pawnsofharper
2015-02-26 00:11:54 UTC
Walkom: http://www.thestar.com/ Published on Wed Feb 25 2015
Unnecessary terror bill to be rammed through Parliament
Canadian governments can already do awful things in the name of security. They
dont need new powers to do more.
Stephen Harpers government plans to ram its massive new security bill through
Parliament with little debate. This is not exactly a surprise.
It would have been surprising shocking, in fact if this prime minister had
done otherwise.
It would have been shocking if Harper had risen in the Commons and said: We
think that our plan to give security agencies more power is so far-reaching
that wed like to make sure weve got it right.
But he didnt do that. Instead, the Conservatives used their parliamentary
majority to cut off debate in the Commons.
Now, as the Star has reported, the Conservatives plan to give a parliamentary
committee set to study the 74-page bill only four days to hear witnesses.
One of those four days will taken up by ministers and officials explaining why
Bill C-51 is such a jewel.
The remaining three will not allow much informed comment. Bill C-51 is a
complicated piece of legislation. It would create two new laws and
substantially amend three others including the Criminal Code.
It proposes to give the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service the
authority to break laws and the Charter of Rights.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It creates new offences, including the undefined crime of promoting terrorism
in general.
As law professors Craig Forcese and Kent Roach have written, its provisions
are overly broad, poorly defined and in judicial terms revolutionary.
Among other things, the bill proposes to give CSIS privileged access to what
would be, in effect, secret courts.
Conservatives usually promote individual over collective rights.
Conservatives usually tend to be suspicious of big government.
But not, it seems, when they are in government. These Conservative MPs seem
happy to give their government new, Big Brother powers without asking too many
questions.
The Harper Conservatives certainly arent the first to close off legislative
debate on a complicated bill. Jean Chrétiens Liberals did so in both the
Commons and Senate in 2001, in order to speed up passage of Canadas first
anti-terror laws.
Then the aim was to quickly pacify the Americans who, in the immediate
aftermath of 9/11, were deeply suspicious of Canadas approach to security.
Now, in an election year, the aim is to convince Canadian voters that Harper
is uniquely tough on terrorism.
It should be remembered that the Chrétien Liberals did at least allow their
terror bill to be subject to a lengthy and open airing before a Commons
committee. They also accepted some (but not all) amendments offered up by
the opposition.
We shall see if the Harper Conservatives are that obliging. Im not holding my
breath.
The great irony of all of this is that governments dont need terror laws to
do awful things in the name of national security.
Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen who was seized by the Americans and spirited
away to Syria to be tortured, wasnt a victim of this countrys anti-terror
laws.
Rather, as a judicial inquiry into the affair later concluded, it was the then
Liberal governments insistence on sharing every scrap of security
information no matter how unreliable with the U.S. that sealed his fate.
Simply put, the Mounties saw Arar talking to a man they were watching; they
told the Americans. The Americans then seized Arar and sent him off to be
tortured just in case.
Another judicial inquiry concluded that the actions of Canadian officials,
including the RCMP and CSIS, contributed to the torture suffered abroad by
three other Canadian citizens: Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed
Nureddin.
Again, it wasnt specific anti-terror laws that contributed to their ordeal.
Rather, it was the practice of Canadian security agencies to share dodgy
information with brutal regimes.
The point here is that Canadian governments, whether malevolent or just overly
careless, can already do a lot of damage in the name of national security.
They already possess extraordinary leeway.
Allowing this government to casually give itself and its security agencies
more power in this regard isnt necessary. It can only make matters worse.
________________________________
Loading Image...
Unnecessary terror bill to be rammed through Parliament
Canadian governments can already do awful things in the name of security. They
dont need new powers to do more.
Stephen Harpers government plans to ram its massive new security bill through
Parliament with little debate. This is not exactly a surprise.
It would have been surprising shocking, in fact if this prime minister had
done otherwise.
It would have been shocking if Harper had risen in the Commons and said: We
think that our plan to give security agencies more power is so far-reaching
that wed like to make sure weve got it right.
But he didnt do that. Instead, the Conservatives used their parliamentary
majority to cut off debate in the Commons.
Now, as the Star has reported, the Conservatives plan to give a parliamentary
committee set to study the 74-page bill only four days to hear witnesses.
One of those four days will taken up by ministers and officials explaining why
Bill C-51 is such a jewel.
The remaining three will not allow much informed comment. Bill C-51 is a
complicated piece of legislation. It would create two new laws and
substantially amend three others including the Criminal Code.
It proposes to give the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service the
authority to break laws and the Charter of Rights.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It creates new offences, including the undefined crime of promoting terrorism
in general.
As law professors Craig Forcese and Kent Roach have written, its provisions
are overly broad, poorly defined and in judicial terms revolutionary.
Among other things, the bill proposes to give CSIS privileged access to what
would be, in effect, secret courts.
Conservatives usually promote individual over collective rights.
Conservatives usually tend to be suspicious of big government.
But not, it seems, when they are in government. These Conservative MPs seem
happy to give their government new, Big Brother powers without asking too many
questions.
The Harper Conservatives certainly arent the first to close off legislative
debate on a complicated bill. Jean Chrétiens Liberals did so in both the
Commons and Senate in 2001, in order to speed up passage of Canadas first
anti-terror laws.
Then the aim was to quickly pacify the Americans who, in the immediate
aftermath of 9/11, were deeply suspicious of Canadas approach to security.
Now, in an election year, the aim is to convince Canadian voters that Harper
is uniquely tough on terrorism.
It should be remembered that the Chrétien Liberals did at least allow their
terror bill to be subject to a lengthy and open airing before a Commons
committee. They also accepted some (but not all) amendments offered up by
the opposition.
We shall see if the Harper Conservatives are that obliging. Im not holding my
breath.
The great irony of all of this is that governments dont need terror laws to
do awful things in the name of national security.
Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen who was seized by the Americans and spirited
away to Syria to be tortured, wasnt a victim of this countrys anti-terror
laws.
Rather, as a judicial inquiry into the affair later concluded, it was the then
Liberal governments insistence on sharing every scrap of security
information no matter how unreliable with the U.S. that sealed his fate.
Simply put, the Mounties saw Arar talking to a man they were watching; they
told the Americans. The Americans then seized Arar and sent him off to be
tortured just in case.
Another judicial inquiry concluded that the actions of Canadian officials,
including the RCMP and CSIS, contributed to the torture suffered abroad by
three other Canadian citizens: Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed
Nureddin.
Again, it wasnt specific anti-terror laws that contributed to their ordeal.
Rather, it was the practice of Canadian security agencies to share dodgy
information with brutal regimes.
The point here is that Canadian governments, whether malevolent or just overly
careless, can already do a lot of damage in the name of national security.
They already possess extraordinary leeway.
Allowing this government to casually give itself and its security agencies
more power in this regard isnt necessary. It can only make matters worse.
________________________________
Loading Image...
