-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Canada's Bill C-7 - Trading Real Liberties, For What? Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:47:40 -0400 From: Robert Vinet, The Privacy Manager <Robert@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <40449024.6010708@private> Hi Declan, Please consider posting this to the [Politech] list. An HTML version (along with the weeks other privacy news) is available at http://www.theprivacymanager.com/privacynews.htm Cheers, Robert ~~~ Canada's Bill C-7 - Trading Real Liberties, For What? In response to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the Government of Canada quickly introduced anti-terrorism legislation as part of its security agenda. In December of 2001, Bill C-36 - The Anti-Terrorism Act - was passed by Parliament. This Bill has threaten civil liberties, decrease privacy, and some say, justified the targeting of Arabs as terrorists. On May 6, 2004, Bill C-7, the Public Safety Act, received Royal Assent <http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/May2004/06/c0127.html>. This Act amends several other laws and further threatens civil liberties and human rights of Canadians. Where the Anti-Terrorism Act focused on the criminal law aspects to combat terrorism, the Public Safety Act addresses the federal framework for public safety and protection. However, the Public Safety Act erodes the right to privacy for Canadians in that it allows federal government agencies and departments (including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canadian Security Intelligence Services (CSIS), Transport Canada, Revenue Canada and Customs & Excise) to collect and secretly share air passenger information, for national security reasons. That very personal information can also be secretly shared with US and other government law enforcement and intelligence agencies with little oversight, even when Canadians are not flying into those countries. The new national private sector privacy act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) has been amended so that air carriers must now provide Transport Canada, the RCMP, CSIS, and other government agencies and officials with the Advanced Passenger Information (API) and Passenger Name Record (PNR) immediately upon request. The only requirement is that this request must be made for transportation or national security purposes. The API is basic information for each passenger, such as name, gender, date of birth, citizenship and a travel document number. PNR is information related to the traveler's reservation, such as flight number and itinerary. The Public Safety Act mandates that Transport Canada destroy the air passenger information within seven days. The same time frame applies to the RCMP and CSIS unless they reasonably required the information for the purposes of transportation security or the investigation of threats to the security of Canada. When the RCMP accesses and screens the passenger information for the purpose of transportation security, and "incidentally" discover a person wanted for a crime punishable by five years or more imprisonment, the passenger information information can be used to immediately execute the warrant. Bill C-7 effectively suspends "due process" in the Canadian legal system under the pretext of security. Law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies now have unprecedented powers. But there's more. The Bill states that Ministers and their delegates have the authority to “make an Interim Order if the Minister believes that there is a significant [security] risk.” With the stroke of a pen, a federal government Minister, and his delegates, now have the extended and concentrated power to arbitrarily and unilaterally amend existing federal legislation on the advice of a security agency, without any parliamentary debate, without any accountability or the usual safeguards. The Act gives Ministers the authority to issue an interim order if immediate action is required to deal with a serious threat or significant risk - direct or indirect - to health, safety, security, or the environment. This is a dangerous combination of excessive concentration of power, a license to infringe on individual rights and a lack checks and balances. The federal Ministers who administer the Aeronautics Act, Environmental Protection Act, Exports, Department of Health Act, Food and Drugs Act, Hazardous Products Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, Pest Control Products Act, Quarantine Act, Radiation Emitting Devices Act, and the Canada Shipping Acts now have the power to amend the acts and declare Interim Orders when they believe immediate action is required in order to protect national security. Interim Orders are executive regulations without the usual Parliamentary or Cabinet scrutiny or approval. Interim Orders must be published in the Canada Gazette within 23 days but need not be tabled in the House of Commons until the 15th day on which the House is sitting after the Order was made. However, there is no legal requirement that the House be convened if it is not sitting for Interim Orders to be tabled. Once created, Interim Orders may continue in force for periods of up to two years. At that time the Minister of the day can make another Interim Order. Bill C-7, what some have called Canada's version of the USA Patriot Act, is the fourth version of the draconian Public Safety Act. In November 2001, one month after the atrocities in the US, it was called Bill C-42. That bill was withdrawn due to strong criticism by civil liberty groups and individuals. In April 2002, after some minor tweaking, the bill was reintroduced in Parliament as Bill C-55. In October 2002 it was replaced with Bill C-17 and this too was withdrawn. In February 2004, the “new” and “improved” omnibus Bill C-7 was introduced, although in reality, little has changed since the original. All four versions had the same title and essentially the same content, but with different bill numbers. These Bills represent a significant and, many would argue, wholly unjustified intrusion on the fundamental civil liberties and democratic rights of all Canadians. The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) expressed serious concerns about each bill, noting the unacceptably broad reach of provisions governing air rage, military security zones and the collection of airline passenger information. On March 18, 2004, the CBA said the latest bill posed a serious threat to the privacy, individual rights and freedoms of Canadians, and should not be passed. In a letter to the Chair of the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, <http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/04-09-eng.pdf> the CBA reiterated that, despite some progress towards a more tailored response, the latest Bill “still fails to find any appropriate balance between security and privacy and human rights.” The CBA has serious concerns about access to passenger lists for a full week without a warrant, and the sharing of passenger information with foreign states. “We recognize that security and the fight against terrorism are important and legitimate government objectives,” says CBA Past President Simon Potter. “However, these objectives must not be achieved at the expense of the rule of law and the civil liberties, privacy, equality and due process rights that Canadians are entitled to under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canada's Constitution).” The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group said, "the proposed new power would turn all Canadians into suspects." On March 4, 2004, Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) president Victor Catano and executive director James Turk wrote to the Canadian Senate, raising concern over Bill C-7. The CAUT was asking the Senate to delay the passage of the bill. They expressed their utmost concern as it allowed the collection of personal information about Canadians and for the sharing of this information with foreign governments with inadequate controls. They wrote that it represented a grave risk to Canadians' rights and freedoms, and to Canadian sovereignty. Bill C-7 also establishes a pool of military judges in the event of martial law. And Canadian law enforcement agencies now have the power to search without first obtaining a warrant when investigating matters of national security. Many would argue that due to the rise of global terrorism, national governments must continuously re-balance civil liberties and rights against security concerns. They would argue that preventative measures and emergency powers are needed for the protection of society. However, since the Anti-Terrorism Act was passed in 2001, there are many examples of regrettable and very public intelligence failures that have lead to authorities abusing their draconian powers, much to the publics' outcry. Bill C-7 is not asking Canadians to accommodate extra inconveniences such as more detailed cross-border and airport security checks. The consequence of Bill C-7 could be more devastating. People's lives could be adversely and permanently affected. Suspects will not be granted due process and recourse to defend themselves and government agencies and decision makers will not be held accountable for mistakes. Canada's long and proud democratic history took a wrong turn on May 6th. The federal government's willingness to compromise the basic civil rights of Canadians is leading to a dangerous crumbling of society's safety nets. Canadians are slowly losing their civil liberties, in exchange for what? A false sense of security? --- Robert Vinet ThePrivacyManager.com http://www.theprivacymanager.com _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 13 2004 - 13:39:23 PDT