I've been reading B-13, now before the Senate. Lots of stuff in it, and of course to read it clearly, you have to have all the other acts it amends to get a feel for the changes being proposed. But one thing seems to jump out. And that's the business of issuing orders to ISP's to hold and provide information to the Crown, or better said, the method by way of obtaining these orders. A judge need only be satisfied that an offence has occurred (ok no big deal) or will occur, hummm, now that's the troubling part. That's where the Crown gets to go fishing. "The thought police". Now the interesting theme throughout all of this however, is the sub clauses :
(2) Before making the order, the justice or judge must be satisfied by information on oath in Form 5.004 that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that
(a) an offence has been or will be committed under this or any other Act of Parliament; and
(b) the transmission data is in the person’s possession or control and will assist in the investigation of the offence.
This means that the judge has to believe both requisite requirements of (a) and (b) are met.
Now I'm not a lawyer, and if there are any reading this, please jump in, but it seems to me that the fishing party is called off since you can't investigate an offence that has yet to be made. Or can you? What am I missing here? Like why put in "will be committed"? Or on the other hand, why not say "assist in the investigation of an offence to be or has been, committed?
(2) Before making the order, the justice or judge must be satisfied by information on oath in Form 5.004 that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that
(a) an offence has been or will be committed under this or any other Act of Parliament; and
(b) the transmission data is in the person’s possession or control and will assist in the investigation of the offence.
This means that the judge has to believe both requisite requirements of (a) and (b) are met.
Now I'm not a lawyer, and if there are any reading this, please jump in, but it seems to me that the fishing party is called off since you can't investigate an offence that has yet to be made. Or can you? What am I missing here? Like why put in "will be committed"? Or on the other hand, why not say "assist in the investigation of an offence to be or has been, committed?
