Home \|\| About KDR \|\| Weekly Feature Archive
Is Ottawa listening in? No one seems to care THOMAS WALKOM - The Toronto Star VIA theFilter.ca July 04, 2006 Related - What is Wrong with Canada ? In Canada, everything is muted. These days, Americans are agonizing over revelations that their government taps private telephone calls without judicial authorization. But Ottawa has long been doing the same thing — without a whisper of complaint from public or press. In Canada, George W. Bush's attempts to infringe on the liberties of his citizens receive considerable attention. Yet, similar efforts by the Canadian government do not. Last week, when federal Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart slammed the slipshod way in which Ottawa passes along personal information about Canadians to the U.S., her report merited 459 words in The Globe And Mail, 200 words in the National Post and 140 words in this newspaper. This week, when former Supreme Court chief justice Antonio Lamer hinted that a secretive government snooping agency called the Communications Security Establishment may be breaking the law, he received 630 words on page eight of the Globe, nothing in the Post or Star and 126 words in The Record of Kitchener-Waterloo. The reasons for this rather blasé attitude on the part of Canadians and their press tribunes stem from this country's overweening culture of bureaucratization. In Canada, everything is conditional; very little is clear-cut. Our Constitution does promise us rights, such as freedom of speech. But under certain conditions, it also allows governments to override those rights. We don't believe in torture. In fact, we've signed binding international covenants against the practice. But can Ottawa deport people to countries where they face torture? The Supreme Court says maybe. Where controversial matters of state are involved, Canadian governments have become masters of semi-revelation. Information is routinely released in dribs and drabs; dramatic announcements are avoided. As a result, by the time Canadians figure out what has happened, they are already bored. Governments appoint independent watchdogs to supervise particularly sensitive matters. But more often than not, these watchdogs adopt the bureaucratic sensibilities of those they are overseeing — with the result that, when they do say something noteworthy, it is almost incomprehensible. Which brings us to the Communications Security Establishment, a body that intercepts telecommunications traffic. During the Cold War, its job was to spy on the Soviet Union. Since 9/11, it has focused on international terror. In late 2001, Parliament quietly gave this agency Bush-like authority to monitor Canadian telephone and Internet traffic without judicial warrant — as long as one of the parties was outside the country and the minister of defence agreed. Ottawa also appointed a watchdog, latterly Lamer, to ensure that the agency kept within the law. Article Posted at www.KnowledgeDrivenRevolution.com In his most recent report, the former Supreme Court judge gives the security agency what can only called a lukewarm endorsement, noting that it is complying with the law "as it is currently interpreted by the Department of Justice." But he also says that he disagrees with this interpretation (he doesn't explain how) and that, in any case, the agency is not giving him enough information to determine whether its surveillance of Canadians is necessary. Or, as he puts it, in the mind-numbing language of Canadian bureaucratese: "The lack of clarity in this regard has made it difficult for my staff to assess compliance with certain of the conditions that the legislation requires to be satisfied before a ministerial authorization is given." Which, simply put, means Canada's electronic snoops may be breaking the law but Lamer doesn't know for sure since no one will tell him. Privacy Commissioner Stoddart's report is equally troubling and equally dense. She's been looking at how Canada shares information with the U.S. and has discovered that there are few limits. Officers from Canada's Border Service Agency are supposed to get approval before giving information about individual Canadians to the Americans. But, Stoddart says, many simply phone their U.S. counterparts and don't bother with the paperwork. There are privacy safeguards for sharing information with European countries. But few safeguards apply when personal data are passed along to the Americans. In some cases, she says, Canadians travelling by air to the U.S. are harassed unfairly by American immigration officials because the information passed on to them by Ottawa is either incomplete or wrong. A final note: Canadian media are currently seized by the latest controversy surrounding Bush's war on terror — the revelation that, since 2001, the U.S. has been secretly monitoring worldwide financial transactions. Was CIA given access to our bank records? the Star asked on its front page Wednesday. In fact, as the Star story points out in its final two paragraphs, the answer to this question is a clear yes. Since 2002, U.S. and other foreign security services have had access to Canadian bank records involving international transfers worth more than $10,000. I don't recall anyone complaining at the time. Indeed, the only published criticism levelled at the new legislation since then is that it isn't intrusive enough. Very Canadian. About KDR \| \| Home \| \| Weekly Features Archive	Weekly Weekly Features Archive
In Depth What Is Wrong With Canada Recent 9-11 News Suppressed by the Media Aspartame: The Sweetest Killer The Number 1 Reason YOU became a Slave Knowledge Driven Look at Your Favourite Canadian Political Parties
Archive April May June 2006 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 01 Weekly Features 2006 2005 Read Today's Knowledge Driven News

Home || About KDR || Weekly Feature Archive

Is Ottawa listening in? No one seems to care

THOMAS WALKOM - The Toronto Star VIA theFilter.ca
July 04, 2006

Commentary Related - What is Wrong with Canada ?

In Canada, everything is muted. These days, Americans are agonizing over revelations that their government taps private telephone calls without judicial authorization. But Ottawa has long been doing the same thing — without a whisper of complaint from public or press.

In Canada, George W. Bush's attempts to infringe on the liberties of his citizens receive considerable attention. Yet, similar efforts by the Canadian government do not.

Last week, when federal Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart slammed the slipshod way in which Ottawa passes along personal information about Canadians to the U.S., her report merited 459 words in The Globe And Mail, 200 words in the National Post and 140 words in this newspaper.

This week, when former Supreme Court chief justice Antonio Lamer hinted that a secretive government snooping agency called the Communications Security Establishment may be breaking the law, he received 630 words on page eight of the Globe, nothing in the Post or Star and 126 words in The Record of Kitchener-Waterloo.

The reasons for this rather blasé attitude on the part of Canadians and their press tribunes stem from this country's overweening culture of bureaucratization. In Canada, everything is conditional; very little is clear-cut.

Our Constitution does promise us rights, such as freedom of speech. But under certain conditions, it also allows governments to override those rights.

We don't believe in torture. In fact, we've signed binding international covenants against the practice. But can Ottawa deport people to countries where they face torture? The Supreme Court says maybe.

Where controversial matters of state are involved, Canadian governments have become masters of semi-revelation. Information is routinely released in dribs and drabs; dramatic announcements are avoided.

As a result, by the time Canadians figure out what has happened, they are already bored.

Governments appoint independent watchdogs to supervise particularly sensitive matters. But more often than not, these watchdogs adopt the bureaucratic sensibilities of those they are overseeing — with the result that, when they do say something noteworthy, it is almost incomprehensible.

Which brings us to the Communications Security Establishment, a body that intercepts telecommunications traffic. During the Cold War, its job was to spy on the Soviet Union. Since 9/11, it has focused on international terror.

In late 2001, Parliament quietly gave this agency Bush-like authority to monitor Canadian telephone and Internet traffic without judicial warrant — as long as one of the parties was outside the country and the minister of defence agreed.

Ottawa also appointed a watchdog, latterly Lamer, to ensure that the agency kept within the law.

Article Posted at www.KnowledgeDrivenRevolution.com

In his most recent report, the former Supreme Court judge gives the security agency what can only called a lukewarm endorsement, noting that it is complying with the law "as it is currently interpreted by the Department of Justice."

But he also says that he disagrees with this interpretation (he doesn't explain how) and that, in any case, the agency is not giving him enough information to determine whether its surveillance of Canadians is necessary.

Or, as he puts it, in the mind-numbing language of Canadian bureaucratese: "The lack of clarity in this regard has made it difficult for my staff to assess compliance with certain of the conditions that the legislation requires to be satisfied before a ministerial authorization is given."

Which, simply put, means Canada's electronic snoops may be breaking the law but Lamer doesn't know for sure since no one will tell him.

Privacy Commissioner Stoddart's report is equally troubling and equally dense. She's been looking at how Canada shares information with the U.S. and has discovered that there are few limits.

Officers from Canada's Border Service Agency are supposed to get approval before giving information about individual Canadians to the Americans. But, Stoddart says, many simply phone their U.S. counterparts and don't bother with the paperwork.

There are privacy safeguards for sharing information with European countries. But few safeguards apply when personal data are passed along to the Americans.

In some cases, she says, Canadians travelling by air to the U.S. are harassed unfairly by American immigration officials because the information passed on to them by Ottawa is either incomplete or wrong.

A final note: Canadian media are currently seized by the latest controversy surrounding Bush's war on terror — the revelation that, since 2001, the U.S. has been secretly monitoring worldwide financial transactions. Was CIA given access to our bank records? the Star asked on its front page Wednesday.

In fact, as the Star story points out in its final two paragraphs, the answer to this question is a clear yes. Since 2002, U.S. and other foreign security services have had access to Canadian bank records involving international transfers worth more than $10,000. I don't recall anyone complaining at the time. Indeed, the only published criticism levelled at the new legislation since then is that it isn't intrusive enough. Very Canadian.

Maple Leaf Footer
About KDR | | Home | | Weekly Features Archive