentiality and security measures included in the regulations.
• The Bill expressly reconfirms the role of review bodies to audit the basic subscriber information controls of an agency within their jurisdiction – such as the Privacy Commissioner for the RCMP and Competition Bureau, and the Security Intelligence Review Committee for CSIS – at any time.
Q9. Will this Bill put small telecommunications service providers out of business?
• The legislation contains a number of mechanisms to minimize the cost to service providers and ensure they are not unduly burdened. These include:
o requiring telecommunications service providers to build intercept capability into new equipment only. Companies are not required to add this capability to equipment in use before the Bill comes into force, as it is much more cost effective to include the intercept capability at the design stage;
o an 18-month transition period to allow telecommunications service providers time to adjust their network planning so that requirements are factored in during the design stage of new networks; and
o an additional 18-month transition period for small providers (less than 100,000 subscribers).
• Exemptions may be granted to telecommunications service providers for up to three years. Such exemptions can be used, where appropriate, in order to permit innovative technologies to be brought to the marketplace prior to being fully compliant with the requirements of the Act.
• Service providers will have flexibility in finding the most cost efficient solution for their particular networks based on their business practices.
• Telecommunications service providers will also be compensated when they assist with interceptions or provide basic subscriber information.
Q10. Is the Government lowering the threshold for existing warrants and orders?
• Existing authorization thresholds will not be lowered by this legislation. All thresholds for new and existing warrants and orders were developed to be consistent with current practice and with the reasonable expectation of privacy attached to the types of information involved.
• These proposals are about bringing existing lawful authorities up to date. This bill provides law enforcement agencies with a tool kit that is tailored to modern technology and modern investigative techniques. Privacy protections have been enhanced, and additional safeguards have been included to ensure the appropriate balance is struck between protecting privacy and ensuring the safety of Canadians.
• The amendments to the tracking warrant would increase the threshold for a tracking warrant to reasonable grounds to believe in situations involving the tracking of an individual’s movement using a thing usually worn or carried by that person. The current threshold for tracking warrants of reasonable grounds to suspect will remain for other types of tracking (such as tracking a vehicle). This amendment would take into account advancements in tracking technology as well as their heightened privacy impact.
Q11. Why is the warrant process for wiretapping being streamlined? How will this improve investigations?
• The streamlining process proposed in the Bill will improve efficiency and accountability by permitting investigators who are applying for court authorizations to intercept private communications to simultaneously apply to the same judge who issued that authorization, for other warrants or orders related to the same investigation, such as a transmission data recorder warrant.
• This will ensure that a single judge sees the entire investigative picture. In addition, it will allow for all the warrants and orders to be sealed simultaneously until a judge orders disclosure.
Q12. Why is it necessary to amend the provision in the Criminal Code that allows for the interception of private communications in exceptional circumstances (s. 184.4)?
• In 2008, in R. v. Tse (otherwise known as the Six Accused Persons case) the British Columbia Supreme Court struck down the s.184.4 wiretap provision allowing for the interception of private communications in exceptional circumstances on the grounds that there was a lack of oversight, a lack of notice to intercepted parties and a lack of reporting requirements to Parliament. The court gave Parliament until September 2011 (since extended) to make it compliant under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Subsequent decisions in Ontario and Quebec have also raised concerns about the constitutional safeguards related to that provision.
• The Government considers that s.184.4 is already compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nonetheless, to improve the amount of information available on the use of interceptions of private communications in exceptional circumstances and to enhance transparency and accountability, the Bill adds a new annual public reporting requirement, as well as an after-the-fact requirement to notify an individual that their private communications were intercepted.
• Collectively, these requirements would ensure that persons whose private communications are intercepted are notified and that information relating to the number of times police avail themselves of this authority is publicly available. These safeguards will ensure that individual rights and liberties are protected, while law enforcement continues to be able to rely on this important investigative tool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
