Canada's anti-terrorism bill: Reassure me.

[matt_mcl]

Relevant article from the CBC; quotations from this and other CBC articles

I am frightened by Bill C-36. It apparently includes the following measures:

[li]Allow for the arrest of individuals without warrant if it’s believed that would prevent terrorist activity[/li][li]Make it easier for police to obtain warrants for wiretaps[/li][li]Define, for the first time, what constitutes terrorist activity[/li][li]Allow for the establishment of a list of terrorist organizations and individuals[/li][li]Allow for the freezing and seizure of assets of terrorists and their supporters[/li]

Moreover,

A growing number of witnesses at the committees have called for a mandatory expiry date or sunset clause. Justice Minister Anne McLellan continues to resist the calls.

meaning that this bill is meant to be a long-term change to Canadian policy, and not a short-term contingency measure to deal with immediate terrorist threats.

Furthermore,

CSE [The Canadian Security Establishment]'s mandate will soon be expanded to monitoring communications that originate or end in Canada. It currently can eavesdrop only on foreign communication.

…Some MPs were uncomfortable with the lack of judicial authority needed for CSE to eavesdrop. The RCMP and CSIS[Canadian Security and Intelligence Service] both require a judge’s approval to wiretap.

Here is some reaction from various heavyweights:

Information Commissioner John Reid warned senators that Bill C-36 would prevent his office from challenging excessive government secrecy.

Reid said Ottawa wants the power to suspend the Access to Information Act. He said Canada is the only western government to make such a drastic proposal.

“In point of fact, from what our allies are doing, they are not making changes to their access to information or freedom of information pieces of legislation. Only Canada is,” Reid said.

Privacy Commisioner George Radwanski told MPs that Bill C-36 would allow government to suspend the Privacy Act in the name of national security.

“This law as written could permit the creation for instance of a Big Brother file on every Canadian,” said Radwanski. “It could permit government to disclose any information about you to anybody it wants – your employer, your insurer, you name it. … It gives the minister unlimited power, in unlimited circumstances,” said Radwanski.

Now, when the privacy commissioner and the information commissioner - who are the people the government in power hires to talk about this kind of thing - start speaking this way, I start to get worried.

The government and the RCMP has offered some rebuttals. Solicitor General Lawrence MacAulay

MacAulay acknowledged the law is not limited to terrorists act like those of Sept. 11 but is designed to target any group bent on terrorism.

“In this situation, it’s not who you are, it’s what you’ve done,” he said.

I find this somewhat odd, considering that the bill says you can be arrested and held for 72 hours without the police having to claim that you have done anything, but moving right along.

“I categorically deny that the government in its anti-terrorism legislation is trampling civil liberties,” said [Justice Minister Anne] McLellan.

I have also been listening to reassurances from a gentleman from the RCMP who was interviewed on This Morning this morning (sorry). His reassurances boiled down to, “Don’t worry, we would never misuse this power.” He assured us, for example, that
[li]the protesters in Quebec City[/li][li]nurses on an illegal strike[/li][li]First Nations blocking logging roads[/li]would not be considered terrorists by the RCMP for the purposes of the bill. However, I have nothing but his word on that.

I am ready (nay, eager) to accept more concrete evidence that civil liberties cannot be put in jeopardy by the bill as written. However, as yet I have no such assurances. Canadians, does this bill worry you too?

[Northern_Piper]

I’ve not had a chance to look at the bill, but the President of the Canadian Bar Asociation, speaking to the Senate, also raised the issues of the sunset clause and the definition of terrorism.

The CBA is still studying the bill and has not yet issued its detailed critique, but you could check out the notes of his speech.

[detop]

Yes, I am worried. Considering the various levels of government track record during our preceding terrorist crisis in October 1970, I am very wary about their various re-assurances that the powers won’t be abused. The present politicians presentely in office might be telling the truth that they won’t abuse these powers. However, there is no guarantees that those following them won’t.

For info on :
the October Crisis
here is what the B.C. Civil Liberty Association had to say about the limitiations of power on governemnt agencies.

Sorry, I couldn’t find the report of the Marin Commission on the activities of the RCMP

[detop]

the October Crisis
Sorry about the coding.