Because stupidity is exponential...

Hypocrisy in the Conservative party isn’t exactly uncommon. However, two events precipitated today by the Conservative Party (Canada’s Government) just have to be linked. Today, lawful access legislation was tabled in the House of Commons to an uproar of disapproval from media, interest groups and other political parties. The new bill seeks to give greater search and surveillance powers to police in online investigations. As the summary says on the Department of Public Safety website:

Telecommunications service providers would be required to provide basic subscriber information to designated police, CSIS and Competition Bureau officials upon request. This identifying information would be limited to a subscriber’s name, address, phone number, email address, IP address, and the name of their service provider. This information can already be provided without a warrant under existing legislation, but only on a voluntary basis, which results in inconsistent access and delay.

Source

According to the above quote, we should be happy that the new bill limits accessible information to….every piece of information required to establish your identity and link you to any alleged crime associated with your IP address. That’s fine though, the police need to conduct investigations. The frightening part is that all the access occurs without judicial oversight, no warrant or application required, no need for probable cause or any evidence by investigators. We should also feel very sorry for the government because the current voluntary request system means inconsistent access for investigators. What a terrible, terrible inconvenience. It should be noted that obtaining records of transactions, search histories etc. will still require a warrant. Bill C-30 does, however, allow a judge to sign a single warrant for surveillance of multiple types of information and other powers are “streamlined”. We’re not at the best part though.

Today, just hours after tabling Bill C-30, the Conservatives ended the long-gun registry by passing legislation through a final vote. Why did they want to abolish the long gun registry? At least in part because the Conservatives found that the information collected on gun owners was an invasion of their privacy.

The Supreme Court’s (SCC) recent decision to hear an appeal of Re Indalex Ltd.[1]is significant for the development of law on secured transactions. However, the importance of the decision extends beyond written law. As Baby Boomers leave the workplace, they begin to draw on benefits en masse. Combined with a top-heavy population, it is a distinct possibility that many benefit plans will quickly become unsupportable by a smaller working population. According to the Globe and Mail[2] this will be the first pension insolvency matter heard by the SCC, an indication of the importance of the topic to our country’s future. Regardless of the outcome, the SCC’s willingness to hear the matter will certainly send a strong message to Parliament.

Read More »