Some of Canada’s terrorism response has gone too far

Proper balance of collective security and individual liberty is hard to strike

Two years ago Parliament Hill was stormed by a gunman — and since then we’ve done too much about it.

I apologize if that sounds glib or disrespectful. Certainly, that’s not the intention. I’m among the many Canadians who will take time this weekend to remember Cpl. Nathan Cirillo’s senseless murder. I’ll think of his son, who has been growing up without a father. I’ll recall Kevin Vickers’ heroism and wonder about the lingering effects that must come from taking a man’s life — even in defence of other lives. And I’ll consider the many changes in Hill security that have been implemented since the day that gunfire rang through halls that should never be filled with anything more menacing than debate.

But I’ll also think about the mistakes that were made in the shadow of that attack — the way in which our federal government ignored wise counsel from many quarters and dangerously rebalanced the framework governing national security. Bill C-51 was introduced a mere three months after Michael Zehaf-Bibeau launched his lone-wolf assault — and, in that still highly charged atmosphere, the new measures drew immediate scrutiny. Every single privacy commissioner in the country expressed their disapproval. More than 100 law professors urged a rethink of the bill’s approach on everything from the criminalization of legitimate expression to a more interventionist mandate for CSIS. Four former prime ministers — Conservatives and Liberals — argued for strengthened oversight to check state power. All to little effect. Bill C-51, after some amendments, was passed into law in June 2015 — accompanied by a frustrating argument over whether or not to label the attack on Parliament Hill an act of terrorism, as though that would make anyone less dead or more secure.

Not all of the measures went too far. A number of changes were sensible and represented a responsible updating of powers to help keep Canadians safe. In addition, some of the criticisms were overstated, exaggerating the risks of reform and understating the need to act. Many other aspects of the overhaul involved deeply challenging policies — issues about which reasonable people will disagree and where the proper balance between collective security and individual liberty will always be difficult to strike. For example, measures that expanded the ability of security agencies to access and share private communications between citizens. On the one hand, Canadians are asked to permit the open violation of their privacy rights in exchange for better equipping law enforcement with the tools to detect, track and intercept those who might cause us harm. On the other hand, in an open and highly technologized society such as ours, some compromise is surely needed to protect the public good. How far should that go, under what circumstances and within what framework? This is the stuff of intelligent, mature debate.

Overall, the Harper Conservatives got the balance wrong. Their over-zealousness was especially apparent when it came to the subject of oversight and accountability — to which they could barely bring themselves to even pay lip service. Worse, they acted obviously to leverage the emotional overhang of the gunman’s attack to advance policies that they had long wanted to implement — think back to Vic Toews’ aborted cyber-surveillance initiative. No doubt they believed fervently in the virtue of these changes, but as history has shown us time and again, civil liberties usually suffer when lawmakers stampede ahead holding up the shield of national security.

It must also be remembered that the Trudeau Liberals supported Bill C-51 and its changes — with the qualification that, if elected, they would reverse those aspects they believed to be mistaken. Now Trudeau sits as prime minister and, true to his word, the new government is taking action. First, they created an all-party oversight committee of Parliamentarians to monitor the conduct of our national security agencies. That’s welcome. More recently, Trudeau returned to the subject of fixing C-51 with the release of a green paper on national security. Its purpose is to consult widely on where to roll the legislation back and ho w to find a better balance.

That’s also welcome, because those who say that the last thing we need is more talk are exactly wrong. Talk is precisely what we need on a subject as important and thorny as this one. We need talk, and we need reason, and we need perspective. And then — and only then — we need action. Otherwise the new government will merely compound the errors of its predecessor.

The green paper poses 10 topics for Canadians to consider when contemplating our approach to national security. It further pledges to honour five principles — including an automatic legislative review to ensure that such sweeping authority is kept on a short leash. The consultation paper sets the stage for changes, but it does not rush toward easy answers or pat solutions.

Canadians can also be grateful that the person Trudeau put in charge of the file is Ralph Goodale. Dean of the House of Commons, Goodale has seen it all in his long life of public service, which stretches back to the 1970s. He is experienced in dealing with national security agencies and is unlikely to be swayed by either tough talk or the weakkneed. Goodale is steady. And measured. And decent. And most of all, he is deliberate. Those are the exact qualities required to serve the broad public interest on this complex subject.

Two years after Parliament’s worst day, we’re finally getting around to getting our response right. A full judgment on that effort must await the choices Trudeau and his cabinet make and the reconstituted balance they strike. But so far, this approach is infinitely superior to the rushed and reckless attitude we witnessed between January and June 2015. Heated times are never the right time to take such consequential decisions.