The Quiet Death of the Canadian Internet Survellance Bill

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."

Comments

If it is like the U.S....

[dgatwood]

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

Re:If it is like the U.S....

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:If it is like the U.S....

[quacking duck]

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.

Re:If it is like the U.S....

[Tridus]

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.

The real Reason

[arthurpaliden]

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.

Re:Maybe politicians saw what happened in the U.S.

[gstoddart]

In Canada, first you get the syrup, then you get the power, then you get the women.

Re:Maybe politicians saw what happened in the U.S.

[interkin3tic]

I'm guessing their masters got spooked and decided to do it slower and more quietly. Let the people forget about it so they think it was a one-time thing. It's not as if big content will have trouble anytime soon buying influence in government, they can wait and think of some other way to slip it in.

Re:We need to limit political donations

[arthurpaliden]

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.

Re:We need to limit political donations

[compro01]

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

Sorry for this, but it applies

[fustakrakich]

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.

Re:We need to limit political donations

[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 all, based on all the pro-industry bills he passes, and union negotiations his party damages.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada#Loopholes_in_contributions_limits

Additionally Harper has tried several times and continues to work towards trying to remove this limit and allow corporations to donate as much as they want.

And 3 weeks after he got his majority government he announced the elimination of the per-vote subsidy which currently funds most campaigns costs in canada to prevent the need for additional funding. So expect the reintroduction of corporation spending in campaigns in canada before too long.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill.

[compro01]

Wasted indeed. The Libertarian party in Canada is less popular than the Communist party. Their desire to scrap the Canada Health Act endears them to few.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill.

[Em Adespoton]

Libertarian would need reps in the ridings to vote for... I've never seen one.

Vote Green; same caveat the parent gave, but hey... they actually got a seat last time!

In Canada, in order to fix things, we need people who aren't interested in Politics getting fed up enough to run, and gather enough support to win, and then have enough morals to stick to their platform, even if it means getting voted out in the next round.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill.

[camperdave]

Why would I waste 50 hours of my life for a slashdot comment?

That attitude, my friend, is why you only scored a zero.

Re:No need, it's in the budget bill.

[UnknownSoldier]

> Um... It is the opposition's job to oppose the government, whether they agree with the particular proposition or not
There is a time and place for opposition -- but any ideology taken to an extreme, such as oppositional defiant, is never a good idea in the long run.
i.e.
So the ruling party decides that it needs it needs to limit its spending (ha!), and the opposition is _automatically_ against that? That's asinine. But then again, this is politics.

> If a party gets elected, it is not hypocritical for them to try to pass the same legislation that they tried to stifle when they were the opposition
Yes it is and retarded. Instead of doing what's best for everyone politicians are selfish bastards who only do what's best for them.

You're part of the problem by thinking such stupid "politics" is OK in the first place.