There's an interesting piece at CBC News concerning the latest government consultation on "how law enforcement and national security agencies can gain lawful access to [telephone and internet] customers' information." What may be most interesting about it is that the government agencies involved don't seem to want to consult with certain interested parties. Us.
Privacy advocates, however, expressed displeasure over both the content and the process of the consultation.
...
Michael Geist, chair of internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, said the process is not being conducted publicly as two previous consultations have been, in 2002 and in 2005.The consultation has not been published in the Canada Gazette, where such documents are normally publicized, or on the agencies' websites.
Interested parties have been given until Sept. 27 to submit their comments, which is a short consultation time, Geist said. Several organizations and individuals contacted by CBCNews.ca only received their documents this week.
More pointedly, a number of parties that took part in the previous consultations, including privacy and civil liberty advocates — and even some telecommunication service providers — have not been made aware of the discussion, he said.
...
Officials with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association were not aware of the consultation.
It looks remarkably like the powers that be want to make it difficult for private citizens — and those who would advocate on their behalf — to have any input on this. If I was feeling paranoid, I'd have to agree with Geist:
Geist said the other problem with the consultation is that it appears as if the government agencies have already made up their minds on how to proceed and are simply conducting it for appearances' sake."The fear is that law enforcement knows what it would like to do — it would like to be able to obtain this information without court oversight — and so it has pulled together this consultation in the hope that they can use that to say they have consulted, and here are the safeguards that the consultation thought was appropriate."
Canada's New Government™ is reacting as it usually does when
Mélisa Leclerc, a spokeswoman for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, said the government was not trying to keep the consultation secret and would post the document on the internet on Thursday. The deadline for submissions would also be extended, although no decision on a date has been made yet.
No, they're not trying to keep it secret, exactly. They've just tried to keep it as quiet as possible in the hopes that no one would notice until it was too late. Because, as the article points out, Canadian law enforcement agencies are asking for powers that go beyond even what their American counterparts have. And it appears that the game is being rigged to give them what they want.
H/T to mahigan in email.
Here's another development that the government never announced, but it's currently happening. Radio-Canada was tipped off by a listener who recounted the following incident: While he was taking photographs in a marina on the St Lawrence Seaway, in Québec, he was accosted by a US coast guard police office who asked him what he was doing and to identify himself. The Canadian citizen refused to speak to him until a RCMP officer explained that a new agreement between Canada and the US has awarded legal policing powers to US officials in certain areas of Québec, Ontario and BC.
Source: http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/ottawa/2007/09/13/001-shiprider-projet.shtml
I wish the Opposition parties would just get it together and topple this freaking government already! The cons are going to prorogue Parliament, and operate like the Devine Tories did in Saskatchewan, by Order in Council behind closed doors, because they are too damned afraid of the public as evidenced above.
I'm just beside myself with fury at the report from Radio-Canada that deBeauxOs cites. I hope this story makes it to the anglo media today.
The RCMP have called this a "pilot project" (and note that there was an earlier one, in 2005). But but but ... why? Why would we need this? And why has it run below the radar?
What earthly use are U.S. police or military in Canada? Well -- what use are they to Canadians? And how have "co-operative" projects with them been started up without the knowledge or consent of the Canadian people?
deBeauxOs: Thank you so much for pointing that out. My French isn't good enough to read this without utilizing Google's Translate service, but I found this part especially disturbing:
"It is not known when the pilot scheme ends and if the police co-operation becomes permanent."
Which begs the question: what sort of relationship do these 'pilot schemes' have with the SPP?
(BTW, by linking to pogge's post, I've done gone and burst the "Canada as [small-'L'] liberal paradise" bubble of at least one of my Yankee co-bloggers. Is probably a good thing this story has yet to be picked up by the Anglo media; he and many other idealistic Blue Staters might commit mass hari kari.)
Might?
What the eff do you think I'm sharpening my sword for?
And all this time I thought I had an escape hatch.
Re : No public input on accessing customer names and addresses without a court order
Michael Geist, bless him, blogged on Tuesday that he had specifically been asked not to post the consultation online.
Now they've been outed, it's up at Public Safety Canada.
New deadline for public submissions - Oct 12
Email contact at link.
Re: US Coast Guard operating in Canada :
Smart Borders spawned IBETS.
Perhaps you remember the recent kerfuffle as to which US enforcement agencies would be permitted to be armed in Canada.
I remember one of those earlier "pilot projects" but I'm a little vague on the details. As I recollect, it came out after an incident in BC when a state trooper from one of the western states pulled over a car driven by a thoroughly unimpressed Canadian cop who refused to talk to him until an RCMP officer showed up. There were some differences in that earlier event - as I recollect, it was supposedly an exchange program between police forces, the US officer was unarmed and had no authority to detain anyone. The incident in Quebec seems to indicate something of an escalation in "pilot projects". And as much as I would like to see this turn into a 2 ton millstone around Harper's neck, the Conservatives weren't in power when the earlier incident took place so the Harpies may have escalated the program but they didn't invent it.
The Conservatives' approach is typically heavy-handed, but similar shenanigans have been going on for years. IIRC, the Liberals had a 2- or 3-week deadline for public comment during the 2005 lawful access consultations, and their face-to-face "consultation" with civil society groups included almost no time for actual discussion -- they basically just explained what they wanted to do. By contrast, industry reps got plenty of face-time with the government to discuss their concerns. The Libs didn't try to hide the actual consultation like the Conservatives did, but they weren't exactly keen on getting input from privacy and civil liberties advocates.
Frankly, I'm surprised they're doing public consultations at all. The Liberals have tabled legislation on the exact same issue twice before (Bill C-74 during the last Liberal Parliament in 2005, and Bill C-416 this past March).
Also, remember that the current proposal (getting customer name and address info without a court order) is just the first phase of lawful access. The original proposals back in 2002 looked at lots of scarier stuff, like data retention. Presumably that comes next.
I didn't know it was possible to back pedal this fast.
I find it so hard to believe that "there is a new agreement between Canada and the U.S. (that awards) legal policing powers to U.S. officials in certain areas of Quebec, Ontario and B.C."
Is this a reciprocal agreement? In other words, are Canadian officers given legal policing powers in certain areas in the U.S. or is it just one-sided? Why?
Since policing involves coming in contact with the public, why has this agreement been kept "under wraps"? Is it a test to see how Canadians, who are unaware of the agreement, react when accosted by U.S. police? If so, why?
This reminds me of an incident I read in the newspaper a few years ago. A police officer was in a car chase and ended up going over the border into Canada where he caught the guy. The police officer's reaction was that he had a job to do. The fact that he had to go over the border to do so was "unimportant" in his view. However, if the reverse happened and there was a police chase into the U.S., you can be sure that U.S. officials would take it very seriously, and probably create an international incident in the process.
The "Harmonization" agreement the U.S. made with Canada is another example of Big Brother ordering us around. "Harmony" sounds like such a friendly word. However, the U.S. intent for the agreement all along has been for Canada to harmonize its standards with the U.S., not the other way around. It will never be reciprocal. Harper has as much as said so.
OK, this really has my attention, the fact of US cops operating legally in Canada. How is such a thing possible? Why is it not the headline news story of every newspaper in the land? Will this have the effect of costing Harper the next election?
Brett- How is such a thing possible?
Because successive Canadian governments have allowed it. It was announced some time back that there would be at least one full blown FBI Field Office located in Canada to "provide liaison" with Canadian law enforcement. There is also an agreement in place to allow US troops to enter Canada to assist us in the case of an emergency.
Why is it not the headline news story of every newspaper in the land?
Because most of them, like most Canadians outside the blogosphere, don't seem to think sovereignty is as important as Britney Spears' latest meltdown.
Will this have the effect of costing Harper the next election?
Probably not. The previous incident in BC I mentioned above didn't cost the Liberals. In fact it was a minor kerfuffle outside of the blogosphere.
Welcome to the New(tm)corporatist Canada.