Civil Liberties Cautions Overruled by Realities

"The RCMP was not able to have a mandate from the attorney general [and] because of this, despite all of the information collected, the statements of witnesses regarding [the threat posed by] Martin Rouleau-Couture [he was not arrested]."
"The RCMP had done its homework, had prepared a file. Unfortunately, the threshold for evidence wasn't high enough. This is unacceptable."
Louise Vincent, sister, slain Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent

Louise Vincent speaks to a public safety and national security committee about Bill C-51 on Monday, March 23, 2015.

"The conflicts of the Muslim world are global. Canada is not insulated from the madness, the barbarism or savagery of a war that Canadians might not comprehend or deny having anything to do with them."
"But we Canadians are affected whether we like it or not because of the nature of our open society, our flow of immigrants from the Middle East and the larger Muslim world and the history of our relationship with that part of the world."
"It would be naivete on our part not to take seriously the reality of the jihadist sleeper cells and Islamist fifth columns in our midst."
Salim Mansur, associate professor, political science, Western University -- president, Muslims Facing Tomorrow

"[We] understand the government requires effective tools to protect Canada and its people from terrorist threats and acts."
"What we do not understand is why this bill is needed given the existing, robust and in some cases exceptional tools at our disposal."
"These new powers [Bill C-51]  will blur the lines between intelligence and law enforcement and may further increase tension between mandates and the practices of CSIS and the RCMP which can undermine security."
Sukanya Pillay, executive director, general counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Demonstrators protest at a national day of action against Bill C-51 in Toronto March 14. (Darren Calabrese/Canadian Press)

When two Canadian soldiers were murdered in broad daylight, in front of witnesses, by converts to Islam who had 'self-radicalized', swearing allegiance to Islamist jihad, heeding the messages by terrorist groups like Islamic State to accept a martyrdom role for themselves in delivering their hateful message of Islamist domination of the non-Muslim world through violent conquest, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that new laws to enhance security would result.

Now a government bill has been tabled as a result of those murders whose purpose is to permit the Canadian Security Intelligence Service the legal ability to thwart suspected terrorist plots, and not simply gather information they have gleaned about those plots. The law would also make it more readily available to the RCMP to obtain a peace bond restricting the movements of suspects, and to extend the time they can be kept in preventive detention.

A new criminal offence would be created through this bill, reflecting anyone involved in encouraging the carrying out of a terrorist attack being held criminally accountable. Critics of the bill claim it to be draconian in intent and methodology and unneeded, the laws currently in effect sufficient to apprehend the commission of such terrorist acts as killed both Warrant Officer Vincent and Reservist Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, standing guard over the National Cenotaph days after WO Patrice Vincent was killed.

Those laws, as they stand, did nothing to prevent the attacks on the two Canadian military personnel, however. Critics claim that at the very least the increased powers should be complemented by parliamentary scrutiny of intelligence activities, a demand that the government has rejected as unnecessary, since there is already an oversight group doing just that. The focus of opposition to the bill are provisions they find problematical:

• A wide new mandate empowering Canada's civilian spy agency to become offensive in disruption of national security threats; now a task delegated almost exclusively to the RCMP;
• Relaxing privacy restrictions to permit 17 government departments and agencies in the exchange and collating of information about Canadians and others suspected as possible national security threats;
• Making unlawful protests and civil dissent potentially actionable threats to national security thus raising questions about the consequences for environmentalists, aboriginals and others staging peaceful, but technically unlawful acts of civil disobedience.

Justice Minister Peter MacKay, left, suggests non-violent protests wouldn't fall under the broad definition of terrorism included in his government's proposed legislation, Bill C-51, despite questions raised by legal experts and critics of the bill. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

As for the clamour about the bill's absence of usefully independent oversight of the new domestic security capabilities, should push come to shove and experience demonstrate that such oversight really is a requirement, there is no doubt that an enhanced oversight can be arranged, if truly needed; in the interim the provisions of Bill-51 respond to a worldwide situation impacting on Canada and other free democratic societies; a bill whose time has, unfortunately, arrived.