Grenzrechnungsbefugnisse würden Anfragen ohne Polizei an Ärzte, Abtreibungskliniken und Hotels ermöglichen
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-border-bill-csis-snooping-powers/
Grenzrechnungsbefugnisse würden Anfragen ohne Polizei an Ärzte, Abtreibungskliniken und Hotels ermöglichen
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-border-bill-csis-snooping-powers/
4 Kommentare
I love government overreach!
Seriously what is Carneys plan with this bill? It’s a good/great bill outside of the hilarious mask off part at the end, but that’s part obviously wasn’t going to get through the house so why add it in the first place?
And what’s weird is I don’t think he’s even talked about why this part is added to the bill, I could be wrong but the entire liberal party seems silent on it
“New powers in the government’s border bill would allow the police and CSIS to request information about services provided to people from abortion clinics, doctors, hotels and other bodies without a warrant from a judge.” – see now this should be plastered literally everywhere, years of liberal supporters saying the CPC is going to go after abortion rights and the first bill Carney gets behind takes away some of the protections people seeking an abortion have. This reeks of giving abortion clinic information to the US for when women come here seeking an abortion because its banned in their state, if thats the case then Carney really has gone fully mask off not even a year in.
What?
This is from [Bill C-2](https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-2/first-reading):
>158 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 487.012:
>**Information demand**
>487.0121 (1) A peace officer or public officer may make a demand in Form 5.0011 to a person who provides services to the public requiring the person to provide, in the form, manner and time specified in the demand, the following information:
>(a) whether the person provides or has provided services to any subscriber or client, or to any account or identifier, specified in the form;
>(b) if the person provides or has provided services to that subscriber, client, account or identifier,
>[…]
>(c) if the person provides services to that subscriber, client, account or identifier, the date on which the person began providing the services;
>(d) if the person provided services to that subscriber, client, account or identifier but no longer does so, the period during which the person provided the services;
>(e) the name or identifier, if known, of any other person who provides services to the public and who provides or has provided services to that subscriber, client, account or identifier and any other information, if known, referred to in any of paragraphs (b) to (d) in relation to that other person and that subscriber, client, account or identifier; and
>(f) if the person is unable to provide any information referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e), a statement to that effect.
>**Conditions for making demand**
>Start of inserted block(2) The peace officer or public officer may make the demand only if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that
>(a) **an offence has been or will be committed under this Act or any other Act of Parliament**; and
>(b) **the information that is demanded will assist in the investigation of the offence**.
[Criminal Code 487.012 is about computer data.](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/FullText.html)
Also, abortion is legal in Canada thus not an ‚offence.‘ How did we get from snooping of telco subscriber information, which I disagree with by the way, to abortion? Can’t be because the article is written in bad faith, is it? The word ‚abortion‘ is sure to fire up everyone left of CPC.
Let’s just hope this is taken up by the Supreme Court and struck down really quickly because it may violate Charter Rights
I do hope that the aspects of the Bill challenging civil rights get challenged by voters, activists or the courts if they get to point where they’re implemented/near implementation. Overall I still like Carney, but I think he’s wrong in this specific instance. We’ve kind of seen bills like this from Harper & Trudeau that creeped on civil liberties as well before being toned down so I’m hoping that will be the case here as well.
There’s a lot of a good things in the Bill, but I think most Canadians probably wouldn’t agree on limiting civil rights to give law enforcement agencies more leeway in searches/arrests etc. Sadly, even the opposition has largely been tone deaf to such legislation in the past and it was usually the courts or civil rights groups that got the government to tone it down etc.