Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Saturday, 3 December 2011
Saturday, 19 November 2011
Sunday, 23 October 2011
Laws for 21st century: A guide to Canada’s proposed cyber investigation bills
Kathryn Blaze Carlson Oct 22, 2011 – 10:35 AM ET | Last Updated: Oct 23, 2011 11:01 AM ET
Canadians spend more time online than anyone else in the world — an average of 44 hours per month — and nearly a third of the population owns a smartphone, spending more than 17 hours on the device each week. So when the Conservative government reintroduces three pieces of lawful access legislation aimed at giving police greater powers and more tools to conduct investigations using new technologies, Canadians should have a clear understanding of what is on the table. However, much of the rhetoric circulating online about the legislation is patently untrue, distracting from the meat of the bills and the very real privacy implications at stake. Although it is unclear whether the bills will appear exactly as they did when they were first tabled in the spring, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said this month his government is committed to reintroducing the lawful access legislation. Post reporter Kathryn Blaze Carlson has studied the previous legislation and spoken to experts. Here, she offers up eight things it would do — and three it would not:
1. CREATING “BACK DOORS” FOR POLICE INTERCEPTION The Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act would require telecommunications and Internet service providers to be capable of decrypting, decoding, and preserving historic and real-time online and telephone communications, essentially creating built-in “back doors” for police interception. Some providers already have this capability, but they preserve information on their servers for different lengths of time depending on company policy. Some smaller providers do not have this capability at all, particularly certain ones in northern Ontario and Quebec, said Christopher Parsons, a doctoral candidate at the University of Victoria studying digital surveillance. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said it is “very frustrating from an investigative perspective” when police obtain a court order to intercept communications, only to learn the relevant Internet service provider is technically incapable of digging up the communications data. The act would also give the RCMP and CSIS the authority to conduct background security checks on any employees who are involved in intercepting communications. Mr. Parsons said it is unclear whether the legislation will target anything more than the “low-hanging fruit” because savvy criminals will be able to evade authorities by encrypting their messages and sending them through several network nodes.
2. OBTAINING BASIC CUSTOMER INFORMATION WITHOUT A WARRANT Police could demand that telecommunications and Internet service providers turn over a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, and Internet protocol address — and they could do so without a warrant under exceptional circumstances. “When Internet service providers hear ‘exceptional circumstances,’ they hear ‘whenever (police) want,’” Mr. Parsons said. Michael Geist, chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, said that sort of customer information could be linked with other bits of information to build a detailed profile. It can also be used to “out” someone using a pseudonym in an online chat forum. “All of a sudden, you go from ‘HoneyBunny14’ or ‘BlackAnarchist’ to ‘John Smith’ living at a particular address with a particular phone number,” Mr. Parsons said, adding that social activists are concerned police will use the provision to monitor people organizing legal protests or expressing dissent online. Beyond that, the target is not necessarily the only person using a particular Internet protocol address, so others could be inadvertently monitored at a later stage in the investigation. Mr. Stamatakis said this sort of additional power would be exercised to investigate only the most serious crimes, including child pornography, organized crime and terrorism. “The legislation recognizes the technology criminals are using today,” he said, echoing Mr. Toews comments earlier this month that the Criminal Code contains out-of-date language such as the word “telegraph.”
3. CREATING NEW POLICE POWERS TO OBTAIN COMMUNICATIONS DATA Without a warrant, police could make a “preservation demand” requiring telecommunications and Internet service providers to single out a customer and preserve for 90 days what Dwayne Winseck, a Carleton University communications professor who has studied the Internet for two decades, called “meta data.” So-called meta data is communications information generated during the creation, transmission or reception of a communication including the type, time, duration, origin, and destination of the communication. Police would then have to ask a judge for a “production order” to actually obtain the preserved information. Once police get the court order, they could, for example, find out who a person called on their cell phone, the duration of the call, and when the call was placed. Importantly, the proposed legislation excludes the actual content of the conversation. Once police have a copy of what they want, the service providers must destroy the information. The warantless provision is a welcome one, Mr. Stamatakis said, because it acts as a stop-gap measure while police work to obtain a warrant — a lengthy, labour-intensive process at times.
4. CUSTOMERS MAY NEVER KNOW IF, OR WHY, THEY WERE TARGETED The proposed surveillance legislation says authorities could prohibit telecommunications and Internet service providers from telling a customer that he or she was the subject of information disclosures. The potential cumulative effect of all this legislation, said Mr. Geist, is self-censorship: “What we’re creating is nothing like the Chinese firewall … but I think it could have a chilling effect in terms of people’s willingness to express themselves online, even if they’re not doing anything illegal.”
5. POSSIBLY INCREASED COSTS FOR CELL PHONE AND INTERNET SERVICE If telecommunications and Internet service providers are forced to upgrade their technology and train their staff to use it, then their capital and operating costs will inevitably climb. “Customers might end up paying the added cost for something that could be used against them at any time,” Mr. Parsons said, adding the requirement could also squeeze out smaller, cash-strapped providers.
6. TRACKING DIALED NUMBERS WITHOUT A WARRANT The proposed legislation would allow police to install and use number recorders without a warrant in “exigent circumstances.” A number recorder, which records the telephone numbers associated with outgoing and incoming calls, would be installed remotely by a telecommunications provider at their call centre hub. The installation can last up to 60 days, but it could be extended to one year if a warrant is obtained and if the investigation involves organized crime or terrorism.
7. COVERTLY ACTIVATING DEVICES TO TRACK CELL PHONES AND VEHICLES The proposed legislation brings police powers into the 21st century by tacitly acknowledging that vehicles and mobile phones — and therefore the people using them — can be tracked using GPS or cell towers. The Criminal Code currently says police can, with a warrant or without one in an emergency, “install, maintain and remove a tracking device in or on any thing, including a thing carried, used or worn by any person.” The proposed bill would extend that list to include the power to “activate” a device, “including covertly.” Mr. Parsons said this allows police to “take advantage of existing technologies,” and said he would not object to the provision if it ensured there would be court oversight.
8. OPENING THE DOOR TO “FISHING EXPEDITIONS” The legislation surrounding preservation and production orders would allow police to get information from telecommunications and Internet service providers based on “reasonable grounds to suspect” the information would “assist an investigation.” The existing Criminal Code does not offer a similarly vague suspicion, but rather stipulates “reasonable grounds to believe” an offence “has been or is suspected to have been committed” or that the information will “afford evidence respecting the commission of the offence.” Mr. Winseck said this opens the door for police to go on “fishing expeditions” and potentially “turns the relationship between the cops and (Internet Service Providers) into a routine one.”
… AND THREE MISCONCEPTIONS
1. HYPERLINKING TO HATE PROPAGANDA WILL BE CRIMINALIZED When the legislative summary of one of the bills surfaced saying “the offences of public incitement of hatred and willful promotion of hatred may be committed… by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted,” onlookers criticized the bill as overly far-reaching. However, the actual bill makes no explicit reference to hyperlinking, instead expanding the definition of “communicating” hate material to include “making available.” It is true the vague definition of “communicating” could capture posting a link to another website, but a recent Supreme Court libel decision will likely quiet that fear: The judges decided unanimously this week that a person cannot be held responsible for what appears on a hyperlinked site.
2. POLICE WILL GET NEW POWERS TO LISTEN IN ON PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS
The legislation does not extend police powers to intercept the actual content of private communications, for example what was said in a telephone call or written in an email. Mr. Toews has said those claims — put forward by online privacy activists — are a “complete fabrication.” Also, the Criminal Code already allows police to intercept private communications without a warrant, so long as the situation is urgent and the interception could prevent serious harm to a person or property.
3. INTERNET PROVIDERS WILL MONITOR ALL CANADIANS, ALL THE TIME
The government has been accused of embarking on warrantless online wiretapping where Canadians will be constantly monitored, but Mr. Geist said on his blog these charges amount to “political softball.” Yes, telecommunications and Internet service providers will need the capability to preserve information on all users, regardless of whether or not they are subject to an investigation. But those providers must only preserve and produce information relating to users who are actually targeted by police.
National Post kcarlson@nationalpost.com
Canadians spend more time online than anyone else in the world — an average of 44 hours per month — and nearly a third of the population owns a smartphone, spending more than 17 hours on the device each week. So when the Conservative government reintroduces three pieces of lawful access legislation aimed at giving police greater powers and more tools to conduct investigations using new technologies, Canadians should have a clear understanding of what is on the table. However, much of the rhetoric circulating online about the legislation is patently untrue, distracting from the meat of the bills and the very real privacy implications at stake. Although it is unclear whether the bills will appear exactly as they did when they were first tabled in the spring, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said this month his government is committed to reintroducing the lawful access legislation. Post reporter Kathryn Blaze Carlson has studied the previous legislation and spoken to experts. Here, she offers up eight things it would do — and three it would not:
1. CREATING “BACK DOORS” FOR POLICE INTERCEPTION The Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act would require telecommunications and Internet service providers to be capable of decrypting, decoding, and preserving historic and real-time online and telephone communications, essentially creating built-in “back doors” for police interception. Some providers already have this capability, but they preserve information on their servers for different lengths of time depending on company policy. Some smaller providers do not have this capability at all, particularly certain ones in northern Ontario and Quebec, said Christopher Parsons, a doctoral candidate at the University of Victoria studying digital surveillance. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said it is “very frustrating from an investigative perspective” when police obtain a court order to intercept communications, only to learn the relevant Internet service provider is technically incapable of digging up the communications data. The act would also give the RCMP and CSIS the authority to conduct background security checks on any employees who are involved in intercepting communications. Mr. Parsons said it is unclear whether the legislation will target anything more than the “low-hanging fruit” because savvy criminals will be able to evade authorities by encrypting their messages and sending them through several network nodes.
2. OBTAINING BASIC CUSTOMER INFORMATION WITHOUT A WARRANT Police could demand that telecommunications and Internet service providers turn over a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, and Internet protocol address — and they could do so without a warrant under exceptional circumstances. “When Internet service providers hear ‘exceptional circumstances,’ they hear ‘whenever (police) want,’” Mr. Parsons said. Michael Geist, chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, said that sort of customer information could be linked with other bits of information to build a detailed profile. It can also be used to “out” someone using a pseudonym in an online chat forum. “All of a sudden, you go from ‘HoneyBunny14’ or ‘BlackAnarchist’ to ‘John Smith’ living at a particular address with a particular phone number,” Mr. Parsons said, adding that social activists are concerned police will use the provision to monitor people organizing legal protests or expressing dissent online. Beyond that, the target is not necessarily the only person using a particular Internet protocol address, so others could be inadvertently monitored at a later stage in the investigation. Mr. Stamatakis said this sort of additional power would be exercised to investigate only the most serious crimes, including child pornography, organized crime and terrorism. “The legislation recognizes the technology criminals are using today,” he said, echoing Mr. Toews comments earlier this month that the Criminal Code contains out-of-date language such as the word “telegraph.”
3. CREATING NEW POLICE POWERS TO OBTAIN COMMUNICATIONS DATA Without a warrant, police could make a “preservation demand” requiring telecommunications and Internet service providers to single out a customer and preserve for 90 days what Dwayne Winseck, a Carleton University communications professor who has studied the Internet for two decades, called “meta data.” So-called meta data is communications information generated during the creation, transmission or reception of a communication including the type, time, duration, origin, and destination of the communication. Police would then have to ask a judge for a “production order” to actually obtain the preserved information. Once police get the court order, they could, for example, find out who a person called on their cell phone, the duration of the call, and when the call was placed. Importantly, the proposed legislation excludes the actual content of the conversation. Once police have a copy of what they want, the service providers must destroy the information. The warantless provision is a welcome one, Mr. Stamatakis said, because it acts as a stop-gap measure while police work to obtain a warrant — a lengthy, labour-intensive process at times.
4. CUSTOMERS MAY NEVER KNOW IF, OR WHY, THEY WERE TARGETED The proposed surveillance legislation says authorities could prohibit telecommunications and Internet service providers from telling a customer that he or she was the subject of information disclosures. The potential cumulative effect of all this legislation, said Mr. Geist, is self-censorship: “What we’re creating is nothing like the Chinese firewall … but I think it could have a chilling effect in terms of people’s willingness to express themselves online, even if they’re not doing anything illegal.”
5. POSSIBLY INCREASED COSTS FOR CELL PHONE AND INTERNET SERVICE If telecommunications and Internet service providers are forced to upgrade their technology and train their staff to use it, then their capital and operating costs will inevitably climb. “Customers might end up paying the added cost for something that could be used against them at any time,” Mr. Parsons said, adding the requirement could also squeeze out smaller, cash-strapped providers.
6. TRACKING DIALED NUMBERS WITHOUT A WARRANT The proposed legislation would allow police to install and use number recorders without a warrant in “exigent circumstances.” A number recorder, which records the telephone numbers associated with outgoing and incoming calls, would be installed remotely by a telecommunications provider at their call centre hub. The installation can last up to 60 days, but it could be extended to one year if a warrant is obtained and if the investigation involves organized crime or terrorism.
7. COVERTLY ACTIVATING DEVICES TO TRACK CELL PHONES AND VEHICLES The proposed legislation brings police powers into the 21st century by tacitly acknowledging that vehicles and mobile phones — and therefore the people using them — can be tracked using GPS or cell towers. The Criminal Code currently says police can, with a warrant or without one in an emergency, “install, maintain and remove a tracking device in or on any thing, including a thing carried, used or worn by any person.” The proposed bill would extend that list to include the power to “activate” a device, “including covertly.” Mr. Parsons said this allows police to “take advantage of existing technologies,” and said he would not object to the provision if it ensured there would be court oversight.
8. OPENING THE DOOR TO “FISHING EXPEDITIONS” The legislation surrounding preservation and production orders would allow police to get information from telecommunications and Internet service providers based on “reasonable grounds to suspect” the information would “assist an investigation.” The existing Criminal Code does not offer a similarly vague suspicion, but rather stipulates “reasonable grounds to believe” an offence “has been or is suspected to have been committed” or that the information will “afford evidence respecting the commission of the offence.” Mr. Winseck said this opens the door for police to go on “fishing expeditions” and potentially “turns the relationship between the cops and (Internet Service Providers) into a routine one.”
… AND THREE MISCONCEPTIONS
1. HYPERLINKING TO HATE PROPAGANDA WILL BE CRIMINALIZED When the legislative summary of one of the bills surfaced saying “the offences of public incitement of hatred and willful promotion of hatred may be committed… by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted,” onlookers criticized the bill as overly far-reaching. However, the actual bill makes no explicit reference to hyperlinking, instead expanding the definition of “communicating” hate material to include “making available.” It is true the vague definition of “communicating” could capture posting a link to another website, but a recent Supreme Court libel decision will likely quiet that fear: The judges decided unanimously this week that a person cannot be held responsible for what appears on a hyperlinked site.
2. POLICE WILL GET NEW POWERS TO LISTEN IN ON PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS
The legislation does not extend police powers to intercept the actual content of private communications, for example what was said in a telephone call or written in an email. Mr. Toews has said those claims — put forward by online privacy activists — are a “complete fabrication.” Also, the Criminal Code already allows police to intercept private communications without a warrant, so long as the situation is urgent and the interception could prevent serious harm to a person or property.
3. INTERNET PROVIDERS WILL MONITOR ALL CANADIANS, ALL THE TIME
The government has been accused of embarking on warrantless online wiretapping where Canadians will be constantly monitored, but Mr. Geist said on his blog these charges amount to “political softball.” Yes, telecommunications and Internet service providers will need the capability to preserve information on all users, regardless of whether or not they are subject to an investigation. But those providers must only preserve and produce information relating to users who are actually targeted by police.
National Post kcarlson@nationalpost.com
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Who's buying your elections ? (The Canadian Edition)
Election time in Ontario. That's in Canada in case you're not up on your geography. You know, the province where Toronto is....No ?
OK....the place where the CN Tower is ?
Anyways, in case you were interested, the following should give you some idea of just who is buying the vote in Ontario. Who the "special interests" are, which political party is "for sale" and at what price not to mention who's hoping that a few well placed donations will grow into political access, favoritism and beneficial legislation.
Lastly, consider the amounts below and then compare them with what's been raised historically in US State elections. We may have politicians as inept and corruptable as any other country but at least ours come cheap !!
Unlike the federal government and some provincial governments, Ontario has not banned corporations or unions from donating to political parties. The province allows donors to give up to $9,300 to a party each year, well above the federal limit of $1,100 for individual donations. Companies can exceed the provincial contribution limits by donating through subsidiaries that are legally separate from their parent company, while unions can rack up significant spending by donating through their local bargaining units. Of the more than $14-million that Ontario’s three main parties have collected in pre-campaign donations of at least $100 this year alone, nearly $9-million came from corporations and unions. Here, the National Post’s Tamsin McMahon analyzes some of the biggest spenders:
Parties by the numbers
Despite two back-to-back majority governments, the Liberals trail the Conservatives in pre-campaign donations for 2011, collecting about $6-million to the Tories’ $7-million. The NDP had raised about $1.4-million before the start of the election on Sept. 7. Construction firms were the most generous donors, donating $1.5-million, with slightly more going to the Conservatives than the Liberals and just $29,000 to the NDP. Real Estate developers handed out more than $700,000, with most of it going to the Conservatives and just $215,000 to the Liberals. Banks, insurance companies and financial firms were also more generous when it came to the Tories, donating $500,000 compared with $285,000 to the Liberals. Health-care companies, including pharmacies and long-term care facilities and energy producers handed out their money equally to the two main parties. Green-energy firms favoured the Liberals, although nearly $100,000 of their $250,000 in donations went to the Conservatives.
Top donors:
Research in Motion and its executives
The Waterloo company might be taking a hit in the competitive smartphone and tablet market, but that didn’t stop the BlackBerry makers from being among the most generous donors when it comes to politics. The company and its two top executives donated a combined $55,000 to political parties, much of it to the Liberals. Research In Motion itself is listed as having donated $9,300 to the Conservatives and $9,500 to the Liberals, while founder Mike Lazaridis and his wife, Ophelia Tong, donated a combined $18,600; just $500 went to the Conservatives and the rest to the Liberals. RIM co-CEO Jim Balsillie and wife Heidi together gave $18,600 to the Liberals.
Triple M Metal and its directors
The Brampton-based metal recycler, which also has business interests in real estate and construction, has given $48,000 to political parties this year, with most of it going to the Liberals. Directors Michele and Antonio Giampaolo have donated a combined $12,800 to the Liberals in 2011, while Triple M’s related businesses, which include an aluminum remelt company and a steel processor, have donated another $35,000. Of that, $9,300 went to the Conservatives and the rest to the Liberals. The government slapped the company with $250,000 in fines over the past two years for workplace safety and environmental violations.
Northland Power and its founder
The Toronto-based renewable energy company with nearly two dozen solar, hydro and thermal-energy projects under development around the province, has donated more than $40,000 to political parties, although half of that has come from company founder James Temerety. Northland itself donated $19,200 this year, with slightly more going to the Conservatives than the Liberals. Mr. Temerety and his wife, Louise, have personally donated another $13,000 to the Conservatives, a company controlled by Mr. Temerety donated another $9,000 to the Conservatives. Donating to both the Liberals and Conservatives “is the proper way to behave as an Ontario-based company to continue to help the political process along,” Northland president John Brace said.
Aecon
The Toronto-based public infrastructure construction giant has donated nearly $37,000 to political parties, almost all of it going to the Liberals. Its parent company handed the Liberals $9,300, while three of its subsidiaries donated another $23,000. The company, whose public-sector projects include roads, bridges, airport facilities and government facilities, donated another $5,000 to the Conservatives.
Unions
Public-sector unions were some of the biggest donors to political parties, with teachers’ unions among the most generous. Like corporations, unions are allowed to exceed the $9,300 limit by giving individual donations through their local bargaining units. That has allowed the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association to donate more than $64,000 — most of it going to the Liberals. Of that, the union’s Ottawa bargaining unit has been the most generous, donating $9,300 to each the Liberals and the NDP. Public elementary teachers have donated another $36,000 this year, mostly to the Liberals, while secondary teachers have given more than $50,000. District 12, the union’s Toronto bargaining unit, has donated the most, giving near the maximum to both the Liberals and the NDP. The district runs a separate political action committee working to “Keep Toronto Tory Free.”
Police officers have donated a total of $31,000 to political parties, with the OPP union donating slightly more to the Liberals than the Conservatives, while the Toronto Police union has given mostly to the Conservatives. The Police Association of Ontario has given evenly to both parties.
Private-sector unions also flexed their financial muscles, with workers in the construction trade donating more than $100,000 to political parties. Almost all of that came from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and virtually all of it went to the Liberals.
OK....the place where the CN Tower is ?
Anyways, in case you were interested, the following should give you some idea of just who is buying the vote in Ontario. Who the "special interests" are, which political party is "for sale" and at what price not to mention who's hoping that a few well placed donations will grow into political access, favoritism and beneficial legislation.
Lastly, consider the amounts below and then compare them with what's been raised historically in US State elections. We may have politicians as inept and corruptable as any other country but at least ours come cheap !!
__________________________________________________________________________
Graphic: The flow of political donations in Ontario
Unlike the federal government and some provincial governments, Ontario has not banned corporations or unions from donating to political parties. The province allows donors to give up to $9,300 to a party each year, well above the federal limit of $1,100 for individual donations. Companies can exceed the provincial contribution limits by donating through subsidiaries that are legally separate from their parent company, while unions can rack up significant spending by donating through their local bargaining units. Of the more than $14-million that Ontario’s three main parties have collected in pre-campaign donations of at least $100 this year alone, nearly $9-million came from corporations and unions. Here, the National Post’s Tamsin McMahon analyzes some of the biggest spenders:
Parties by the numbers
Despite two back-to-back majority governments, the Liberals trail the Conservatives in pre-campaign donations for 2011, collecting about $6-million to the Tories’ $7-million. The NDP had raised about $1.4-million before the start of the election on Sept. 7. Construction firms were the most generous donors, donating $1.5-million, with slightly more going to the Conservatives than the Liberals and just $29,000 to the NDP. Real Estate developers handed out more than $700,000, with most of it going to the Conservatives and just $215,000 to the Liberals. Banks, insurance companies and financial firms were also more generous when it came to the Tories, donating $500,000 compared with $285,000 to the Liberals. Health-care companies, including pharmacies and long-term care facilities and energy producers handed out their money equally to the two main parties. Green-energy firms favoured the Liberals, although nearly $100,000 of their $250,000 in donations went to the Conservatives.
Top donors:
Research in Motion and its executives
The Waterloo company might be taking a hit in the competitive smartphone and tablet market, but that didn’t stop the BlackBerry makers from being among the most generous donors when it comes to politics. The company and its two top executives donated a combined $55,000 to political parties, much of it to the Liberals. Research In Motion itself is listed as having donated $9,300 to the Conservatives and $9,500 to the Liberals, while founder Mike Lazaridis and his wife, Ophelia Tong, donated a combined $18,600; just $500 went to the Conservatives and the rest to the Liberals. RIM co-CEO Jim Balsillie and wife Heidi together gave $18,600 to the Liberals.
Triple M Metal and its directors
The Brampton-based metal recycler, which also has business interests in real estate and construction, has given $48,000 to political parties this year, with most of it going to the Liberals. Directors Michele and Antonio Giampaolo have donated a combined $12,800 to the Liberals in 2011, while Triple M’s related businesses, which include an aluminum remelt company and a steel processor, have donated another $35,000. Of that, $9,300 went to the Conservatives and the rest to the Liberals. The government slapped the company with $250,000 in fines over the past two years for workplace safety and environmental violations.
Northland Power and its founder
The Toronto-based renewable energy company with nearly two dozen solar, hydro and thermal-energy projects under development around the province, has donated more than $40,000 to political parties, although half of that has come from company founder James Temerety. Northland itself donated $19,200 this year, with slightly more going to the Conservatives than the Liberals. Mr. Temerety and his wife, Louise, have personally donated another $13,000 to the Conservatives, a company controlled by Mr. Temerety donated another $9,000 to the Conservatives. Donating to both the Liberals and Conservatives “is the proper way to behave as an Ontario-based company to continue to help the political process along,” Northland president John Brace said.
Aecon
The Toronto-based public infrastructure construction giant has donated nearly $37,000 to political parties, almost all of it going to the Liberals. Its parent company handed the Liberals $9,300, while three of its subsidiaries donated another $23,000. The company, whose public-sector projects include roads, bridges, airport facilities and government facilities, donated another $5,000 to the Conservatives.
Unions
Public-sector unions were some of the biggest donors to political parties, with teachers’ unions among the most generous. Like corporations, unions are allowed to exceed the $9,300 limit by giving individual donations through their local bargaining units. That has allowed the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association to donate more than $64,000 — most of it going to the Liberals. Of that, the union’s Ottawa bargaining unit has been the most generous, donating $9,300 to each the Liberals and the NDP. Public elementary teachers have donated another $36,000 this year, mostly to the Liberals, while secondary teachers have given more than $50,000. District 12, the union’s Toronto bargaining unit, has donated the most, giving near the maximum to both the Liberals and the NDP. The district runs a separate political action committee working to “Keep Toronto Tory Free.”
Police officers have donated a total of $31,000 to political parties, with the OPP union donating slightly more to the Liberals than the Conservatives, while the Toronto Police union has given mostly to the Conservatives. The Police Association of Ontario has given evenly to both parties.
Private-sector unions also flexed their financial muscles, with workers in the construction trade donating more than $100,000 to political parties. Almost all of that came from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and virtually all of it went to the Liberals.
Sunday, 26 June 2011
The asylum is being run by the lunatics...(Canadian Law Review)
Here in Canada we recently had an election where the incumbent party (insert Darth Vader theme) won but this time with enough votes to form a majority government. Now I'm not going to bore you with my usual diatribe about politics or the evils of putting pinheads in office. By now you're either in full agreement with me OR you're numb to my rantings.
BUT......One of the platform centerpieces of our new majority Conservative party is to start spending more on our prisons. Now crime rates have actually been dropping but the grand pubah in Ottawa is convinced that we need to lock more people up in order to make our streets safer. Forget the fact that his solution is expensive, unnecessary, unneeded, unwanted etc...He's convinced that we need more of our population behind bars for whatever offences exist on the books. Soooo....let's have a look at some of those offences that will result in either a fine or possibly incarceration here in our glorious Canada.
BUT......One of the platform centerpieces of our new majority Conservative party is to start spending more on our prisons. Now crime rates have actually been dropping but the grand pubah in Ottawa is convinced that we need to lock more people up in order to make our streets safer. Forget the fact that his solution is expensive, unnecessary, unneeded, unwanted etc...He's convinced that we need more of our population behind bars for whatever offences exist on the books. Soooo....let's have a look at some of those offences that will result in either a fine or possibly incarceration here in our glorious Canada.
National Law
- Every fifth song on Canadian radio must be by a Canadian born citizen.
- You may not pay for a fifty-cent item with only pennies.
- Citizens may not publicly remove bandages.
- No one in Canada may watch or listen to an encrypted broadcast which is not licensed by the Canadian government. This means using US satellite systems such as "DirecTV" is illegal.
- It is illegal for clear or non-dark sodas to contain caffeine.
- It is illegal to kill a sick person by frightening them.
Alberta
- It is illegal to pretend to practice witchcraft.
- Wooden logs may not be painted.
- You may never use dice to play craps.
- Businesses must provide rails for tying up horses.
- If you are released from prison, it is required that you are given a handgun with bullets and a horse, so you can ride out of town.
- In Calgary, it is unlawful to throw snowballs or set off firecrackers within the city, without the authorization of the mayor or City Council.
British Columbia
- All bicycle riders must signal with the arm before making a turn, and a bicycle rider must keep both hands on the handlebars at all times" in Edmonton.
- It is illegal to kill a Sasquatch.
- A law requires jailers to bring convicted debtors a pint of beer on demand.
- Anyone interrupting a meeting of the British Columbia Grasshopper Control Committee can be arrested.
- In Burnaby all dogs must be under control by 10 pm or the owners will be penalized.
Manitoba
- You are not allowed to wear a bathing suit while "loitering, playing or indulging in a sunbath" in any park or on the beach in Victoria.
- A by-law forbids anyone from striking the sidewalk with a metal object in Winnipeg.
New Brunswick
- In Winnipeg, it is against the law to go naked in your own home if you leave the blinds up.
Nova Scotia
- Driving on the roads is not allowed.
- When raining, a person may not water his/her lawn.
Ontario
- In Halifax, no citizen is allowed to chop wood on the sidewalk.
- It is illegal for children to eat ice-cream cones on the streets on the Sabbath in Ottawa.
- Theater owners are forbidden to start a movie that will end after 2 am in Toronto.
- You are not allowed to saw wood on the streets, or wash your automobile in Toronto.
- The speed limit is 80 kph for cars, but bicyclists have the right of way.
- Bylaw states that no more than 3.5 inches of water is allowed in a bathtub.
- If you have a water trough in your front yard it must be filled by 5:00 a.m
- The color of house and garage doors is regulated by city bylaws (a purple door get you a fine).
- It is also illegal to have a clothes line in your backyard.
- You can't work on your car in the street.
- It's illegal to climb trees.
- You can't drag a dead horse down Yonge Street in Toronto on a Sunday.
Quebec
- You are not allowed to play a musical instrument in a park in Windsor, Ontario.
- It is illegal to turn right on a red light at any time.
- All business signs in the province of Quebec must be in French. If the business operator wishes to have English on the sign, the French must be at least twice as large as the English is.
- It is considered an offense to have more than two colors of paint on your house.
- You may not own a log cabin.
- "For Sale" signs are not permitted in the windows of moving vehicles.
- One's rear license plate may not be protected by glass or plastic.
- You may not swear in French.
- Citizens may not relieve themselves or spit on the street.
Saskatchewan
- In Canada, It is illegal for a teen to walk down main street for Fort Qu'Appelle with their shoes untied.
- It is illegal to try and catch fish with your hands in Saskatoon.
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
G20: By the Numbers
 |
| What we wished we'd seen during the G20 |
- 1,100: Approximate number of people arrested during last summer’s G20 summit
- 317: Number of people charged with criminal offences related to the G20 summit
- 187: Criminal charges withdrawn since the G20 summit
- 58: Per cent of G20-related charges withdrawn, stayed or dismissed (187 cases)
- 39: Defendants who took advantage of diversion programs and had their charges dropped
- 24: Number of people who have pleaded guilty of G20-related crimes since the summit
- 11: Defendants subject to peace bonds
- 9: Number of people erroneously listed as charged
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General
 |
| What we actually saw |
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
How 61.4% of Canadians Voted
Election Day in Canada is over. The Conservatives have won their vaunted majority with just over 40% of the vote and I'm left wondering. If they only won 40% (+/-) then how can they be the government ? I know it has to do with the number of voted, ridings, some voodoo math and other esoteric crap but man....4 more years of that $%^#&$@%^#%^@%$^@@...I dunno.
There, I've vented. Regardless of my personal opinions I have to stand behind Mr. Harper as our Prime Minister. I respect the office if not necessarily the person who currently holds it and so I will grudgingly bite my tongue. That being said though, I am furious at roughly 40% of Canadians who for whatever reason (repeats of CSI or DWTS ?) opted to not exercise their right, their obligation as a citizen to vote for their own future ?
I know that apparently 60.1% turnout is regarded as decent but when it's something this important ? I really do think that voting should be an obligation. If you wanna collect welfare, social medicine, a pension or hell, live in the friggin country, you should be REQUIRED to vote. My Grandfather used to say that if you were too lazy to vote then you have no right to complain about the government. Casting a ballot, even if it doesn't swing your way gives you the right to complain. At least then you are part of the process, you've invested at least some of your thought, consideration and a tiny bit of effort in improving not only your lot in life but that of your fellow citizens.
Anyways, without further delay, here's Canada's wall of shame or triumph, depending on your political leanings.
SRW
There, I've vented. Regardless of my personal opinions I have to stand behind Mr. Harper as our Prime Minister. I respect the office if not necessarily the person who currently holds it and so I will grudgingly bite my tongue. That being said though, I am furious at roughly 40% of Canadians who for whatever reason (repeats of CSI or DWTS ?) opted to not exercise their right, their obligation as a citizen to vote for their own future ?
I know that apparently 60.1% turnout is regarded as decent but when it's something this important ? I really do think that voting should be an obligation. If you wanna collect welfare, social medicine, a pension or hell, live in the friggin country, you should be REQUIRED to vote. My Grandfather used to say that if you were too lazy to vote then you have no right to complain about the government. Casting a ballot, even if it doesn't swing your way gives you the right to complain. At least then you are part of the process, you've invested at least some of your thought, consideration and a tiny bit of effort in improving not only your lot in life but that of your fellow citizens.
Anyways, without further delay, here's Canada's wall of shame or triumph, depending on your political leanings.
SRW
 |
| Click to enlarge or just download it (right click) |
Friday, 4 March 2011
Be a Mench or just a Nice Person
In case you didn't know, I volunteer at a local community centre/soup kitchen. Times are tight and without any government funding, they live on donations and opportunities like this....It's a shameless plug but PLEASE vote, frequently.
We're hoping to win the $25K prize. If you can't or choose not to vote, at least get out and help your own local community.
http://www.refresheverything.ca/stfelixcentre
We're hoping to win the $25K prize. If you can't or choose not to vote, at least get out and help your own local community.
http://www.refresheverything.ca/stfelixcentre
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Food for thought - Not for 8% of us
I came across this and was absolutely stunned by the results for Canada.
This is the IMF (International Monetary Fund) 2010 ranking of"Advanced Economies". I'm usually proud of my country and like to think that we'd rank be way up there, especially under the "enlightened, benevolent, happy-happy-joy-joy leadership" of our current government in Ottawa. But as the results below indicate, apparently 8% of us can't afford to feed ourselves.
Can Mr. Harper please identify the 8.4 Senators and 24.6 MPs.....in fact, the whole 25,211.6 Federal Employees in his government who are going hungry so I can invite them over for a decent meal. After all, running our country is hungry business and I want to do my part to ensure that they're up to the job.
Somehow I don't think that any of those people are missing a meal, nor are the additional 2 Million Provincial and Municipal employees. But you and I...well, you better enjoy your lunch cause it may be all you get today.
And the sad part ? Ottawa will claim this as a victory because look at our numbers vs. the USA !! If I were American, I'd be furious hence the title of the graph below.
This is the IMF (International Monetary Fund) 2010 ranking of"Advanced Economies". I'm usually proud of my country and like to think that we'd rank be way up there, especially under the "enlightened, benevolent, happy-happy-joy-joy leadership" of our current government in Ottawa. But as the results below indicate, apparently 8% of us can't afford to feed ourselves.
Can Mr. Harper please identify the 8.4 Senators and 24.6 MPs.....in fact, the whole 25,211.6 Federal Employees in his government who are going hungry so I can invite them over for a decent meal. After all, running our country is hungry business and I want to do my part to ensure that they're up to the job.
Somehow I don't think that any of those people are missing a meal, nor are the additional 2 Million Provincial and Municipal employees. But you and I...well, you better enjoy your lunch cause it may be all you get today.
And the sad part ? Ottawa will claim this as a victory because look at our numbers vs. the USA !! If I were American, I'd be furious hence the title of the graph below.
(8% of 105 Senators, 308 MPs, StatsCan Fed Employees http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/govt58a-eng.htm)
 |
| Click Image to Enlarge |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)