Harper government to give new powers to CSIS to counter terrorism

On Friday, the federal Canadian Conservative government of Stephen Harper introduced legislation giving new powers to the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service along with a number of other measures designed to counter terrorist threats.

The new bill C-51 is only 62 pages long but contains new and extensive powers to detain suspects on less evidence and also to allow CSIS to interfere both with suspects' travel plans and also finances. The entire bill can be read here. The new powers allow law enforcement agencies to arrest a person if they merely think a terrorist act "may be carried out" instead of the requirement now that they think that such an act "will be carried out". The period of preventive detention of an arrested suspect is extended from three days to seven. Reduced evidence is also a factor in changes for retaining suspects on the basis of a terrorism peace bond. Now, the bond can be obtained only if the police think the suspect "will commit" a terrorism offence but under the new law, they need only believe the person "may commit" a terrorism offence. The new peace bond requires the person to surrender their passport. The bill also requires judges to consider imposing further conditions such as electronic monitoring or a ban on leaving the country. All these restrictions can be imposed even though the suspect is never charged or found guilty of any crime. These provisions give enormous power to authorities based only upon what they think you may do.

 While at present it is illegal to promote a specific terrorist offence, the new bill bans promotion or international advocacy of terrorism in general and allows for a maximum prison sentence of five years for doing so. A CBC article notes: "Officials were careful to note that the bill doesn't criminalize the glorification of terrorism, noting the difficulty in balancing freedom of speech with the desire to keep people from encouraging terrorist activity. " ​ I guess you could say: "The Islamic State is the greatest example of pure Islamic thought that the world has ever seen. No other version of Islam comes close to fully implementing the commands of Allah". Just do not add that you should join the group and wage jihad as that would be promoting terrorism, since the Islamic State is classified as a terrorist entity. What such legislation does is to ensure that radicals hide their discussions and planning even more. This law will probably be used not just against Islamic radicals. It will be helpful in confronting radical environmentalists or aboriginal activists.

 CSIS is given new powers to disrupt activities it considers terrorist, including Twitter accounts and radical websites, not only in Canada but abroad as well. Some of this disruptive activity might be illegal surely and create problems in foreign relations. The CSIS could also "counter-message" by challenging messages posted on radical sites. This sort of activity is sure to be noticed by jihadists and become an object of ridicule. The disruption could include interfering with travel plans, financial transactions, or even intercepting goods. However a court order would be needed if these actions interfered with the legal rights of a subject, if the subject were a Canadian or permanent resident. If the suspect were a non-Canadian and outside of Canada, a legal analysis of the situation would be required. "Disruption" is not even defined in the legislation. Examples given include interruption of a phone call between subjects. Surely, this type of action would clue suspects in to the fact they were under surveillance. CSIS might also contact family and friends to attempt to have them dissuade the suspect from taking part in any terrorist acts. This would alert the suspect that they were under investigation and no doubt would cause them to hide any plans from family and friends.

In the past, CSIS has disrupted activities by infiltrating them often using tactics that are debatable and even involved taxpayers funding radical groups: From 1988 to 1994, CSIS mole Grant Bristow infiltrated the Canadian white-supremacist movement. When the story became public knowledge, the press aired concerns that he had not only been one of the founders of the Heritage Front group, but that he had also channeled CSIS funding to the group.[28] Officials could apply to a court to "seize terrorist propaganda" or force a website to remove certain materials that would promote acts of terrorism against Canadians. This is an expansion of existing powers that allow the removal of hate propaganda or child pornography. The new bill would also expand the Canadian no-fly list to allow authorities to ban anyone from flying when they believe that the suspect might be traveling to engage in terrorism. There is an appeal process to be defined. These travel restrictions may lead prospective terrorists to decide that it makes more sense to stay at home and act against soft targets in Canada rather than trying to join a jihad against Assad in Syria for example.

 The opposition Liberal Party appears ready to support the bill. The safety critic Wayne Easter said that Liberals had voted for past anti-terrorism legislation and will support new measures unless they find a "poison pill" in the new bill. Easter said: “If they are reasonable in what they are presenting on the expansion of this legislation, we are reasonable people. If the government is sensible about it, and trying to fight terrorism rather than playing politics, then we will be supportive.” The Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau, said he would wait until he had read the bill carefully before he would comment. The Liberals and the official opposition the NDP both opposed the Conservative sponsored mission against the Islamic State in Iraq. The Liberals wanted a more humanitarian-focused mission. However, the Liberals themselves sponsored anti-terror legislation after 9/11 and supported Conservative measures while in opposition. Easter however is pressing for a strong oversight mechanism as the other four members of the "Five Eyes" group have. The five cooperating intelligence services are the US, UK, Australian and New Zealand along with Canada.

 The group is known for circumventing each others domestic laws by the manner in which they share information: Documents leaked by Snowden in 2013 revealed that the FVEY have been spying on one another's citizens and sharing the collected information with each other in order to circumvent restrictive domestic regulations on domestic spying. So the US can spy on Canadian citizens in Canada and share the information since it might be illegal for Canadians to do it. Canada has a specialized agency for spying CSEC, Communications Security Establishment Canada, that does what NSA does in the US. For some reason the last "C" has now been dropped. The CSE is right next door to the CSIS in the most expensive government building ever erected in Canada: CSEC’s budget has doubled in just the last 10 years. We now spend $350 million in taxpayer dollars every single year on CSEC. Taxpayers are also on the hook for over $4 billion to build and operate a new headquarters for CSEC which the CBC has called a “spy palace” and “the most expensive government building ever built.”

Reaction by the foreign affairs critic, Paul Dewar, of the official opposition New Democratic Party, was to stress the need for oversight. He agreed with the Conservatives that terrorism was a real threat but that there should be a stronger oversight body along with the increased powers for CSIS: “If you’re expanding (security agencies’) powers, you need commensurate oversight. This government isn't taking present oversight obligations seriously.”

Former Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh perhaps sums up the situation facing the NDP in this remark from his blog: The most muted response from the NDP's Mulcair to the newly unveiled legislation showed the NDP had realised that its position on our Iraq mission was not beneficial to its political fortunes. Mulcair did not wax eloquent about liberties any more. His emphasis was on defending Canadians' safety which needed to be enhanced without curtailing our liberties, he said. Paul Dewar of the NDP focussed mainly on lack of robust oversight and more resources. Thomas Mulcair is the leader of the New Democratic Party. While the NDP is supposedly on the left of the political spectrum in Canada there is nothing "left" about this response. Politicians are usually more concerned about votes than ideology. Canadians appear to fear the threat of terrorism much more than the increasing trend towards more police and spying power. They are quite happy to hand over funds for battling the Islamic State in Iraq and to build a mansion for Canada's spies while restricting many of our freedoms. The politics of fear is trending.

Scrapped anti-terror measures to be re-introduced.

I wonder if the opposition will vote down this bill. Perhaps the Tories want to portray the opposition parties as soft on terrorism if they do not support it. The Tories commitment to human rights has limits when it comes to anyone suspected of terrorism.


Tories to reintroduce scrapped anti-terror measures: Day
Last Updated: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 | 2:27 PM ET
CBC News
The federal government plans to introduce legislation that would renew controversial anti-terrorism measures voted down by opposition parties earlier this year, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day says.

Day said Tuesday he has drafted a bill to reinstate preventive arrests, which allow police to detain or restrain terror suspects without charge.

He also said the bill would allow the resumption of investigative hearings, which require anyone with information relevant to the investigation of a terrorist act to appear before a judge.

Both the Commons public safety committee and a Senate panel have already recommended extending those provisions, but Liberal MP and committee member Roy Cullen told CBC News Wednesday that Day must include other key recommendations from both panel reports to ensure the bill's passage.

Cullen also reiterated the Commons panel's request for a special panel of lawyers to deal with secret evidence in security cases, acting as a "devil's advocate" for those accused of terrorism.

"I hope they come forward with a good, constructive package and then some of my colleagues might be persuaded," said Cullen, who voted with the Conservatives for extending the measures in the parliamentary vote in February.



The proposal to keep the measures in place for three more years was voted down 159-124 in the House of Commons.

The Anti-Terrorism Act became part of the Criminal Code in December 2001, shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. The changes to the code were "aimed at disabling and dismantling the activities of terrorists groups and those who support them."

Day did not indicate when the new bill would be introduced to Parliament.

CSIS to expand into foreign intelligence
Day also told a parliamentary committee Tuesday that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will be expanded to do covert foreign intelligence gathering abroad.

That prompted Cullen to accuse the Conservatives of reneging on a campaign promise in the last federal election to create a foreign intelligence service separate from CSIS.

"I'm not surprised," he said. "Rolling it into CSIS, I'm not so sure how that would work."

With files from the Canadian Press

Lawyer challenges secret evidence law.

The secret evidence law protects intelligence operatives from justifying inadequate evidence and allows them to wrongfully accuse people without the ability of the accused to question the basis for the accusations. Much of the anti-terrorist laws in many countries simply throw out basic elements of any fair trial.

Terror suspect's lawyer challenges secret evidence law
Last Updated: Wednesday, April 4, 2007 | 4:54 PM ET
CBC News
A lawyer for the first person charged under Canada's Anti-terrorism Act says it is impossible for suspects to defend themselves when Canadian law allows government lawyers to meet secretly with judges to decide what evidence should be hidden from the defence.

Ottawa resident Mohammad Momin Khawaja was in federal court in Ottawa Wednesday while one of his lawyers argued against part of Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The part in question allows government lawyers to meet with the judge to discuss why certain evidence should be kept from the defence.

On Wednesday, Khawaja looked on while defence lawyer Lawrence Greenspon argued for over three hours that the process is unconstitutional and makes it impossible to mount a meaningful defence.

Outside the courtroom, Greenspon said his client has a Charter-protected right to a fair trial, and must have access to relevant evidence in order to defend himself against it and exercise that right.

"We have to be able to see it, we have to be able to attack it, we have to be able to respond to it," Greenspon said.




Government lawyers have argued that 513 documents in the case can't be fully disclosed to the defence because doing so would threaten national security and agreements with other countries.

Greenspon argued earlier that the defence should have access to those documents.

On Wednesday, Greenspon said Khawaja is concerned about his trial being delayed by constitutional challenges while he waits in jail.

"That said, you can't proceed to try somebody on a section of the criminal code that is unconstitutional," he said. "We can't be expected to go to trial where there's relevant evidence that's being withheld from us."

Khawaja, previously a resident of Ottawa's Orleans neighbourhood and a computer software operator for the Foreign Affairs Department, is scheduled to be tried in May for seven terrorism-related charges concerning his alleged role in a bomb plot against British targets.

He was one of nine people taken into custody as part of the investigation, but his arrest on March 29, 2004, was the only one that took place in Canada.

On Oct. 24, 2006, an Ontario Superior Court judge struck down a clause of the Anti-terrorism Act in relation to Khawaja's case. However, he said Khawaja should still be tried for the offences with which he is charged.