Life in Canada

Police will get much easier access to the web-surfing habits and personal information of all Canadians if a new law - expected to be introduced in the House of Commons next week - passes.

They also do not have to give reasons for the need for information relating to a subscribers personal data. I guess Canada gets what it deserves? If the police have reasonable grounds for illegal online activity, they can get a warrant, not go on phishing expeditions by snooping in the computers of ordinary Canadians. However Canadians, like fluffy lambs will be led to the slaughter of privacy .. and like it

At issue is the government's "lawful access" legislation tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday. The last nail in the Canadian media coffin perhaps?

The legislation, newly branded by the government as the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, but dubbed "online spying" by critics, is expected to pass under a Conservative majority government.

Privacy watchdogs caution if the so-called Lawful Access law is passed, it would give police access to web-browsing history and sensitive personal information, and would grant greater permission to track the cellular phones of suspects - much of it without the requirement of a warrant.

The bill, which is on the order paper for this week, would require Internet service providers and cellular phone companies to install equipment that would monitor users' activities so that the information could be turned over to police when requested.

It would also grant greater permission to law enforcement authorities to activate tracking mechanisms within cellphones so they can follow the whereabouts of suspected criminals. Its seems all suspects are guilty before the law. BIG BROTHER IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER If there is a suspicion of terrorist activity, the law would allow such tracking to go on for a year, rather than the current 60-day limit.

This isn't the first time this law has been introduced. The most recent incarnation of the Lawful Access bill died on the order paper when the federal election was called last year.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said the law will give the tools to police to adequately deal with 21st-century technology, and said anyone opposing the laws favours "the rights of child pornographers and organized crime ahead of the rights of lawabiding citizens."

However, Canada's privacy commissioner raised a red flag about the law late last year, writing a letter to Toews saying she was concerned about the permission it will grant police.

"In the case of access to subscriber data, there is not even a requirement (in the bill) for the commission of a crime to justify access to personal information - real names, home addresses, unlisted numbers, email addresses, IP addresses and much more - without a warrant," Jennifer Stoddart wrote.

"Only prior court authorization provides the rigorous privacy protection Canadians expect."

Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and an outspoken critic of the law, said he's worried about all the information police will be able to obtain without a warrant. "The ability to use that kind of information in a highly sensitive way without any real oversight is very real," Geist said.

As an example of the new powers, Geist said authorities would be able to use equipment to find the cellphone numbers of people attending a protest, and then be able to ask a cellphone company to disclose personal information on the people linked to those phones. Police could then track their web behaviours and monitor their movements by tracking their cellphones.

Geist said Canadians should also be concerned that the information obtained by police here could be shared with their counterparts around the world.

Geist added this could also be a tremendous waste of money, because ISPs would be required to spend a lot to put in place the advanced monitoring infrastructure proposed. "One thing (the government) has never provided is the evidence to show how the current set of laws has stymied investigations or created a significant barrier to ensure that we're safe in Canada."

He argued recent investigations into child pornography and the Sûreté du Québec's recent tapping of BlackBerry Messenger communication to make an arrest of suspected mobsters in a murder case in Montreal show the current laws already work well.

In my opinion:
In Canada if there exists a law requiring a private company, or person to do something, then that law also applies to the government as well. Furthermore the government does NOT have the right to exclude itself from any law it passes. That is the very basis of the Magna Carta. And as long as the Queen is still head of state, then NO government in Canada has the right to pass a law that excludes itself. Something that is all too frequent in this country. It’s time it was stopped and our courts reminded of the facts.

Please read on: to learn more about government fraud?

My Understanding:
In 1999, Parliament passed legislation, Bill C-78, amending the superannuation acts and enacting the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act. The passing of Bill C-78 followed stalled negotiations between the bargaining agents, the pensioners’ representative and the employer in 1998. At the core of those stalled negotiations was how to address the matter of surplus pension funds.

The effects of the bill were to create a new pension fund for benefits earned after April 1, 2000; to create an investment board to manage amounts transferred to the government under the superannuation legislation for market investment; to improve the annuity by basing the pension calculation on the five consecutive best-paid years of service; to separate employee superannuation and CPP contributions; and to change the manner in which contribution rates are set. A key provision of the bill allowed excess amounts accumulated before April 2000 to be debited from the Superannuation Accounts. This last point is the crux of the pension surplus debate.

Under the superannuation legislation, employees contribute a proportion of their salaries to the pension fund each working year, and the government makes a payment in kind on behalf of the employee. An employee is generally entitled to a pension at retirement, based on his or her years of service and annual salary. Since pension contributions are made over the course of a career, and only paid out once an employee retires, it is possible for a surplus of funds to accumulate. It was estimated that between 36.9 and 42.2% of the surplus in the Public Service Pension Account alone was attributable to employee contributions and the interest thereof. It was also estimated that the total pension surplus grew to more than $30 billion by 1999.

A portion of Bill C-78 allowed the government to amortize the surplus funds from the CF, PS and RCMP superannuation accounts during the 1990s, and to withdraw the remaining surplus amounts. Over the course of 15 years, beginning in 1991, $28 billion in surplus pension funds were amortized and assigned to purposes other than pension funding. The unions and pensioners argued that this method of accounting allowed the government to pay down its deficit by using monies that had been set aside for pensions, while taking contribution holidays. They argued that by virtue of its role as pension plan administrator, the government had a fiduciary duty to keep the funds segregated, and to use contributions solely for the purpose of funding the pension plan.

On the government side, Mr. Southey argued that the only obligation that the government has to employees in this regard is to pay them the appropriate pension amount at the right time. There is no general right to funds that are paid in to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, other than what was promised under the pension legislation. As long as pensioners receive the pensions promised, the government is meeting its obligations. He also argued that the private law concept of fiduciary duty does not apply where the Crown has not explicitly created the duty in legislation.