Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada News Your Rights Online

The Quiet Death of the Canadian Internet Survellance Bill 67

Posted by samzenpus
from the take-off dept.
mykepredko writes "C-30, Canada's version of SOPA, would grant the federal government and law enforcement agencies the power to obtain information about individuals who are online without having to apply for a warrant is dead in committee. 'I don't know whether it was because the Minister so screwed up the messaging, or whether they've had some other input saying they went too far or it just can't be salvaged,' Nathan Cullen, House Leader for the NDP, speculates."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Quiet Death of the Canadian Internet Survellance Bill

Comments Filter:
  • Either that or all the maple syrup [huffingtonpost.ca] has lulled them into a diabetic coma.

  • by dgatwood (11270) on Thursday October 11, 2012 @12:45PM (#41621033) Journal

    ...then it will just reappear, possibly a piece at a time, attached to some appropriations bill for homeless battered women's shelters.

    • by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday October 11, 2012 @12:51PM (#41621083) Journal

      My understanding is that the most potent objections to the bill didn't come from the Opposition or any particular civil liberties group, but rather from the Tory caucus itself. Rumor has it there were several very blunt exchanges in caucus over this bill between the Minister and various Tory MPs, and that the Government intentionally booted into the Death By Committee.

      Not to say that you're not right, but it's pretty clear there are places that sizable portions of the Tory caucus just simply will not go, and for a Government, even the hint of a caucus revolt over legislation is enough to make the legislation go away quietly.

      • Vic Tuows (or what ever his name is) didn't help with his pedophilia comparison

      • Corporations can afford to influence politicians with huge donations to election funds that ordinary voters can't afford to make. This has created a culture of elected representatives beholden to corporate interests instead of their constituents. Political donations should be limited to a maximum that the average citizen could afford to make and corporate entities will have the same limit. The limit will apply to the holding company and all subsidiaries in a situation where there are many subordinate shell
        • by arthurpaliden (939626) on Thursday October 11, 2012 @01:15PM (#41621375)
          In Canada federal political parties can only accept donations from individual citizens, breathing biological entities, and the amount is capped around $1,000.00 per year.
          • by compro01 (777531) on Thursday October 11, 2012 @01:37PM (#41621609)

            Sure, unless you're donating to someone named "Dean Del Mastro", in which case you get reimbursed for your "donations" [ottawacitizen.com].

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            However keep in mind that it is confirmed that breathing biological entities with deep pockets can actually donate over 60k to their preferred political party by using a loophole to donate 200 dollars to each riding of their political party of choice. Something that's been acknowledged but Harper refuses to close for some reason. (Probably because his party is getting most of those willing donations lately. Probably by some people doing this very thing. - He -does- apparently serve corporate interests after

          • by Chris Burke (6130)

            I'm disgusted at Canada's flagrant discrimination against the non-breathing.

        • Big money influences the voters more than it does the politicians. Why won't they vote for somebody that they hear very little about? I mean, it's not like that a politicians voting record is hidden from view or anything. It's that voters are too lazy to look beyond the mass media campaigns. The politicians are only going along. We make it too easy for them. Sorry, I can't sympathize. Let them spend what they want, and then show them how they wasted all that money by voting for somebody else. Then it will a

      • by quacking duck (607555) on Thursday October 11, 2012 @01:14PM (#41621359)

        They happily ignore anything the opposition or other groups say or do--they have a majority and don't care. But, accusing opponents of the bill of supporting child pornographers sure was a good strategy for bringing wayward Conservatives in line.

        Extremist rhetoric might work well for Rush Limbaugh, but not so well when used against your own colleagues and supporters. With those words Vic Toews accidentally shot the bill in the back with a rocket grenade, and we're all happier for it.

      • by Tridus (79566) on Thursday October 11, 2012 @02:46PM (#41622417) Homepage

        That was one group, yes. The more powerful group was Conservative party members, particularly donors. They started hearing during fundraising calls about this, and people closed their wallets in protest.

        The Conservative party is better then any other party in Canada at grassroots fundraising. When that gets threatened, the party brass respond VERY quickly.

    • Forget spreading things out, they'll just lump it in with the 200 other non-budget items in another omnibus budget bill.

      And I thought riders to unrelated bills were fucked up... those seem to happen frequently in the US, don't hear much about them in Canada. But, at least riders are limited to a few each bill.

  • The real Reason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arthurpaliden (939626) on Thursday October 11, 2012 @12:46PM (#41621035)
    It might have had something to do with the country wide revolt that was spawned when it was initially tabled and the minister refereed to all those who opposed the bill as supporters and practitioners of pedophilia.
    • Yeah, that was one of his worst moves. And it's not like he hasn't given us lots of examples to choose from.

    • Revolt? Was anybody voted out over this?

      • No but they crashed the parliamentary web and mail servers for a couple of days with all the daily data they sent him. He wanted it anyway so we all set it to him, cc'ed on all emails, daily calenders, web browsing histories et al.
        • That's only a minor inconvenience, far from being a 'revolt'. And I highly doubt that's what killed the bill.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            In Canada, it was a violent revolt. Usually we just politely ask.

    • As people started posting personal information they found on the internet of the Minister involved, Vic Toews. Including stuff about his divorce, affairs, all sorts of good stuff...

      Good Times.

      Reminds me of back in the day when Stockwill Day proposed a law to have a referendum vote country wide if anyone was able to get a patition from 10% of the population, so the TV political satire show "This hour has 22 minutes" did an online patition to change Stockwell Day's name to "Doris Day" and got 450,000 signitur

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The Cons have put everything they want to do into the "Budget Implementation Bill" and made it intentionally obfuscated and avoided all debate.

    Every bad thing they wanted to do is now simply amalgamated into one monster bill that no member of parliament wants to read.

    • They may not want to read it but when it is posted on the net everyone else will.
    • by jeff13 (255285)

      Oh right, the second massive 400 page omnibus bill due to hit the floor soon. The sort of bill Prime Minister Harper himself used to complain was undemocratic when he was in opposition. What giant hypocrites conservatives are!

      • by Anonymous Coward

        they are all Hypocrites... Liberal, Conservative, NDP, BLOC... they say one thing and do another... I give up.

        • by alexo (9335)

          Personally, I'm willing to give the NDP a chance.
          But you can vote Green if you're inclined to.

          • by Mashiki (184564)

            Personally, I'm willing to give the NDP a chance.
            But you can vote Green if you're inclined to.

            By all means, vote NDP if you want. But remember Ontario, and every other province that's ever elected an NDP government to the helm. The first and immediate effect is that our provincial(ontario) bond ratings are cut by at least one if not two to three points(it will happen at the federal level too if it they're elected). The lenders know exactly what's going to happen. Well in Ontario's case, ol'Bob Rae managed to soak up a $50B debt, without even trying. My kids, kids will be paying that one off.

            Bu

      • by J Story (30227)

        Oh right, the second massive 400 page omnibus bill due to hit the floor soon. The sort of bill Prime Minister Harper himself used to complain was undemocratic when he was in opposition. What giant hypocrites conservatives are!

        A big problem with getting legislation through is simple logistics. There are only so many days in the legislative calendar, and only so many members of parliament that can sit on committees to scrutinize bills. Omnibus bills are nobody's favourite, but in practise there is no other way to get some bills into law. At least the Canadian version of an omnibus bill is readable, unlike in the States, where the Obamacare legislation that Obama ultimately signed into law was 2,700 pages.

    • by Mashiki (184564)

      Right, could you please point out the relevant sections in the bill. The pre-post bill is online by the way, I'll wait.

  • Property value in Canada just skyrocketed.

    • by compro01 (777531)

      That's been happening for years. Maybe this'll keep the bubble going for awhile longer.

  • by fustakrakich (1673220) on Thursday October 11, 2012 @01:41PM (#41621645) Journal

    It's not dead. It's just resting.

    It won't ever die with the kinds people that are presently occupying the office. If you want to actually kill it, a different class of people must be voted in.

    • by Bieeanda (961632)
      You beat me to it. They're just going to go back, move some punctuation around, then re-submit it when people are distracted. Or come up with some pretext to shove it through-- maybe illegally shutting Parliament down again.
  • I'm sure it's much easier to do if they just don't admit they're doing it. Then you don't need permission. That's how wiretapping works in the US anyway...
  • I like how the editor got one typo out of the title from the submission [slashdot.org] (quite->quiet) but not "survellance" for surveillance.
  • But maybe, just maybe some politicians understand that with such legislation they themselves fall victim to the very laws that get created. Having their privacy invaded without warrant doesn't sit well with anyone.
  • The conservatives have a history of tabling unpopular bills that die off prematurely. It took them 6 years and 4 attempts to pass a copyright reform bill. Those bills were conveniently tabled at inopportune moments where they were guaranteed to be killed off. I have a theory that they're doing this to earn checkmarks for implementing their agenda and then using the opposition as an excuse to their cronies as to why the legislation failed. We tried, but oh darn there was an election call. They don't take a p

  • Toews was an idiot to try and put this past the well-educated and often computer-literate Canadian population in the first place.

The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer. The haves get more, the have-nots die.

Working...