Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood proudly in front of the Canadian flag at a Conservative party rally in January. There, in front of his supporters, he introduced Bill C-51 as anti-terrorism legislation in response to the October shooting on Parliament Hill. Despite many debates as to whether the event was in fact a terrorist attack or an isolated incident by a troubled individual, Harper has taken a militant stance against anyone who attempts, or thinks of attempting, harm to Canadian citizens and the economy.
Bill C-51 gives the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) more power than ever before. Under Bill C-51, CSIS will no longer be just an intelligence-based organization; it will be allowed to physically intervene on criminal activity (this was previously the responsibility of the RCMP).
“All the procedures that the RCMP does are public. CSIS operates in a much more covert way,” says Camosun Social Sciences chair Daniel Reeve, who also teaches Political Science. “Now with the legislation, the Conservatives are giving CSIS newfound powers to have a physical imprint on activity.”
In addition to being able to have a physical role, CSIS is also granted access to information unrelated to security, such as health and revenue information. This is being done without enhancing the budget for the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), an external review panel that reports to parliament on CSIS’ compliance with law and policy and also investigates complaints.
“If you’re going to give a body more new and farther reaching powers, then you need an equally powerful oversight that can judge their activities if you can’t make them public because of national security, and they’re not doing that,” says Reeve. “That’s a fundamental design flaw that I think was done on purpose. I don’t think that’s oversight, I think that’s by design.”
After the introduction of Bill C-51, people all across Canada began to voice their concerns about the intentions in giving so much power to a private, unsupervised organization like CSIS. Former prime ministers, respected Canadians and officials, and people from all walks of life have protested the bill over the past few months, but despite widespread outcry, Bill C-51 passed through the House of Commons to the senate, with the support of the Liberal party.
Terrorist or activist?
Another key critique of Bill C-51 is the lack of definition. Stephen Harper has refused to define what is classified as terrorism in the bill, and this has activists worried. Section 16 of Bill C-51 describes terrorism as acts “advocating” terrorism or the “commission of terrorism offenses in general,” and leaves the final decision up to the courts. Section 16 has been labelled a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, as it disallows citizens freedom of speech and opinion without interference.
“I find the whole thing quite unusual. They’re going to be able to target activity,” says Murray Rankin, Victoria NDP Member of Parliament. “Those could be just environmental groups, or First Nations with whom they disagree and get a warrant from a court that allows those activities to be disruption activities.”
The lack of definition of what could be considered encouraging terrorist propaganda could also entangle journalists and those who may want to use media in order to display their opinions and criticisms of the government.
“If you’re broadcasting, if you’re a journalist just quoting what someone told you, now you could be brought in as spreading terrorist propaganda. You know, the concern for activists is that they’ll be seen as an enemy, or the language used is broad enough to engulf them as terrorists,” says Reeve.
In Bill C-51, any “activity that undermines the security of Canada” is considered terrorism, which includes interfering with defence and border operations or public safety and activities that may interfere with the economic or financial security of Canada. This vague terminology is particularly concerning to those protesting pipelines, for example, as that may be perceived as economic interference.
Shayli Robinson, a Camosun Indigenous Studies and Political Science student and anti-Bill-C-51 activist, is particularly concerned because of her indigenous heritage.
“A simple peaceful blockade on a logging road could be seen or classified as a threat to national security,” says Robinson, who is also the Camosun College Student Society (CCSS) Lansdowne executive. “It’s really frustrating because they’re just trying to stand up for their rights, and that would be stopping a company from doing their work, which could be seen as putting strain on the economy.”
Camosun students should be aware of how the increased sharing of information within the government affects them. Any criminal linkages to activism perceived as terrorism will remain in government information files for years to come. They could possibly hinder future job opportunities, which then brings in the idea that Canadians may practice self-censorship for fear of repercussions.
CCSS external executive Andrea Eggenbegger fears for Camosun students’ privacy.
“They can share information about people freely without a warrant, which is really scary, so students’ information could be shared, as long as they can say that it is to monitor the threat to national security. The really annoying thing about all of the awful things in this bill is that there is no real bar set as to what it really is; a lot of it is just up to their discretion.”
The chill effect
The NDP’s Rankin has been particularly outspoken about the issues with Bill C-51 (as has the rest of his party in the House of Commons). He is concerned about the psychological repercussions of Canadians being aware they are under constant survey, something he calls “the chill effect.”
Rankin says that the chill effect happens when the fear of being placed under government suspicion for saying or doing certain things deters them from acting. He believes this is exactly what the Conservative government wants.
“They’re scaring you, making you fear that you’ll be on some list somewhere and that’ll affect you getting a job. There’s a chilling effect, and I think that is one of the most dangerous things for Camosun students.”
The CCSS’ Eggenberger is concerned that part of that chilling effect would hit activists, who may feel too intimidated to raise awareness about issues that are of concern to citizens.
“Activists really move our country along in such an important way and they’re changing the way the country thinks and the way we’re run,” says Eggenberger. “Putting that pressure on government is how government makes changes. We need to be very vocal in what matters to Canadians.”
On campus, professors may also think twice before voicing certain opinions in the classroom or online. Self-censorship affects the way ideas are shared and prevents people from thinking about the world in a critical way, limiting the breadth of education.
“They may not be silenced, but chilled,” says Camosun’s Reeve. “Even the professors who may have less mainstream views, they may feel chilled, looking over their shoulder wondering if their accounts are being bugged, if their e-mails are being bugged, as less mainstream views may be seen as a threat to security.”
Strategic politics
Some critics of Bill C-51 don’t see it as a move to erase terrorism at all but a political tactic by the Conservative party to secure the Canadian vote in the upcoming federal election. As seen in the US during the Bush campaigns, instilling fear of the “others” is a successful way to win voters over if the party promises to protect them from the threats.
“They’re doing a lot of fear propaganda. I definitely think it’s political,” says Robinson. “I think the Conservatives are losing popularity, the elections in Alberta show that, but what I think they’re doing is creating problems and then trying to fix them to give themselves something to stand up on come election time.”
The fact that the Liberals voted for a bill even though they voiced notable concerns about the way it was written is also disconcerting. Justin Trudeau says that the Liberal party will reform Bill C-51 if voted into office in October. Reeve says that rushing the bill through the House of Commons and limiting committee debates is just bad policy.
“The committee is where they take a bill and basically bring in experts and outsiders and listen to what they have to say; well, they’ve shortened those lists,” he says. “It’s not the first time, but it’s shocking for a bill that has such a large implication and has so much public intention. They’re just willing to short-change the democratic review process.”
Whether one thinks that terrorism is an issue or not, the overall consensus is that Bill C-51 needs extensive reviews and reforms before being made law. Rankin questions why we need it at all, as Canadian government has been successful at intervening on a number of terrorist activities without such a bill in place.
“What powers do we need that we don’t already have? To catch the Toronto 18, to catch the people who tried to do the plot on Canada Day here at the legislature. The Harper government can’t tell us why it would make us safer. That should give us pause,” says Rankin. “They’ve expanded the number of years that someone can be held in preventative detention. You know how many times we’ve used those powers before? Zero. I believe this is all about the government wishing to make us think that the Conservatives are the only ones who care about national security.”
Unfortunately, a Conservative representative could not be reached for comment; no one in support of Bill C-51 was willing to speak for this story. Indeed, even finding those in support is extremely difficult. Professor Reeve says it is because Victoria is not in play as far as the Conservatives are concerned.
“The thing about it is the Conservatives’ main concern is the national office; they’re not going to give you a local read. Remember, you live in Victoria. You are not part of the municipal ridings in Toronto. That’s the opinion they care about. It’s basic politics. Areas they’re last in are of no interest.”
What’s next?
The likelihood that the Canadian people will be able to sway the senate’s decision to pass Bill C-51 is up for debate, but we could slow the process, allowing more time to analyze, reform, and define the bill further. Although country-wide protests and concerns were ignored by government, it is still important for citizens to continue putting pressure on the government. Eggenbegger pleads for students not to allow government to make them feel ashamed to call themselves activists.
“Tell them how disappointed you are with this decision, and how it is so problematic for Canada, as a country, to disable our activists and imply that activism is not a good thing. That’s a new lesson that they’re teaching the new generation: if you do an activist activity that it might come back to bite you. That shouldn’t be the stigma. It should be that if you do an activist activity, good for you, you care about the country. Keep tweeting the government, keep speaking your mind, and go to as many rallies as you can.”
Canadians also have a chance to make their opinions heard at the federal election in October; Reeve urges students to not allow a lack of understanding to prevent them from voting.
“If they care about this bill, and they think it’s one of the important things to think about while they’re voting in the fall, they should see which candidates are against it. Politics aren’t faraway things; students have the ability to understand how they affect their lives.”
Rankin says that the bottom line is that Bill C-51 isn’t going to make Canadians any safer.
“And, of course, the government couldn’t give us one good example of why they needed these new powers,” he says, “and at the same time, there is no question that it’s going to make an impact on our civil liberties. Is this the kind of world that you want to create? Is this the Canada that you want, or do you think we can do better?”
Students can find Bill C-51 online at documentcloud.org/documents/1513457-bill-c-51.html.