Vic Toews comments on Bill C-30

[BriTer]

This is incredible. To have renamed it the 'Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act' after it had been shot down a number of times before in itself is an abuse of children, using the plight of so many in this way to forward your own goals is truly disgusting. Then to claim that anyone opposing this bill 'stands with child predators' and now says that this intended attempt to allow total and free invasion of privacy by what would be not just Canadian police forces but ANY police force in the world is ".... the first time that I'm hearing this somehow extends ordinary police emergency powers [to telecommunications]. In my opinion, it doesn't. And it shouldn't." This man in my opinion is either a two faced liar or grossly incompetent..... trying to pass such a far reaching and invasive bill without even knowing it's content? Never, NEVER will I vote for any party that has on it's payroll such an incompetent, disgusting pos such as this.
Now instead of putting and end to it themselves it will still be tabled and has a very good possibility of being passed as is simply due to House majority. But no, even being fully aware of it's intent and scope instead we get ""If the opposition is actually really concerned about substantive issues about the bill, and if they bring those forward, I think there will be a very healthy debate."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... toews.html

[Logitack]

just another example of why having a right wing government with a majority is dangerous for all canadians. when you have a minister of the crown tabling bills and he has NO IDEA what is in the said bill is outrageous! this POS idiot should resign or harper should fire him for gross incompetence!

[Bagotricks]

just another example of why having a right wing government with a majority is dangerous for all canadians. when you have a minister of the crown tabling bills and he has NO IDEA what is in the said bill is outrageous! this POS idiot should resign or harper should fire him for gross incompetence!

So if I don't agree with the bill then I stand with the pedophiles.

Vic "doesn't understand it" but is trying to pass it as law? Who does he stand with in that case?

Illiterate pedophiles?

Good exposure of the inner workings of the government. Try to pass a bill you don't understand that will destroy Canadian privacy rights and give the police sweeping surveillance powers, re-name it a few hours before bringing it to the House, making sure to context it with child sexual abuse to prevent debate. Classy as always, Conservatives.

Funny to hear the Cons talking about "respecting the house". Time to link the "Contempt of Parliament" thread to this one?

Couldn't have train-wrecked this any more than they have. Too bad Canadians have short memories come election time. Already they are trying to focus the message back to "jobs and the economy".

[Urbane]

just another example of why having a right wing government with a majority is dangerous for all canadians. when you have a minister of the crown tabling bills and he has NO IDEA what is in the said bill is outrageous! this POS idiot should resign or harper should fire him for gross incompetence!

I agree that this bill is bad and if you do some reading you'll see that many conservatives (small c and big C) think it's bad as well. Toews has egg on his face but it has nothing to do with left-wing or right-wing.

[BriTer]

In light of the recent remarks made by our Public Safety Minister in regards to Bill C-30 in that by his own admission he has no full understanding of this bill's reach and implication with respect to a Canadian's rights to privacy, I call for this Minister's immediate resignation. This compounded by the fact this bill under different names has been tabled repeatedly in the past shows an even more in my opinion gross negligence to duty and incompetence.
In my opinion this man is an embarrassment at home and on the world stage to Canadian governance and to the rights and freedoms of the individual.
The title of Public Safety Minister should be held by someone that represents all that this title implies.

[Urbane]

Matt Gurney in today's National Post sums up the current situation this way:

Vic Toews, federal Minister of Public Safety, has had himself a little bit of a week. It began last Monday, when he fielded a question from Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia. Mr. Toews infamously defended the government’s so-called Lawful Access bill, which would increase the amount of information about customers that telecommunications companies are forced to keep and ease the restrictions against them making said information available to law enforcement, by declaring that, “[Mr. Scarpaleggia] can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”

Problem: Mr. Toews has now been forced to admit that the bill is badly flawed, and that he can’t support it in its current form. In other words, Mr. Toews can either stand with his government or the child pornographers … and he’s not picking the government.The problem at the heart of the issue is whether law enforcement officials can access information on a private citizen’s Internet usage without first obtaining a warrant, as they would have to before having a phone tapped or searching a building. Mr. Toews has been very clear that, yes, police would still need a warrant. That made up the rest of the child pornography exchange, in fact, as Hansard shows us (emphasis added):

Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, the government is preparing to read Canadians’ emails and track their movements through cellphone signals, in both cases, without a warrant. How can we trust the Conservatives with such sweeping powers when they use Facebook to keep law-abiding Canadians out of a public meeting? Is this 2012 or 1984? How can we trust them not to use private information to intimidate law-abiding Canadians gathering, for example, to protest a pipeline or to protest pension cuts?

Toews: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to tell him that every province unanimously supported moving forward with the legislation, legislation that was introduced first under the Liberal government, by his party. As technology evolves, many criminal activities, such as the distribution of child pornography, become much easier. We are proposing measures to bring our laws into the 21st century and to provide the police with the lawful tools that they need. He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.

Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, the government is preparing to read Canadians’ emails and follow their movements through their cellphone signals, without a warrant in either case. How could we extend such broad power to the Conservatives with any confidence when they used Facebook to keep law-abiding citizens away from public gatherings? What guarantee do we have that the government will not use these new powers to intimidate Canadians who want to gather to demonstrate against a pipeline, for example, or against a decision to cut their pensions?

Toews: Mr. Speaker, outrageous claims that private communications will be intercepted without a warrant is a complete fabrication. It was the member’s colleague Marlene Jennings who told us year after year to get this legislation passed. This legislation would not allow access to private communications without a warrant. That being said, our message is clear. If someone uses technology to commit crimes, such as distributing child pornography, the police will apprehend the individual and he or she will be punished to the full extent of the law.

Pretty clear — Mr. Toews said twice that the police would need a warrant to access the information. Indeed, this is something he stressed yet again on Friday, when his office submitted a letter to the editor of the National Post, which was printed on the letters page of Saturday’s edition. It read, in part, and again with emphasis added, “[If police want access to someone's email], they would need a warrant — and always will,” and then later, “There is no provision … that would allow police to read email without a warrant issued by a judge. Nothing in the proposed legislation would change that reality.”

But Mr. Toews has now been forced to … amend those statements. During an interview Saturday morning on CBC Radio, host Evan Solomon presented Mr. Toews with language from the Act that stipulates that in “exceptional circumstances”, “any police officer” can directly ask for information from an Internet Service Provider, without first obtaining a warrant. Mr. Toews was taken aback by this, and said, “This is the first time that I’m hearing this somehow extends ordinary police emergency powers. In my opinion, it doesn’t. And it shouldn’t.”

Mr. Toews is quite right that it shouldn’t. But as written, it clearly does. While Canada may need to update its laws to adapt to changing communications technologies, the coercive powers of the state must always be constrained by checks and balances — a warrant from a judge being one of the most important. It turns out that Mr. Scarpaleggia was right all along — the bill would allow for police to access personal information without a warrant. Nor is the “exceptional circumstances” qualifier particularly comforting — given that the act is designed, in theory, to protect children, it would be hard to find a circumstance that wouldn’t be exceptional. The bill will now be reviewed by a Parliamentary committee before being debated again by the House, and one hopes that this major flaw will be swiftly corrected.

One hopes further that Mr. Toews has learned his lesson. No one expects a cabinet minister to know every single line of a piece of legislation, but it is certainly alarming that the Minister of Public Safety was completely ignorant to an issue of fundamental freedom as serious as authorizing warrantless searches. This should never have happened, and must never happen again. Ministers clearly need to make a full understanding of the legislation they are promoting a higher priority, before they once again find themselves boxed in by their own bluster and rhetoric, forced to choose between supporting child pornographers or their own legislative proposals.

National Post

[Al Czervic]

just another example of why having a right wing government with a majority is dangerous for all canadians. when you have a minister of the crown tabling bills and he has NO IDEA what is in the said bill is outrageous! this POS idiot should resign or harper should fire him for gross incompetence!

There are idiots in every government regardless if they are right wing or left wing. In this case Toews is clearly in over his head and has been nothing but an embarrassment to himself and his Ministry. I doubt he will do the honourable and resign so let’s hope that Harper will send him packing out of cabinet.

[Woodenhead]

There are idiots in every government regardless if they are right wing or left wing. In this case Toews is clearly in over his head and has been nothing but an embarrassment to himself and his Ministry. I doubt he will do the honourable and resign so let’s hope that Harper will send him packing out of cabinet.

Agreed.

A trend I keep seeing these days is how the people putting forth legislation that has anything to do with the internet... actually screw it, here's a diagram to illustrate what I was going to say (wouldn't let me put in another scale on the right, but you get the picture):

[shoo]

He must think we are all idiots. Does our local MP support this moron's bill?

[Bagotricks]

Does our local MP support this *bleep*'s bill?

Perhaps Ron should have waited until his Minister admitted that he "misunderstood" the bill, before writing assertions that "warrant-less searches" would not happen. Way to tow the line Ron.

I agree that Vic should step down and after reading Ron's little piece as written - he is no better IMO. He didn't read the bill either - and if he did - he was told to stick to the party line. So much for that "vote for the candidate" line. Might as well have elected the Conservatives public relations department to represent us here in Kelowna.


This is from his little ditty piece he writes on Castanet.

The most frequent assertion made against C-30 is that the lawful access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians because it allows the government to snoop and spy on what you are doing on your computer. Giving authorities access to basic subscriber information does not give them either the technical ability or the legal authority to monitor personal communications and activities.

The information that can be obtained under this legislation remains basic information, as is currently available to authorities.

Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer's name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.

Another assertion made against C-30 is that the warrant system is no longer in place and that "warrantless access" to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.

Again, authorities will only have access to basic subscriber information limited to a customer's name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider.

Accessing the actual content of communications cannot be done without a warrant and legal authorization. This is the current law and this will not change.

In fact, the legal threshold for judicial authorization will be raised in the Criminal Code to ensure the privacy of Canadians will continue to be protected and safeguarded especially as it relates to the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.

If you have further concerns regarding the legislation, don’t hesitate to send me an e-mail at [email protected] . I encourage everyone to stay informed and stay in touch.

[zzontar]

I posted this on the other site, which should be merged with this one.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/toews-surprise ... 25434.html

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews says he is surprised to learn that a section of the government's online surveillance bill provides for "exceptional circumstances" under which "any police officer" can request customer information from a telecommunications service provider.

He's surprised... I guess he didn't even read it before?

[EdCase]

When will Harper realize that true leadership includes the courage to admit to mistakes and correct them. Toews has shown in both his professional and personal lives that he is not fit to hold the office of Public Safety Minister; Harper should fire him without hesitation. Not to do so shows that Harper is a coward or worse, approves of Toews.

[BriTer]

According to Chantal Bernier the assistant privacy commissioner of Canada, under this legislation "the government would create an obligation for internet service providers to give, upon written request from designated officers without any judicial authorization, the subscriber information behind an IP address."
"Our technologists tell us, that those data elements, are enough to construct enough of a profile to then track the online activities of an individual — and that without a warrant, without having to prove suspicion of criminal activity,"

And while Toews has sent the bill to committee for second reading, Michael Geist, a privacy expert and law professor at the University of Ottawa, told CBC News that "the government needs to go back to the drawing board."
Otherwise, Geist warns the alternative could be costly.
'"The notion that the government can screw this up, that they can install that sort of surveillance capabilities, that they can dispense with basic notions of privacy on the internet, I think is something that would stick for literally decades in the minds of many Canadians," Geist said.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... ction.html


This bill has been shot down a number of times but they keep trying. Keep in mind all information found by any member of any Canadian police force can and will then be shared with any member of any police force in the world.... US Dept of Homeland Security, Canada Customs and Immigration,Interpol, whoever, wherever. A search does not require any suspicion of guilt and abuses will happen.
Once your on line activities are looked at you are then entered into a 'security' file system of info that is global. You WILL be flagged in that file as having been investigated under the auspices of the 'Child Pornography Bill'. Irrespective of innocence or guilt you will be flagged.
Now, think travel and employment.

[BriTer]

I posted this on the other site, which should be merged with this one.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/toews-surprise ... 25434.html

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews says he is surprised to learn that a section of the government's online surveillance bill provides for "exceptional circumstances" under which "any police officer" can request customer information from a telecommunications service provider.

He's surprised... I guess he didn't even read it before?

In my opinion, complete and total BS. They are no stranger to this bill because it has been lurking in the shadows for quite some time. In my opinion any such claim shows an individual as either a liar or grossly,incredibly, stupidly incompetent.