Commentary

Modifications to Security Legislation: Civil Liberties Remain the Target

On April 29, the Chretien government introduced a revised version of the security legislation it originally introduced last November in response to pressure from the U.S. government following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The original legislation was comprised of three bills which both amended existing legislation and granted the government new, extensive powers under the guise of fighting terrorism. These included giving individual cabinet ministers the ability to initiate security measures including detention and arrests if they determined something constituted an emergency situation. They also gave the Minister of Defence the ability to designate Controlled Access Military Zones, in which the army and police forces could simply disregard any constitutional requirements, in effect creating mini-War Measure Act Zones.

There was strong public opposition to the legislation and reportedly a significant number of Liberal backbenchers also raised concerns about different aspects of it. The legislation was temporarily put on hold, although the Liberal budget brought down in December committed some $7.7 billion in spending on different security-related measures, including increased funding for the RCMP, CSIS and border security as well as monies for the ongoing participation of Canadian troops in the U.S.-led war against Afghanistan.

One of he newly introduced bills, Bill C-42, The Public Safety Act, 2002, is an attempt to strike some compromise. For example, while ministers are still able to give interim orders if they determine an emergency situation exists, there are more requirements for them to report back to Parliament in such an event. And the government is required to consult with Parliament on the continued need for such measures after three years.

However, Bill C-55, also a part of the new legislation, extends the power of the RCMP and CSIS to access passenger information on flights originating from or destined to Canada. It makes it easier for both the RCMP and CSIS to share information about Canadians with their counterparts in other countries, particularly the United States.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, George Radwanski, has raised some serious concerns in his response to the new legislation. He points out that unrestricted access to the personal information of all Canadian air travellers would in essence be giving police forces the right to compel businesses to provide information about citizens without obtaining a warrant or any other form of judicial authorization. Radwanski also notes the changes would effectively require compulsory identification to the police, as passengers are required to identify themselves to the airlines and the RCMP would then have access to this information. Taking aim at the section of the new legislation that contains these provisions, Radwanski writes: "While some exceptional measures might be justified as necessary to enhance protection against terrorism, section 4.82 goes far beyond anti-terrorism. Empowering the RCMP to obtain and scan passenger lists in search of anyone subject to an outstanding warrant for any offence punishable by imprisonment of five years or more has no apparent connection to the purported anti-terrorism purpose of [the Bill]. It appears, rather, to be a dramatic expansion of privacy-invasive police powers without explanation or justification as to its necessity. If air travellers within Canada can in effect be forced by law to identify themselves to police for scrutiny against lists of wanted suspects, why not train travellers, bus travellers, or anyone renting a car? The precedent set ...could open the door, in principle, to practices similar to those that exist in totalitarian societies where police routinely board trains or establish roadblocks to check identification papers in search of anyone of interest to the state."

Taking issue with statements by Solicitor-General MacAulay that Canadians expect the police to use all reasonable tools to ensure safety following the September 11 attacks, Radwanski stated: "I must say, Mr. MacAulay, that nothing in your letter disappoints me more that your invocation of September 11 to justify new police powers that have nothing to do with anti-terrorism." Radwanski went on to say: "To take advantage of public fears, rather than to help set these fears into perspective, while ensuring that Canadian rights and Canadian values remain paramount, would be unworthy of the Solicitor-General of Canada."

There have been no terrorist acts on Canadian soil for more than 20 years. Nor has a shred of evidence been presented that any terrorist organizing linked to the September 11 attacks took place in Canada. Far from preventing terrorism and protecting public safety, this modified legislation continues to be about appeasing the Americans while extending the draconian power of the Canadian state. It represents a direct assault on the civil liberties of all Canadians and should be opposed.