Pick a side on anti-terror law

Living in the digital age and amid expanding security powers, privacy can often seem like a lost cause. But the erosion, while real, is not inevitable. It is a choice. And even as Ottawa undertakes its public consultation on security issues, it is a choice the Trudeau government seems not to want to confront publicly.

That’s the most striking takeaway from a new report by privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien, which warns once again of the “unprecedented” threat to privacy posed by Canada’s badly flawed anti-terror law, known as C-51, and of the Liberal government’s failure to mitigate those threats or even fully acknowledge them.

In particular, Therrien argues the government is falling short in its application of a part of the law that grants Ottawa new powers to share Canadians’ personal information among departments. Under C-51, such sharing is allowed whenever information is deemed relevant to activity that “undermines the security of Canada.” Critics, including Therrien, have said the legislation’s wording is overly broad and opens the door for departments and agencies to share personal information of people suspected of no crime.

Given the Trudeau government’s oft-stated commitment to striking a balance between security and civil liberties, one would hope these powers would be wielded carefully. Yet Therrien’s office found that while the new rules had been invoked often — 110 times over six months — only two of the 17 departments involved had conducted “privacy impact assessments,” routine reports used to ensure new policies don’t violate Canadians’ rights.

That’s a gross failure of due diligence. Surely Ottawa ought to be doing more to ensure that “law-abiding Canadians, ordinary Canadians who should have nothing to fear from surveillance activities of the state, are not caught by the information-sharing regime,” Therrien said this week. He recommended the assessments be completed in every case and the law amended.

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said he welcomes Therrien’s “scrutiny” and agrees with his call to do better. But it’s becoming harder and harder to take the government at its word on these issues.

The Liberals, who supported the Tory anti-terror bill while in opposition, promised to amend the “most problematic” elements of the legislation once in office and ensure it conforms with the Charter. But nearly a year later, the law remains untouched, including aspects that represent a clear threat to privacy, as well as freedom of speech and security of the person.

Instead, the government launched a public consultation this month it says will serve as the basis for future reform (as if Trudeau and his team need Canadians’ permission to do what their campaign promised and the Constitution demands). Moreover, the discussion paper the government released to frame the conversation seems to reveal its biases.

“When you look at the examples given (in the discussion paper) of what are the problems from their perspective, they’re all challenges being faced by police and national security agencies,” Therrien said. “They mention the fact that balance is required, they mention that human rights and privacy are important, but when it comes time to discuss . . . the elements of the balance, it’s not there.”

This week, evidently tired of waiting, New Democrat MP Randall Garrison tabled a private member’s bill to repeal Bill C-51. The Liberals should support it.

They likely won’t, of course. But the MP’s bill and the privacy commissioner’s report serve as important warnings to the Trudeau government: you can’t have it both ways on C-51. Lip service to rights won’t do; nor will a carefully circumscribed public discussion. The Liberals voted for the bill’s security-skewed values in opposition and they continue to do so every day they don’t amend it. Their choice seems ever clearer.

Liberals can’t have it both ways on Bill C-51