Anti-terror law said to target ‘evolving threat’
Recent terrorist strikes in Australia, Paris and Copenhagen are tragic reminders of why Canada needs extraordinary new laws to hammer the evolving threat from violent extremists, Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney declared in the Commons Wednesday.
His comments marked the opening of parliamentary debate on Bill C-51, a far-reaching series of planned national security law reforms that the Conservatives expedited following October’s murderous attacks by lone extremists in Quebec and Ottawa.
“We’ve always said that we must remain vigilant and adjust to the evolving threat and that is why we are tabling this bill,” said Blaney. It “represents an important step to improve the means that our services have to fight effectively against the terrorist threat. The international jihadi movement has declared war on Canada and our allies.”
Blaney rejects critics who believe the legislation tramples individual rights. “There is no liberty without security,” he said.
The government is banking on the tough-on-terror issue as it heads toward a fall federal election. The opposition accuses it of playing politics with fundamental laws and freedoms.
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, who earlier in the day announced his party would not support the legislation in its current form, delivered an impassioned assault on the proposed act and what he characterized as government fearmongering to rally public support.
“There is no question terrorism is a real threat. Taking effective action must be the top priority of any government,” Mulcair said.
But the NDP believes existing criminal and national security laws are sufficient. They believe what’s needed, but absent from the bill, is more counter-terrorism funding for police and security services, more community counter-radicalization programs and more oversight of Canada’s national security apparatus, along the lines of U.S. congressional committee oversight.
A chief NDP concern is the bill’s “over-broad” definition of activities that constitute national security threats. Mulcair and others worry that could potentially ensnare innocent Canadians and be turned against lawful protesters, especially in the absence of additional oversight.
“This is a political play more than anything else,” Mulcair said of the legislation. “Canadians are right to suspect that the bill goes too far. It is sweeping, vague and ineffective, it doesn’t do things that are proven to work and it puts politics ahead of protecting Canadians.”
And “if we do not stand up to fear, it will be those who terrorize us who will claim victory.”
He concluded by recalling the emotional Oct. 23 House of Commons’ session — the day after a gunman stormed Centre Block — in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper crossed the aisle to warmly embrace both him and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.
“We are a long way from the hug I got from bro across here,” he said.
Harper was not present for the debate.
Shortly after debate ended Wednesday, government House leader Peter Van Loan put forward a motion to impose time allocation on the bill, curtailing the length of remaining debate Wednesday. Van Loan has not specified how long the government will allow the debate to continue.
The Anti-terrorism Act of 2015, if passed, redefines threats to national security to include, among other things, interference with critical infrastructure, including cyber systems, and to the “economic and financial stability” of Canada.
It provides exceptional police-like powers to Canadian spies to disrupt suspected threats to the nation, in many instances without the need for judicial warrants. It establishes a new category of crime, making it illegal to promote terrorism and gives authorities the power to seize “terrorist propaganda.” It lowers the legal threshold required for police to arrest and detain suspected extremists without charge and to impose conditions on their release.
It allows 17 federal departments and agencies to share and collate personal and other information about Canadians suspected of “activity that undermines the security of Canada.” It creates a nofly list for individuals suspected of planning to join extremist fighters overseas.
And in exceptional cases, it gives the Federal Court authority to issue warrants exempting the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) from breaking the law in order to disrupt and “reduce” national security threats.
A dozen federal acts will be amended and two additional statutes will be created to make way for the proposed powers, the biggest overhaul of the country’s nationalsecurity legislation since the 2001 terrorist strikes against the U.S.
Trudeau repeated his pledge during Wednesday’s debate that the Liberals will vote in favour of the bill, even if the Conservatives ignore his party’s demands for changes. That includes creating a new body to monitor and oversee CSIS. The current CSIS watchdog, the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), is just that — it only reviews selected CSIS operations after the fact and reports to Parliament annually. By its own admission, the small organization is already struggling to operate efficiently.
Trudeau said a new oversight organization should also be responsible for monitoring Canada’s electronic spy agency, the Communications Security Establishment, the RCMP and the Department of National Defence.
The government has flatly rejected anything beyond SIRC.
“The important point which often seems forgotten around this place is that it is the jihadi who are representing a threat and not our own police officers and those who are protecting us,” Blaney said.
“We believe that (SIRC) is way better than importing a made-in-America political intervention in the process.”
Trudeau also called for a mandatory three-year parliamentary review of the legislation in its entirety. Like the NDP, the Liberals want improved funding for RCMP and security service counter-terrorism efforts and for more community counter-radicalization programs.
“We want to take a constructive approach to improving this bill,” Trudeau said of the Liberal strategy to support the bill regardless of whether the Conservatives compromise. Should the government reject the Liberal amendments, they will be incorporated into the party’s upcoming election campaign, he said.
But “we hope the government is serious about this and they will put aside partisanship in order to protect Canadians.”