Government stands firm on security Bill C- 51
Opponents say it erodes liberties
The government stood firm on its contentious security legislation at a stormy parliamentary committee hearing Tuesday, refusing to consider changes to Bill C- 51 that opposition MPs say would help prevent state security agencies from violating civil liberties.
“Protecting security while maintaining liberty are at the heart of our Conservative government’s approach to national security,” Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said as the first of 50 experts and other witnesses expected to testify on the proposed bill this month before the Commons’ public safety and national security committee.
“It is the jihadi terrorists who endanger our security and would take away our freedoms.”
Flanked by Justice Minister Peter MacKay, Blaney and other Conservative committee MPs used much of the hearing to promote the bill’s proposal to allow 17 departments to more freely share information about Canadians and others who undermine “the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada or the lives of the people of Canada.”
Opposition MPs, led by members of the NDP, which says it will vote against the bill, focused chiefly on what they and many other critics say is the bill’s dangerous lack of measures for additional, independent oversight of the exceptional new powers the legislation will give the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, government departments and the RCMP.
Blaney deflected those attacks by highlighting what the Conservatives characterized as the plain, common- sense aspects of the bill’s Security of Canada Information Sharing Act.
He said it would, for example, allow passport officials to alert security agencies to suspicious passport applications or renewals for travel to the Middle East, or permit overseas Canadian consular officials to inform other parts of government about suspected Canadian extremist fighters and supporters returning from foreign battlefields.
“Canadians expect that if one branch is aware of a threat to their security that this information would be shared with other branches of government to protect Canadians.”
He rebutted growing concerns by the bill’s critics that the information- sharing act could invade Canadians’ privacy and be used to target peaceful protesters, including aboriginal groups and environmentalists.
The act excludes the sharing of information about groups and individuals involved in “lawful” advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression. But critics are concerned that protesters who don’t have official permits or who defy court orders will be open to having their personal information shared among the government departments and labelled as national security risks.
But Blaney said the term “lawful” should be interpreted narrowly. “In other words, not having a municipal permit for a protest would not lead to an otherwise lawful protest being captured by this legislation.”
Under insistent questioning by NDP public safety critic Randall Garrison, Blaney also acknowledged that the government’s often repeated “judicial oversight” of CSIS’s proposed new power to actively disrupt national security threats will be limited to exceptional instances where the disruptions could be illegal or unconstitutional. CSIS will be required in those cases to apply to courts for so- called threat disruption warrants.
Disruptive CSIS activities that don’t violate the criminal code or charter will not require judicial authorization. “Indeed, there are some activities, dear colleague, that do not or will not require the retention of a warrant,” Blaney said.