By Maya Bhullar, Rabble.ca, March 12, 2015
To date, 43 cities across Canada are planning actions against Bill C-51 on March 14. [See details on planned actions across Canada, here on the campaign page of LeanNow.ca.] People are picketing their member of parliament’s offices, rallying, marching, talking and building awareness about this new assault on our civil liberties. Visit our three minute action to find out about petitions you can sign and rallies you can attend to oppose the bill.
rabble.ca bloggers, like Karl Nerenberg, have been raising alarms about this bill since it was first introduced. According to most expert accounts, this bill could weaken privacy protections and threaten civil liberties and give the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP powers like preventative arrest and the ability to disrupt potential terrorist activities (through illegal means if a court warrant were to allow it).
Former prime ministers have spoken out against Bill C-51, and, as Karl Nerenberg reported in a later article, our Privacy Commissioner, Commissioner Therrien, wrote to Conservative MP Daryl Kramp saying:
“The scale of information sharing being proposed is unprecedented, the scope of the new powers conferred by the Act is excessive, particularly as these powers affect ordinary Canadians, and the safeguards protecting against unreasonable loss of privacy are seriously deficient.”
After Bill C-51 was introduced, we saw the disheartening Angus Reid polling numbers, reported by the Globe and Mail, saying 82 per cent of Canadians backed the new legislation to expand the powers of intelligence agencies and police. As I see the fire in the bellies of the organizers fighting for civil liberties across this country on this National Day of Action against Bill C-51, I am convinced that this number will shift. Polling is a way to take the temperature, and things are heating up. Stay tuned to rabble.ca for live streaming, toolkits and other ways to keep the temperature high and keep standing up for your civil liberties.
- Bill C-51: Soon to be law, and as murky as ever, editorial, The Globe and Mail, May 5, 2015
- Canada’s anti-terror law builds up security state as U.S. rolls its back, editorial, Toronto Star, June 12, 2015
- Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati vows to challenge Bill C51 in court, May 31, 2015
* * *
Two background articles:
Three disastrous privacy consequences of Bill C-51
By Michael Geist, February 20, 2015
The House of Commons debate over Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism bill, began with strong opposition from the NDP, disappointing support from the Liberals and an effort to politicize seemingly any criticism or analysis from the Conservative government.
With the government already serving notice that it will limit debate, the hopes for a non-partisan, in-depth analysis of the anti-terrorism legislation may have already been dashed. This is an incredibly troubling development since the proposed legislation has all the hallmarks of being pulled together quickly with limited analysis.
Yet both the Conservatives and Liberals seem content to stick to breezy talking points rather than genuinely work toward a bill that provides Canadians with better safeguards against security threats while also preserving privacy and instituting effective oversight.
The only detailed review to date has come from Professors Kent Roach and Craig Forcese. Their ongoing work — three lengthy background papers so far (Advocating or Promoting Terrorism, new CSIS powers, expanded information sharing) — provides by far the most exhaustive analysis of the bill and is a must-read for anyone concerned with the issue.
Indeed, once you have read their work, it becomes readily apparent that all should be concerned with this legislation. Much of the focus to date has been on the lack of oversight and the expansive new powers granted to CSIS.
However, the privacy implications of Bill C-51’s information sharing provisions also cry out for study and reform.
At first glance, expanding information sharing within government seems like a good idea since the consequences of failing to head-off a terrorist attack because one government institution was unaware of what another knew could be devastating.
Given the lack of Liberal study (it is simply not possible that the party fully assessed the legislation before pledging its support), it perhaps unsurprising that leader Justin Trudeau identifies expanded information sharing as one of the positive aspects of the bill.
However, Bill C-51’s Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, a bill within the bill, goes far further than sharing information related to terrorist activity. As Roach and Forcese persuasively argue, the bill effectively creates a “total information awareness” approach that represents a radical shift away from our traditional understanding of public sector privacy protection.
Daniel Therrien, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada appointed by this government less than a year ago, was the first to focus on the privacy implications of Bill C-51. Within hours of release of the bill, Therrien warned:
At this early stage, I can say that I am concerned with the breadth of the new authorities to be conferred by the proposed new Security of Canada Information Sharing Act. This Act would seemingly allow departments and agencies to share the personal information of all individuals, including ordinary Canadians who may not be suspected of terrorist activities, for the purpose of detecting and identifying new security threats. It is not clear that this would be a proportional measure that respects the privacy rights of Canadians. In the public discussion on Bill C-51, it will be important to be clear about whose information would be shared with national security agencies, for which specific purpose and under what conditions, including any applicable safeguards.
Roach and Forcese dig further into this issue, concluding that the information sharing provisions are excessive and unbalanced. There is much to digest, but the privacy concerns largely come down to three linked issues:
- First, the bill permits information sharing across government for an incredibly wide range of purposes, most of which have nothing to do with terrorism (“It is, quite simply, the broadest concept of security that we have ever seen codified into law in Canada.”).
- Second, the scope of sharing is remarkably broad: 17 government institutions with the prospect of cabinet expansion as well as further disclosure “to any person, for any purpose.”
- Third, the oversight over public sector privacy has long been viewed as inadequate. In fact, calls for Privacy Act reform date back over three decades. The notion that the law is equipped to deal with this massive expansion in sharing personal information is simply not credible.
A more detailed look at each issue follows below. The cumulative effect is to grant government near-total power to share information for purposes that extend far beyond terrorism with few safeguards or privacy protections.
1. Information sharing purposes
The bill opens the door to information sharing due to “activity that undermines the security of Canada.” Rather than using the CSIS Act definition, however, it creates a new expansive definition that covers:
any activity, including any of the following activities, if it undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada or the lives or the security of the people of Canada: (a) interference with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to intelligence, defence, border operations, public safety, the administration of justice, diplomatic or consular relations, or the economic or financial stability of Canada;
(b) changing or unduly influencing a government in Canada by force or unlawful means;
(c) espionage, sabotage or covert foreign-influenced activities;
(e) proliferation of nuclear, chemical, radiological or biological weapons;
(f) interference with critical infrastructure;
(g) interference with the global information infrastructure, as defined in section 273.61 of the National Defence Act; [that provision reads: “”global information infrastructure” includes electromagnetic emissions, communications systems, information technology systems and networks, and any data or technical information carried on, contained in or relating to those emissions, systems or networks.”] (h) an activity that causes serious harm to a person or their property because of that person’s association with Canada; and
(i) an activity that takes place in Canada and undermines the security of another state. For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.
Terrorism is included within the definition, but several of these provisions would seemingly allow for information sharing for almost any investigative purpose, particularly “public safety” and the “economic or financial stability of Canada” (think of the government’s recent reaction to the proposed CP strike, which was said to have major implications for the protection of the Canadian economy).
- Scope of sharing
The government not only opens the door to sharing information for a myriad of non-terrorism purposes, but it also permits access for a broad array of government institutions and departments. The bill currently identifies the following 17 institutions and departments:
- Canadian Border Services Agency
- Canada Revenue Agency
- Canadian Armed Forces
- Canadian Food Inspection Agency
- Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
- Citizen and Immigration
- Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development
- National Defence
- Public Safety
- Public Health Agency
That list can grow, however, with cabinet empowered to add institutions and departments by regulation. Moreover, the inclusion of CSE, which has been the focal point of the Internet surveillance debate due to the Snowden revelations, suggests that CSE information could be readily shared across government departments despite repeated claims that its work does not target Canadians.
In addition to this form of information sharing, the bill also permits additional use and disclosure of information “in accordance with the law…to any person, for any purpose.” Section 6 states:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act prevents a head, or their delegate, who receives information under subsection 5(1) from, in accordance with the law, using that information, or further disclosing it to any person, for any purpose.
Roach and Forcese note that “in accordance with the law” is unclear, leaving the prospect of literally permitting disclosure to anyone for any reason.
- Woeful oversight
Since the enactment of the Privacy Act in 1983, every federal privacy commissioner has urged the government of the day to strengthen it. Those calls have grown louder over the past decade as PIPEDA places tougher obligations on the private sector than the government places on itself.
The law as it currently stands has weak annual reporting requirements from government agencies, does not provide much protection to Canadians from abusive treatment by foreign states, does not give the Privacy Commissioner order-making power, does not provide redress in cases involving harm, does not prevent over-collection of personal information, does not protect against surveillance where the data is not recorded, and does not feature security breach disclosure requirements.
The expansion on information sharing without addressing the oversight and safeguards of the Privacy Act should simply be a non-starter.
This piece originally appeared on Michael Geist’s blog. It was reprinted on Rabble.ca.
What’s in Harper’s proposed Bill C-51 ‘Security of Canada’ legislation?
The Harper government introduced its new “anti-terror” legislation on Friday.
Bill C-51, the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, is 62-pages long and, according to various news reports, would:
- Allow CSIS to “disrupt” activities
The Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) would have the power to disrupt suspected terror activity, including by interfering with travel plans and financial transactions. They could also “misdirect” the delivery of materials deemed dangerous. The bill does not explicitly define “to disrupt”.CSIS could also “counter-message” by challenging the online communications sent to those suspected of becoming radicalized. CSIS is currently only allowed to collect intelligence and pass that on to the RCMP.
- Expand the no-fly list
The government could add anyone to the no-fly list that it believes might be travelling to engage in terrorism. Officials could deny a boarding pass to anyone deemed a threat to national security. The government would define the appeal process.
- Criminalize promoting terrorism
A person could be sentenced for up to five years in prison if they promote terrorism or the international advocacy of it. This reportedly does not extend to the “glorification” of terrorism. To ‘promote’ could mean to actively support or instigate. Right now, it’s an offence to counsel or actively encourage someone to commit a specific terrorism offence.
- Allow bugging
CSIS agents, with a court order, could require a building owner to allow them to bug a tenant’s room.
- Give the power to remove terrorist material from the Internet
Officials could apply for a court order for the “seizure of terrorist propaganda” and require Internet service providers to remove from a website “any materials that promote or encourage acts of terrorism against Canadians in general, or the commission of a specific attack against Canadians”. Propaganda is defined as any writing or “sign” that promotes terrorism.
- Allow information to be shared
Government departments would be given the power to share private information, including passport applications, income tax forms and confidential commercial data, to law enforcement agencies. It would allow officials to proactively share information with other security agencies.
- Allow court proceedings to be sealed
The government could ask the court to seal the proceedings of deportation trials at any point in the process to protect information it defines as classified.
- Lower the threshold for arrest
Law enforcement agencies would be able to arrest somebody if they think a terrorist act “may be carried out,” instead of the current standard of “will be carried out.”
- Lengthen the period of “preventive” detention.
A person not charged with a crime could be held in preventive detention for seven days, up from the current three days.
- Require a person to surrender their passport, submit to electronic monitoring
If the police believe that a person “may commit” an offence, a “peace bond” could require the person to surrender their passport, submit to electronic monitoring, and not leave a jurisdiction.
- Provide no additional oversight
Despite the broad range of new powers, there are no new provisions for oversight of CSIS in this bill.
- Be permanent
These new powers would be permanent, not lapse unless renewed by a future Parliament.
The bill itself can be read in full here.
Are you already violating the feds’ new anti-terror bill? (Global News)
Canada’s new backward-looking terror law (Toronto Star)
Anti-terror bill gives new powers to Canada’s spies (CTV)
Anti-terrorism powers: What’s in the legislation? (CBC News)
Harper proposes new powers for spies, plays down civil liberties concerns (The Globe and Mail)
5 things to know about Ottawa’s new anti-terrorism measures (Toronto Star)
Canadian government introduces new powers to counter terrorism (Digital Journal)