Three of the most interesting commentaries on C-51, thankfully given the relatively neutral title of The Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015 rather than the usual ‘bumper-sticker’ slogan titles.
Starting with John Ivison in The National Post:
The CSIS changes are sweeping, handing the spy agency many functions that previously had to be carried out by the police. The briefing documents provided by the government offered up an example of a 21-year-old Canadian citizen, who has become disenchanted with his home life, has been viewing Youtube videos of radical imams and acquired al-Qaeda literature. Individuals in his local mosque have advised CSIS he is planning to travel abroad to engage in terrorist activity. Currently, CSIS can investigate but it is forced to hand on its findings to the RCMP for the Mounties to launch their own investigation. Under the new bill, CSIS could meet with the individual to advise him they know what he is planning to do and advise him on the consequences of further action.
This sounds fair enough – the agency is authorized only to take “proportional” measures to disrupt threats and would need a court warrant whenever threat disruption measures contravene Charter rights. But who is watching the spies to make sure they comply with their mandate? The Security Intelligence Review Committee is charged with examining the performance of CSIS but SIRC is not without its own critics. This, remember, is the organization that used to be headed by alleged fraudster, Arthur Porter.
There have been calls in the past to have CSIS policed by an all-party parliamentary committee of MPs to allay fears of sinister behaviour. A beefed up oversight function should have accompanied the expansion of CSIS’s powers.
Canada remains remarkably resilient to terrorism, largely because the fairness of its justice system and the robustness of its institutions mean its citizens are less likely to become disaffected to the point of armed insurrection.
The security services are the last line in our defences. Whether handing them enhanced powers will strengthen our democracy, as the Prime Minister maintains, will depend entirely on how they are utilized.
John Ivison: Harper terror legislation has possibility to disrupt a balance that has served Canadians remarkably well
And Andrew MacDougall, former PM spokesman:
Returning to reality, the Conservatives have the most popular position on terror (get tough), and Harper the most credibility, but the issue will tempt them into the kind of behaviour that irks Canadians. Canadians want something done on this file, but they don’t want their prime minister to lead a jihad on his political opponents.
The temptation to haul Justin Trudeau to the rhetorical woodshed will be strong. No one in Conservative circles has forgotten Trudeau’s “root causes” talk in the immediate aftermath of the Boston bombing, or when he whipped out his puerile remarks during the debate over Canada’s mission to combat ISIL. If past is prologue, the anti-terror debate has “bimbo eruption” written all over it.
Perhaps seeking to avoid these attacks, early indications are that the Liberals are thinking of supporting the government’s plans. The Liberals should, however, think twice about ducking the debate entirely.
For Trudeau, this debate represents a chance to put on his big boy pants and offer an opinion — and maybe even a policy — on a serious subject. Canadians have every right to know what a prospective Liberal government would do to dismantle jihadi networks. Punting to a critic, like he did for most of the Iraq war debate after getting singed for his wiener joke, won’t cut it.
Of course, another reason for Trudeau to support the government is to put some distance between himself and Tom Mulcair’s New Democrats. It will be in Mulcair’s political interest to go full kumbaya in this debate, and consolidate support on the left, but he should also consider putting his considerable prosecutorial skills to the service of crafting an effective bill.
It is up to the government to set the tone and early indications are not good. The prime minister would do well to be guided by the two inconvenient facts, and discard the political truth. Bending your opponents over a political barrel can be good sport, but the outcome of the terror game is too important to cave in to partisanship.
Protecting citizens is a core duty of a government. Harper is the government, and so the benefits of a solid bill, even one that incorporates constructive suggestions from his political opponents, will accrue to him, and will serve him well in his bid for re-election.
MacDougall: Let’s avoid pantomime in the terror debate
Kent Roach and Craig Forcese offer one of the better analysis I have seen on the Bill:
All this will be ironed out with time and court proceedings. But until then, the risk is a widespread perception that CSIS can act beyond the law if a judge is onside.
Another concern is how to read this new law alongside earlier CSIS changes that are still before Parliament. The new powers to disrupt will fuse with the earlier bill’s broad power to shelter informants from identification before the courts. Sweeping source privilege was a bad idea before. Then, we feared it would impede Canada’s ability to secure convictions, especially in foreign terrorist fighter cases. Now, we imagine source privileges for agents provocateurs, as CSIS becomes more than an intelligence collection agency.
The most striking omission in this law project is the stubborn failure to streamline the review bodies for CSIS and other security services so they can work together and reach more government conduct. The government keeps pressing “go” on more powers while mouthing unpersuasive speaking points about how our tattered review process is state of the art. The changes to preventive-arrest and peace-bond provisions sit better with us, but many will seem them as extraordinary. Preventive arrest will not be easier to justify and can be extended with judicial approval for an additional four days, for a total of seven. This is mild by international standards, but detention without charge is controversial. There is nothing that regulates what happens during the seven days. Expect its use to fuel a constitutional challenge.
A new peace-bond provision is included, changing the standard from reasonable grounds to fear a person “will” commit a terrorism offence to the slightly more permissive “may.” This lowers the standard, but it was already low. The change may or may not have made a difference when a prosecutor told police they didn’t have enough evidence for a peace bond against Martin Couture-Roleau, who later carried out the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu attack. No one is saying much about that case.
In sum, the bill could have done much more to square security with liberty.
Red, yellow lights for security measures