PROCEEDS OF CRIME COULD FUND WIRETAP SCHEME

OTTAWA (CP) -- A planned federal wiretap scheme would be funded with
cash seized from criminals under a proposal by police and
telecommunications firms.

Money forfeited through the federal proceeds-of-crime program should
help pay for the new eavesdropping initiatives, says the ad-hoc
coalition of police chiefs and communications companies.

The idea, spelled out in a recent confidential letter to the Public
Safety Department, is intended to avoid a public outcry from phone and
Internet subscribers, who might otherwise be stuck with the tab.

"It's an opportunity to use the bad guys' money against them," said
Tom Copeland, chairman of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers.

"I think this proposition makes a lot of sense."

The idea emerged from a desire to come up with "some creative
solutions" to the dilemma of covering wiretap costs, said Vince
Westwick, co-chairman of the law amendments committee of the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police.

"We'll have to see what the government's views are on
it."

The Liberals plan to introduce legislation as early as next month
aimed at preventing criminals from using digital technologies to
shield their communications from police and intelligence agencies.

Authorities contend the measures are needed to keep up with
technically savvy outlaws involved in activities including terrorism,
money laundering, child pornography and murder.

The legislative proposals, first outlined three years ago, have drawn
sharp criticism from privacy advocates and civil libertarians.

There is an equally charged debate about who should foot the bill for
phone wiretaps and e-mail intercepts.

Under the federal proposals, service providers would be required, when
upgrading their systems, to build in the technical capabilities needed
by police and intelligence agencies, such as the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service, to easily tap communications.

The controversy revolves around the ongoing costs of looking up phone
numbers, hooking up to networks and relaying communications from one
city to another -- individual services that may cost anywhere from
pocket change to thousands of dollars.

Currently, a mishmash of payment practices applies, from negotiation
of fees by the parties involved to refusal by some police forces to
accept the bills.

"We're frankly sort of perplexed," said Parke Davis, a senior
regulatory officer with Telus.

"What do you do when you have somebody like the police saying, 'Do
this wiretap,' and then ignoring the invoice. And they do it
repeatedly."

Police insist they should not be obliged to pay for services, such as
wiretaps, that are ordered by the courts and performed in the public
interest.

Last year the chiefs of police suggested adding a surcharge of about
25 cents to the monthly bills of phone and Internet subscribers to
cover these costs.

Telecommunications firms balk at asking law-abiding customers to pay
such fees.

Under the federal proceeds of crime program, administered by the RCMP,
specialized units trace and seize criminal assets in cases involving
drugs, smuggling, fraud, gambling and terrorism, with the ultimate aim
of proceeds being forfeited to government through the courts.

However, the program was until recently burdened by a complex
financial structure that left it with hefty annual deficits -- raising
the question of whether enough money would even be available for wiretaps.

Westwick said the proposal to government was "specifically focused" on
covering some of the interception fees companies have traditionally
asked police to pay.

Davis of Telus suggests federal officials might warm to the idea of
using criminal proceeds to over wiretap costs.

"I'm sure they're thinking about it, because it's a rather intriguing
idea for all parties," he said. "But I haven't seen any response at
this point."

The government is considering the proceeds-of-crime idea along with
several others that have come forward, said Zuwena Robidas, a
spokeswoman for the Public Safety Department.

"We did receive this proposal as part of our consultation process,"
she said. "But it would be premature to discuss what decisions may be
taken on this."