The WAR on Science: Thursday, November 21, 2013, 7:00 pm Room 1900, SFU Harbour Ctr

[agentaqua]

The Harper Regime

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/03/11/bill-c-51-lawrence-toet-mailout_n_6847664.html

Bill C-51 Mailout From Tory MP Features Loaded Question, Attracts Scorn
The Huffington Post Canada | By Ryan Maloney

Posted: 03/11/2015 12:09 pm EDT Updated: 5 hours ago

Canadians either support the government's new anti-terror legislation, or see terrorists as victims.

That's the message a Conservative backbencher delivered to his constituents in a mailout that is now attracting a lot of attention — and scorn — online.

Manitoba MP Lawrence Toet, who represents the Winnipeg riding of Elmwood-Transcona, sent the mailer this week expressing his support for Bill C-51.


Constituents were invited to take a survey and mail the results back to Toet. However, the options left little by way of a middle ground.

Recipients could either check a box saying they agreed with Toet that "additional action" is needed to combat terrorism, or one saying they disagree, as "terrorists are victims too."

Photos of the survey were posted to Twitter Tuesday, with many complaining about the loaded question, and the fact that taxpayers cover the cost of such mailers.

By Wednesday morning, an image of the survey was a top post on social media site Reddit, with many commenters suggesting ideas for future polls.

"Do you believe the Keystone pipeline is in Canada's best interests?" wrote one commenter. "Yes! It will create thousands of jobs. No! I am an environmental terrorist and should be put in prison."

"Will you be voting for Stephen Harper next election?" wrote another. "Yes, I want Canadians to be safe. No, I like ISIS."

Some people online have also compared Toet's survey to former public safety minister Vic Toews' infamous quip in 2012 that opponents of an online surveillance bill could either "stand with us or with the child pornographers."

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair told reporters Wednesday that Toet's mailout was an example of the same "ludicrous, divisive approach" Tories have used for years.

"It's the same approach as Stephen Harper. It's the same approach as Vic Toews," he said. "You know, you are with us, or you are against us."

Curtis Brown, vice-president of Probe Research, told CBC News he posted a photo of the survey to Twitter for a laugh because it would be "preposterous" if his polling firm phrased a question in that manner.

"It's not a legitimate way of asking people what they think about Bill C-51 or about terrorism," he said.

Just weeks ago, Toet rose in the House of Commons to express his support for Bill C-51. The legislation would give the Canadian Security Intelligence Service the power to actively thwart terror plots, make it easier for police to limit the movements of a suspected extremist, expand no-fly list powers, crack down on terrorist propaganda, and remove barriers to sharing security-related information.

Toet echoed Prime Minister Stephen Harper in saying the international jihadist movement has "declared war" on Canada.

"Jihadi terrorism is not a human right," he said. "It is an act of war."

The federal Liberals have announced they will support the bill, but amend the legislation if they win the next election to provide more oversight of security agencies.

However, New Democrats will vote against Bill C-51. Mulcair has called the legislation "sweeping, dangerous, vague and ineffective."

Last week, federal privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien said the scope of the bill was "clearly excessive" and warned the personal information of Canadians could be in jeopardy if it passes.

More than 100 academics have also urged MPs to vote against the legislation, which was introduced after the death of two Canadian soldiers in October.

With files from The Canadian Press

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion...between+protest+terrorism/10875332/story.html

Pete McMartin: Drawing the line between protest and terrorism

We should worry when our government defends its policies by making dissent illegal

VANCOUVER SUN MARCH 10, 2015

Pete McMartin: Drawing the line between protest and terrorism

Several legal experts have pointed out that under the language of the private-member’s Bill C-639, you wouldn’t need to damage a pipeline to be convicted, you would just have to obstruct or interfere with it.
Photograph by: Arlen Redekop , PNG
It is one thing to disagree with one’s government. It is another to fear it.

Here, in the world’s most polite nation, we aren’t used to looking over our shoulder at government. The history of the public’s relationship with our federal governments has long been characterized by the usual ire we reserve for bureaucracy. We have always trusted it to do the wrong thing.

But fear? That’s something new.

Maybe in B.C. we’ve had more reason to feel that unease. The demonizing of opponents to its pipeline plans, the use of its ministries to chill the campaigns of environmentalists — we’ve seen the worst of the Conservatives’ heavy-handedness.

But more troubling is the government’s erosion of the boundary between protest and terrorism.

There is Bill C-51, the government’s Anti-terrorism Act. The Conservatives didn’t just bite off more legal territory than they could chew in their fight against terrorism, they willingly devoured it. A debate now rages between those who applaud the bill’s attempts to address new forms of terrorism and those who feel its powers are so unconstitutional that the Supreme Court will strike it down. It’s no way to make good law.

Then there is the less publicized private member’s bill introduced by Conservative MP Wai Young, the member for Vancouver South. In December, Young brought forward Bill C-639, which would create a new Criminal Code offence for anyone who “destroys or damages” or “obstructs, interrupts or interferes” with the use of any part of a “critical infrastructure.”

What qualifies as critical infrastructure? Young insists the bill was designed to prosecute crimes like stealing copper from transmission lines (though existing laws already do so). And she suggested protesters who were blocking access to, say, a hospital could be prosecuted. (Wait, what? Blockade a hospital?)

Could an oil pipeline be critical infrastructure?

Young pooh-poohed the idea the bill could be used against protesters blockading the construction of a pipeline. But legal experts were not so sure. Several pointed out that under the language of the bill you wouldn’t need to damage a pipeline to be convicted, you would just have to obstruct or interfere with it.

Theories in search of a conspiracy?

Maybe, but maybe not. Critical infrastructure has been on the mind of the RCMP, too — most vividly in the RCMP memo Critical Infrastructure Intelligence Assessment: Criminal Threats to the Canadian Petroleum Industry. The document was dated Jan. 24, 2014.

Obtained by Greenpeace Canada and leaked to the Quebec newspaper La Presse in mid-February, the RCMP paper was “in support of the Government of Canada’s strategy to ensure critical infrastructure.” It all but predicted armed insurrection against Big Oil. (Sorry, my mistake. It did.) Some key passages:

• “There is a growing, highly organized and well-financed, anti-Canadian petroleum movement, that consists of peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists, who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels.”

• “Research and analysis done in support of ongoing RCMP criminal investigations shows these involved in the anti-Canadian petroleum movement have an interest in drawing public attention to, and in building recognition of, the perceived (italics mine) environmental threat from the continued use of fossil fuels.”

• “Within the anti-petroleum environmental movement, the law enforcement and security intelligence communities have detected a small, but violent-prone faction that has the intent and demonstrated capability to engage in criminal activity to attempt to shut down the Canadian petroleum industry.”

Notice how the RCMP equate climate-change environmentalism as being not just against the petroleum industry, but as being “anti-Canadian.”

Notice how the environmental threat of the continued use of fossil fuels is “perceived.”

It characterized the environmental movement’s use of social media as “one-sided.” It claimed the anti-petroleum movement, most notably in Ontario, New Brunswick and B.C., “has been able to align itself with violent aboriginal extremists.” It asserted that despite environmentalist’s campaigns, a recent poll found that “80 per cent of Canadians support continued oilsands development.”

I’m not sure what polling has to do with police work, or whether climate change is a matter of perception. This I do know:

When the nation’s police force begins to act as a cheerleader for the government’s policies, it’s time to look over your shoulder.

pmcmartin@vancouversun.com

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bil...blocked-from-committee-witness-list-1.2991265

Bill C-51: Privacy watchdog Daniel Therrien blocked from committee witness list
Conservatives rebuff NDP attempt to add privacy commissioner to committee witness panel
By Kady O'Malley, CBC News Posted: Mar 12, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 12, 2015 10:48 AM ET

Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien provided a written submission to the Commons committee reviewing the new anti-terrorism legislation, but efforts to add him to the witness list were blocked by Conservative committee members. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

Critic warns of anti-terror bill's shortcomings 8:15

The Commons public safety committee isn't planning to give the federal privacy watchdog the opportunity to share his concerns publicly with MPs over sweeping new information-sharing powers that would be given to national security agencies under the government's proposed anti-terror bill.

"At this point, we have not been invited," a spokeswoman for Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien told CBC News Wednesday.

"The commissioner has said that, given the significant implications for privacy, he would welcome an opportunity to appear to discuss his submission in more detail with committee members," Valerie Lawton said.

"He remains hopeful that the committee will be able to hear from him."

It's not clear how Therrien ended up not making it onto the final witness list, as the selection process takes place behind closed doors. His name was near the top of the proposed witness lists provided to CBC News by the New Democrats and the Liberals.

Tories block bid to add Therrien

During Tuesday's meeting, New Democrat MP Randall Garrison attempted to get unanimous consent for a motion to add a one-hour session with Therrien to the meeting schedule, but he was rebuffed by the Conservatives.

Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney stated, in response to a question, that his office had "consulted" with the commissioner on the bill. The minister said he intends to meet with Therrien.

"As you know, this bill is about the protection of the rights and freedoms of Canadians and their privacy," he said.

"There are embedded mechanisms in Bill C-51 and already within government, such as the privacy impact assessment, that will apply to the measures planned in this bill."

READ: Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien's submission on C-51
In the meantime, however, committee members will be able to peruse the written commentary submitted by Therrien last week, in which he delivers a starkly worded warning on the implications for privacy rights:

"While the potential to know virtually everything about everyone may well identify some new threats, the loss of privacy is clearly excessive," he writes.

"All Canadians would be caught in this web."

In his submission, Therrien explains how the bill could give as many as 17 federal departments and agencies access to every bit of data, personal and otherwise, that any department might hold on Canadians.

Language 'extremely broad'

The language used to establish those new powers is "extremely broad," he notes, before offering several examples of how the new provisions could affect all Canadians, not just those suspected of harbouring terrorist ambitions, or even sympathies.

"For instance, all the tax information held by the Canada Revenue Agency, which historically has been highly protected information, would be broadly available if deemed relevant to the detection of new security threats," he warns.

Bill C-51: Blaney, MacKay questioned on bill's fine print
C-51 anti-terrorism bill 'excessive,' privacy commissioner says
Privacy commissioner worries about the impact of bill
"As well, all information that departments hold about young persons that was obtained for a specific purpose could be further shared with these 17 departments and data mined with a view to identifying those at risk of being radicalized. "

And the Canada Border Services Agency "could be asked to provide information on all individuals, including tourists and business persons, who have travelled to countries that are suspected of being transit points to conflict areas."

'Virtually limitless powers'

The result, he says, would be to give the 17 government institutions currently involved in national security "virtually limitless powers to monitor and, with the assistance of Big Data analytics, to profile ordinary Canadians, with a view to identifying security threats among them."

The submission includes several recommended amendments, including raising the threshold required to trigger the new sharing powers, imposing strict new retention limits on the data.

Therrien also adds his voice to the chorus calling for a more vigorous oversight regime, and backs the idea of giving parliamentarians a central role in ensuring "independent and effective review."

While Therrien may not have made the short list, it's likely that at least some of his concerns will be put forward by other witnesses.

"[We] will definitely be raising privacy issues, including some of the same ones raised by the current privacy commissioner, as well as previous ones," Paul Champ told CBC News.

He's slated to appear before the committee on behalf of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group Thursday morning.

Other scheduled witnesses include Assembly of First Nations Grand Chief Perry Bellegarde, professors Craig Forcese and Kent Roach and former Progressive Conservative MP and one-time employment minister Ron Atkey, who was the first-ever chair of the Security Information Review Committee.

On Tuesday, the committee heard from Blaney and Justice Minister Peter MacKay, as well as RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson and CSIS head Michael Coulombe.

Witness schedule Thursday:

Morning session (8:45-10:45 a..m. ET)

British Columbia Civil Liberties Association counsel Carmen Cheung
Greenpeace Canada executive director Joanna Kerr and energy campaign head Keith Stewart.
Former Security Information Review Committee (SIRC) chair Ron Atkey.
Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde.
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group lawyer Paul Champ.
University of Calgary political science professor Barry Cooper.
Evening session (6:30-8:30 p.m. ET)

National Airlines Council of Canada executive director Marc-Andre O'Rourke.
University of Ottawa professor Craig Forcese and University of Toronto professor Kent Roach.
National Council of Muslims executive director Ihsaan Gardee.
Amnesty International Canada secretary general Alex Neve.
Carleton University professor Elliot Tepper.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/opinion/canadas-antiterror-gamble.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2

The Opinion Pages | OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS

Canada’s Antiterror Gamble
By CRAIG FORCESE and KENT ROACHMARCH 11, 2015
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyShare This Page

This story is included with an NYT Opinion subscription.

OTTAWA — The Canadian Parliament is debating the country’s most significant national security reform in over a decade. The proposed act, known as Bill C-51, would supplement antiterror laws enacted following 9/11. Responding to United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for the criminalization of terrorism, that legislation — passed without partisan rancor — modified Canada’s criminal code, creating a host of new terror offenses.

In contrast, Bill C-51, proposed in January by the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is a highly politicized response in a parliamentary election year to the October terrorist attacks in Ottawa. With Conservatives controlling the House of Commons, it is widely expected to pass before Parliament breaks in June.

Bill C-51 has many moving parts. Taking a breathtakingly broad view of national security, it facilitates information-sharing among federal institutions, with no robust limits on how that information may then be used (or misused). This is a remarkable development for a country that in 2007 agreed to pay millions to compensate a Canadian citizen who suffered foreign torture as a result of inaccurate intelligence-sharing.

The legislation would also augment police powers to preventively detain or restrict terror suspects. But when it comes to antiterrorism, its main goal is to enhance the covert powers of Canada’s security services.

Canada has a national police force and a mostly domestic intelligence service, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (C.S.I.S.). These organizations haven’t always worked well together. Spies and police have been known to unproductively chase the same targets. And spying has complicated police efforts to bring charges in open court: The C.S.I.S. often tries to protect its sources and methods in criminal proceedings that demand full disclosure.

The investigation into the 1985 Air India attack, when a bomb exploded on a plane en route from Toronto to New Delhi, killing 329 people, is a prime example of this disorganization. In 2010, a judicial commission of inquiry found that efforts to detect and prevent this attack had been undermined by a fundamental lack of cooperation between Canada’s spies and police, and urged reform. Bill C-51 rejects these calls, giving primacy to the C.S.I.S. and empowering it to carry out investigations without police assistance.

Bill C-51 would authorize the C.S.I.S. to “take measures, within or outside Canada, to reduce” national security threats. The government argues that this would enable a range of valuable actions, like allowing C.S.I.S. agents to speak with parents of potential terrorists. But the real endgame could be much more concerning. If the bill is passed, the C.S.I.S. could have the capacity to do things like block the return of Canadians fighting abroad; remove Web postings it found threatening; drain bank accounts; engage in disinformation campaigns; or bypass traditional police channels in order to detain suspects. The only limits explicitly spelled out in Bill C-51 are acts that would cause “death or bodily harm,” willfully obstruct justice or violate sexual integrity.

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
The bill’s main safeguard would be judicial warrants, required when potential agency actions would contradict Canadian law or contravene rights enshrined in the country’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But this safeguard is imperfect. C.S.I.S. warrant proceedings are secret and one-way: The target of the requested warrant is not represented. Such proceedings always run the serious risk of wrongly penalizing an innocent person. This trade-off may have been (barely) acceptable when requests were limited to surveillance. But Bill C-51 could see Canadian Federal Court judges asked to authorize lawbreaking or unconstitutional behavior by a covert agency whose mandate would extend beyond spying.

If foreign governments have thus far eschewed commenting publicly on the proposed legislation, two features should stand out for the international community. Bill C-51 would permit C.S.I.S. interventions beyond Canada’s borders. And it would even empower Canadian courts to authorize C.S.I.S. conduct that violates “any other law, including that of any foreign state.”

Polite Canadian judges might be reluctant to authorize C.S.I.S. breaches of foreign statutes. But where international operations are concerned, judicial reticence may not matter. Bill C-51 would only require warrants in cases of potential violation of Canadian law or its national Charter, which almost never apply outside the country. Thus there would be little judicial oversight of C.S.I.S. activities abroad.

To make matters worse, Canada’s independent security review mechanisms are outdated. The Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), starved of staff and resources for a decade, is mandated to track an operation only within the C.S.I.S., even as that agency works with the country’s armed forces, border control officials and foreign partners. Canadian lawmakers rarely have access to classified national security information, which means that they are generally flying blind with respect to the details of active operations. Bill C-51 includes no provisions to correct this, or strengthen external watchdogs like the SIRC.

Bill C-51 faces stiff opposition from the New Democratic Party, and has ignited the concern of civil liberties groups, lawyers and academics. But the prospects of a course-correction are dim. The Conservatives are eager to pass antiterror legislation before general elections in October; once enacted, Bill C-51 would presumably take effect immediately. So far, the party has signaled no serious interest in amendments, even as protests mount.

Ahead of the 2006 federal elections, Conservatives ran on a platform of building a true foreign intelligence service. Instead of doing so, the party’s political leadership is now attempting to reshape a domestically focused security agency into one with enhanced foreign powers. Only partially overseen by judges and even less accountable to national review bodies, it would be authorized to act beyond the law both at home and abroad.

What could go wrong?

Craig Forcese and Kent Roach are law professors specializing in antiterrorism law at, respectively, the Universities of Ottawa and Toronto.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pro...tutional-mess-former-watchdog-warns-1.2991660

Proposed new CSIS powers a 'constitutional mess', former watchdog warns
New anti-terror bill comes under heavy criticism during opening round of testimony
By Kady O'Malley, CBC News Posted: Mar 12, 2015 8:27 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 12, 2015 2:27 PM ET

Former SIRC boss says C-51 unconstitutional 2:28

The government's proposed anti-terror law will almost certainly face legal and constitutional challenges on multiple fronts, according to witnesses who appeared before the House public safety committee on Thursday morning.

Former Security Information Review Committee (SIRC) chair Ron Atkey warned MPs that the provision to allow CSIS agents to apply for federal court authorization for measures that could potentially contravene a Charter right is a "major flaw" in the proposed legislation.

"That provision, in my view, is clearly unconstitutional, and will be struck down by the courts," he told the committee.

"If Parliament wants to invoke the notwithstanding clause, it is free to do so under this constitution, although no federal Parliament has had the courage or the need to do so since the Charter was proclaimed in 1982," he added.

"But why provoke an avoidable constitutional challenge?" he wondered.

"Canadian judges are fiercely independent, and are not agents of the government who can be mandated to authorize measures at all costs to protect against terrorist threats."

Former SIRC Chair Ron Atkey
Testifying before the House public safety committee on the government's proposed anti-terror bill, Ron Atkey, who served as the first chair of the Security Information Review Committee (SIRC), warned that provisions that would allow CSIS agents to ask the federal court to authorize activities that could breach Charter rights will almost certainly be struck down by the courts. (CBC News)

Describing the proposed section as drafted as a "constitutional mess," Atkey suggested that it be rewritten to make it clear that judges would not be asked to authorize actions that risked violating Charter rights.

Meanwhile, Assembly of First Nations national chief Perry Bellegarde said the government's failure to consult with First Nations people during the drafting process will likely also trigger a challenge.

First Nations to challenge law

"The process for developing this legislation did not meet the federal government's duty to consult accommodate," he told the committee.

"On that point alone, it is subject to challenge in the courts if the government tries to impose it on us."

He called on the government to withdraw the bill immediately in order to "properly consult" with First Nations people.

Bellegarde also voiced his fear that the "overly broad" new definition of terrorism is a "euphemism to allow them to spy on First Nations" that goes "way beyond" the current Criminal Code definition.

"This is not an abstract argument for our people," he noted.

"We have been labelled as terrorists when we stand up for our rights and our lands and our waters."

The committee also heard from Greenpeace Canada executive director Joanna Kerr, who outlined why she, too, fears the bill could target peaceful, if not necessarily lawful protests as potential terrorist threats.

"Would women have the vote today if the suffragettes had not engaged in widespread non-violent protest?" she asked the committee.

"Would racial desegregation in the United States have occurred without sit-ins, marches, public protests and peaceful sustained resistance to unfair laws?"

In the name of national security, the new powers to be extended to law enforcement could be used to "target democratic protest movements," Kerr warned — including anti-pipeline protesters and First Nations activists, she suggested.

"Based on evidence from public statements by cabinet ministers, as well as leaked RCMP and government documents, there is strong reason to suspect these powers could and would be used against those advocating for clean water, precious ecosystems and an end to catastrophic climate change," she said.

Government defends bill

Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney had done his best to preemptively debunk those concerns during his appearance before the committee on Tuesday.

"The leader of the NDP has alleged that the legislation before us today means that legitimate dissent and protests would now be considered threats to Canadian security," he noted at the time.

"These allegations are completely false, and, frankly, ridiculous"

The act, he continued, "clearly states that the definition of activity that undermines the security of Canada does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or advocacy expression."

During Thursday's session, Conservative committee members, including Blaney's parliamentary secretary, Roxanne James, offered similar rebuttals to the witnesses.

"Unless your lawful protest is going to somehow involve blowing up infrastructure, I think you're misinterpreting that part of the bill," James suggested during an exchange with Greenpeace campaigner Keith Stewart.

And while Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien may not have made the short list, some of his major concerns were brought the committee table by other witnesses.

No-fly list expansion questioned

Describing the bill as "fundamentally flawed," British Columbia Civil Liberties Association lawyer Carmen Cheung warned that the "radical conception of 'security'" being contemplated would authorize "warrantless information sharing across government" — and even, potentially, beyond.

Such "massive data collection and information sharing may not benefit security," she added.

She also criticized the enhanced no-fly provisions.

"Travellers on such lists are deemed too dangerous to fly, yet too harmless to arrest," she noted.

"It is our view that if law enforcement officials have enough information to determine that an individual poses a threat to aviation safety, or that they are planning to board a plane in order to commit a terrorism offence, they are also likely to have enough information to lay charges or seek a recognizance order with conditions."

Bill C-51: Privacy watchdog Therrien blocked from witness list
University of Calgary professor Barry Cooper also appeared during the morning session, and although he was more supportive of the bill than his fellow witnesses, he, too, saw room for improvement, including increased oversight that would cover all national security agencies — a sort of "super SIRC," as he put it, that could also include a role for parliamentarians.

He also expressed some concern that giving CSIS increased power to 'disrupt' could potentially jeopardize efforts by the RCMP to compile sufficient evidence to allow a suspected terrorist to be arrested.

This evening, the committee will hear from law professors Craig Forcese and Kent Roach, who have been churning out extensive analysis on the bill since it was tabled earlier this year, as well as National Airlines Council of Canada executive director Marc-Andre Rourque and National Council of Muslims executive director Ihsaan Gardee.

On Tuesday, the committee heard from Blaney and Justice Minister Peter MacKay, as well as RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson and CSIS head Michael Coulombe.

The full witness schedule for Thursday:

Morning session (8:45-10:45 a..m. ET)

British Columbia Civil Liberties Association counsel Carmen Cheung
Greenpeace Canada executive director Joanna Kerr and energy campaign head Keith Stewart
Former Security Information Review Committee (SIRC) chair Ron Atkey
Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group lawyer Paul Champ
University of Calgary political science professor Barry Cooper
Evening session (6:30-8:30 p.m. ET)

National Airlines Council of Canada executive director Marc-Andre O'Rourke
University of Ottawa professor Craig Forcese and University of Toronto professor Kent Roach
National Council of Muslims executive director Ihsaan Gardee
Amnesty International Canada secretary general Alex Neve
Carleton University professor Elliot Tepper

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c-51-committee-hears-monologues-but-few-questions-1.2992615

Bill C-51 committee hears monologues, but few questions
Government makes it clear it's not entertaining amendments to anti-terrorism legislation
By James Fitz-Morris, CBC News Posted: Mar 13, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 13, 2015 8:31 AM ET

Justice Minsiter Peter MacKay and Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney appear on Tuesday at the Commons public safety committee hearing witnesses on Bill C-51. The government shows no sign of contemplating amendments to the bill. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Former SIRC boss says C-51 unconstitutional 2:28 http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/...ns-the-door-to-abuses-march-10-2015-1.2988622

Former CSIS officials fear Bill C-51 opens the door to abuses - March 10, 2015 21:59

A lot can be inferred as to someone's leanings on a particular topic by the questions they ask.

In the first hour of testimony at Thursday’s review of the government’s anti-terrorism bill, Conservative MPs posed only one question.

"Are you fundamentally opposed to taking terrorists off the streets?" Conservative MP Rick Norlock asked Carmen Cheung of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association — an echo of former public security minister Vic Toews’s "stand with us or with the child pornographers" statement.

Under committee rules for these sessions, government MPs are afforded half of the estimated time for questions — divided into two seven-minute segments.

The exercise is designed and meant to have a small number of MPs with knowledge of the subject matter hear expert testimony on the nuances and potential lapses of a particular piece of proposed legislation.

They then report back to the House of Commons with suggestions as to how to improve the bill.

It rarely goes that way — more often than not it becomes a committee of monologues.

Norlock was up first. He opened by referring to the BCCLA’s website as "long-rambling" before proceeding with a nearly 5½-minute preamble to his only question.

Roxanne James, the parliamentary secretary to the current public safety minister, and fellow MP LaVar Payne divided the government’s second segment.

No more questions

James said she wanted to use her time to "correct some of the misconceptions I’ve heard so far."

She then restated the government’s positions on various aspects of the bill without asking anything of those present.

'Do you think it’s the responsibility of the government to ensure its citizens are safe from terrorism?'
— Ted Falk, Conservative MP

Payne picked up where James left off and almost asked a question when he wondered aloud to the witnesses "if you consider yourself to be a national security threat and if you understand the definition won’t apply to you as long as you don’t commit any of these terrorist activities?"

Rhetorical question

Alas, it ended up being a rhetorical question, since Payne had used up the last of the committee’s time for the session and committee chair Daryl Kramp called it to a close before anyone could respond.

Between the two Conservative soliloquies, Megan Leslie was up for the NDP. In her time, she asked Greenpeace how Bill C-51 compares with other countries' laws when it comes to handling protests.

She also wanted to know whether the group felt the law was designed to provide a "chill" on protests by dangling the label of "threat to national security" in front of anyone who "interferes with … the economic or financial stability of Canada" or causes "interference with critical infrastructure."

Could that mean strikers who shut down a port, or protesters who block construction of a pipeline in their community?

They're questions to which Leslie likely already knew the answers.

Wayne Easter, the lone Liberal MP on the committee, was left to complain he had not been afforded a question in the entire hour.

The NDP suggested it was because three witnesses are too many to hear from at once.

James countered it is standard practice and suggested they should "reduce the opening remarks" by witnesses so MPs could have more time to speak.

Astonishing, when you think about it.

Take 2

For the second hour, Kramp did ask the next witnesses to keep the opening statements short — and also reduced the amount of time each MP had to ask their "questions."

It seemed to have little effect.

Conservatives quadrupled their question count in the second hour to four — including asking human rights lawyer Paul Champ if he believed Canada had experienced a terrorist attack.

When Champ replied with a to-the-point "yes," Conservative MP Ted Falk's followup question was: "Do you think it’s the responsibility of the government to ensure its citizens are safe from terrorism?"

Opponents of C-51 also don't like terrorists

Since the questions were asked, it should be noted that none of the witnesses — all of whom have criticisms about Bill C-51 — said they believe terrorists should roam the streets freely without being bothered by the government.

A position the Conservative MPs also likely already knew.

Opposition MPs are still demanding to hear from far more than the 48 witnesses the government is so far allowing. But it seems clear that would not make much of a difference.

Bill C-51 will be reported back to the House of Commons without any significant amendments from this committee.

The witnesses so far seem to have either been preaching to the choir on one side of the room, or to the walls on the other.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...king-photos-near-kinder-morgan-site-1.2993421

SFU Prof. Tim Takaro called by RCMP after taking photos near Kinder Morgan site
Climate change scientist had been taking photos on a trail near a Kinder Morgan work site
By On the Coast, CBC News Posted: Mar 12, 2015 10:00 PM PT Last Updated: Mar 13, 2015 9:46 AM PT

SFU professor and climate change scientist Tim Takaro says he was contacted by RCMP because he had taken photos near a Kinder Morgan site on Burnaby Mountain. (SFU.ca)


SFU professor questioned by RCMP for taking photos on Burnaby Mountain 8:41

A B.C. climate change scientist says he got an "intimidating" call from RCMP because he had taken pictures on Burnaby Mountain near the site of a proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline.

Lesslie Askin, 71, shocked to be deemed a Kinder Morgan terror threat
Kinder Morgan leaves half of Vancouver, Burnaby's pipeline questions unanswered

Tim Takaro, a health sciences professor at SFU, says he was having lunch in Tofino with his family on Wednesday when his daughter's cellphone rang.

When she answered it, she was told it was the Burnaby RCMP calling and they were looking for her father.

"I was very upset that he had called my daughter and that he was basically threatening, intimidating on the phone," says Takaro.

He says the officer asked him if he had recently had been taking photos near a Trans Mountain pipeline work site on Burnaby Mountain. They also told him they knew he had been to protest rallies that had taken place there a few months earlier.

A few days before, Takaro says he had been taking photographs along the Burnaby Mountain conservation trails when a guard at the nearby work site approached him and told him he couldn't take any photos.

'Nerve-wracking' phone call

Takaro says the phone call was "nerve-wracking," especially in light of the Conservative government's push to pass Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act. The bill mentions "activity that undermines the security of Canada,” which includes "the economic or financial stability of Canada."

"To me this says that any peaceful blockade or environmentalist obstructing a pipeline could be seen as a threat to national security, so this whole thing has me very nervous," says Takaro.

CBC contacted Burnaby RCMP about the incident, who said they could not comment on this case in particular, but that it is required by law to investigate any complaints that come in, especially ones related to infrastructure or security issues.

Last September a 71 year-old woman was similarly questioned for taking photos of the site, which she was doing to prepare for an upcoming National Energy Board hearing.

To listen to the full interview, click on the audio labelled: SFU professor questioned by RCMP for taking photos on Burnaby Mountain http://www.cbc.ca/news/sfu-professo...r-taking-photos-on-burnaby-mountain-1.2993446

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ei-whistleblower-suspended-without-pay-1.1407761

EI whistleblower suspended without pay
Sylvie Therrien says investigators had to recover $485,000 in EI benefits every year
CBC News Posted: Jul 20, 2013 5:54 PM PT Last Updated: Jul 22, 2013 7:45 AM PT
Canadian EI whistleblower speaks 2:04

A federal fraud investigator has been suspended without pay, after she leaked documents showing that investigators had to cut people off their employment insurance benefits in order to meet quotas.

Sylvie Therrien told CBC News that she and other investigators were given a target to recover nearly $500,000 in EI benefits every year.

"It just was against my values, harassing claimants… trying to penalize them in order to save money for the government. We had quotas to meet every month," Therrien said.

Therrien leaked documents to the media anonymously in the spring showing investigators were ordered to find $485,000 in savings each year by denying claims.

The federal government denied that any quotas were in place, but the opposition hammered the Conservatives on the issue.

"Telling investigators that they each had to find half a million in fraud presumes that there is widespread fraud, that they're all a bunch of cheaters and criminals," said NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair in the House of Commons in February.

Tories set 'targets,' not quotas for EI fraud
EI audit manual outlines tips to root out fraud
EI investigators were then called in for questioning themselves to find out who leaked the document.

"Witchhunt terminology. It definitely describes what was happening," said Don Rogers, national president of the Canada Employment and Immigration Union.

"They were trying to find out who had told the media that there were targets to be achieved."

Therrien was questioned by investigators in May. She admitted she was the source of the leak and was suspended without pay.

"I knew my job was in peril. I knew that, but I couldn't continue. I couldn't sleep," she said.

"I was thinking just about those people… I was going to send them and their children into the street… and now here I am on the street."

Therrien suspects she will be fired, but hopes her union and lawyer will back her up in court.

Human Resources Canada would not give any details about Therrien's case. But in a statement, it says all Service Canada employees are bound by a declaration not to go public with government information.

With files from the CBC's Petti Fong

 

[agentaqua]

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...s=963707400307294&fb_action_types=og.comments

MPs, senators get bigger raises than public servants

KATHRYN MAY, OTTAWA CITIZEN
More from Kathryn May, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: March 13, 2015
Last Updated: March 13, 2015 3:56 PM EDT

Treasury Board President Tony Clement is offering the unions a lot less by way of salary increase than he will be getting.

MPs are in line for a 2.3-per-cent raise in pay, about five times the increase the Conservative government is offering employees in the public service.

Under legislation, MPs’ yearly salary increases are tied to the average wage settlements negotiated in private-sector companies that have more than 500 employees. That means they are automatically entitled to the average 2.3 per-cent wage hike private sector employers gave their employees in 2014.

The secretive Board of Internal Economy, a group of MPs who oversee the administration of the House of Commons, has been advised of the increase and it’s expected that all MPs will soon be notified of the raise, which kicks in April 1.

The board doesn’t have to accept the increase. For example, MPs faced a three-year wage freeze between 2009-10 and 2012-13, in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

Senators, whose salary increases are tied to those of MPs, will also get a raise.

With the increase, the base salary of an MP will jump from $163,700 to $167,400. The raise for senators, who now earn a base salary of $138,700, will be slightly higher in percentage terms: By law, senators must be paid $25,000 less than MPs. That means senators will earn $142,400 in base salary starting April 1, a 2.7-per-cent increase.

The increase will also extend to the additional salaries MPs and senators earn for extra tasks, from deputy whips and committee chairs and up.

For example, the prime minister will earn an additional $167,400, on top of his MP pay, for a total salary of $334,800. Ministers, the Speaker and the leader of the Opposition will make $247,500.

The formula for parliamentarians’ wage increases is spelled out in the Parliament of Canada Act. It links MPs’ raises to the average increases negotiated by unions for large private sector firms with more than 500 employees. The data are collected by the labour program at Employment and Social Development Canada.

With an election scheduled this year, the pay hike is timely because it will also boost severance and pension payments for those who are leaving politics, whether they decide not to run or whether they lose their seats in the election.

Compensation is a sensitive issue in Ottawa these days, given Treasury Board President Tony Clement’s longstanding vow to bring the pay and benefits of public servants in line with those of the private sector.

Interestingly, the private-sector increases the MPs are linked to have outstripped the average wages negotiated by unions with similarly large employers in the public sector every year since 2010.

A Treasury Board official wouldn’t say what wage benchmarks the government uses when negotiating with federal unions.

“Minister Clement is focused on making the cost of government more affordable and accountable to taxpayers,” said Heather Domereckyj, Clement’s press secretary.

Meanwhile, in the federal public service, employees have yet to get a raise for 2014-15.

The 6,500 executives in the public service are still waiting to hear whether they are getting a raise, with only a few weeks left in the 2014-15 fiscal year. They got a one-per-cent raise last year, less than the 1.5-per-cent raise unionized employees received and the 2.2-per-cent hike MPs got.

The 17 federal unions are still in bargaining, where the big issue is surrendering accumulated sick leave, and there’s no deal in sight yet. So far the government has offered them a 0.5-per-cent raise in each of the next three years.

Ron Cochrane, co-chair of the union-management National Joint Council, said the drive to rein in public sector pay and benefits is “hypocritical” because it’s all aimed at public servants while the MPs and senators “coddle” themselves.

“It’s ‘do as I say,’ not ‘do I as I do,’” said Cochrane. “They have the Cadillac benefits and forget about making any comparisons for themselves and just try and take away the long and hard-earned benefits earned in collective bargaining.

“That’s a poor way of leading by example … If they want to set an example, they shouldn’t be taking from their own employees and keeping it for themselves, especially when the base salary is nearly three times the average in the public service.”

The abolition of severance payments for voluntary departures from the public service was a key piece of the Conservatives’ promise to bring federal benefits in line with the private sector. It rankles unions that a similar severance package for MPs who voluntarily decide not to run has remained intact.

Some of the 44 MPs who have decided to bow out in the next election will be entitled to severance-pay lump-sum payments worth half of their salaries.

The government’s decision to eliminate severance pay for public servants who voluntarily quit, leave or retire from the public service was the first major concession extracted from unions, despite a long battle to save it.

Public servants accumulated one week of pay for every year worked, which they could collect when they voluntarily left, resigned or quit the public service. The Conservatives abolished it and are now cashing out employees for the severance pay they earned in order to wipe the $6 billion liability off the books. The move is expected to eventually save $500 million a year.

Aaron Wudrick, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said the severance paid to public servants and MPs for voluntary departures can’t be compared. He argued the severance package is an incentive to ensure MPs who want to leave actually finish their terms, thereby avoiding the cost and disruption of byelections.

MPs are entitled to various allowances if they resign, decide not to run or are not re-elected, depending on their age and years of service.

Those who have less than six years of pensionable service when they leave are entitled to both severance – half a year’s pay – and a withdrawal allowance, which is a lump-sum payment of what they paid into the pension plan, with interest.

MPs who have six years of service and are under the age of 55 are entitled to severance but those who are 55 or older aren’t. They can start collecting their pensions.

In this round of bargaining, the government wants to abolish accumulated sick-leave benefits for unions as part of its drive to reduce absenteeism and replace it with new disability plans. Clement has said his mandate to reform sick leave and disability management is limited to public servants and doesn’t extend to MPs.

MPs currently get unlimited sick leave. They are required to submit regular attendance reports when the House is sitting but illness and absences for official business are considered as “days of attendance.”

But few perks spark controversy like pensions. Wudrick said Canadians have long envied public servants’ pensions and those of MPs are even better.

The Conservatives brought in sweeping changes to pensions for both MPs and public servants that will force them to pay more and work longer before they can retire with full pension benefits. Both are expected to foot half the bill for their pension contributions by 2017 – MPs now pay 14 per cent – and the retirement age is increasing from age 55 to 65.

The changes for MPs, however, don’t come into effect until January 2016, after a new Parliament is elected — which is a big incentive for long-serving MPs to reconsider whether they want to seek re-election in 2015.

“They have come a long way to bring those down … they were outrageous before and now they are generous compared to the ordinary Canadian,” said Wudrick.

kmay@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/Kathryn_may

– With files from Jordan Press, Ottawa Citizen.

By the Numbers

2.3 per cent: Pay increase MPs will get as of April 1.

0.5-per-cent: Pay increase the government has offered its public sector unions in each of the next three years.

$163,700: Current base salary of an MP

$167,400: New salary of an MP as of April 1.

$138,700: Current base salary of a senator.

$142,400: New salary of a senator as of April 1.

$334,800: Total amount the prime minister will earn as of April 1.

$247,500: Salary that ministers, the Speaker and leader of the opposition will make as of April 1.

 

[SpringVelocity]

I read this and I know even if we all voted another party in BC things won't change. BC has 28 seats.. Ontario and Quebec control Canada. Until that changes your going to see more of the types like S.Harper, and these ridiculous decisions... Look below and weep your current house of commons! Imagine how east coast feels? Total centralized government..

Province
Minimum number of seats
(in accordance with the Constitution Act) Population
(2006)
National Quotient
(population of all provinces and territories divided by 279) Base seats
(rounded result)
Additional seats
(based on special clauses)
Seats
allocated
(and number for next election)
Electoral Quotient
(Average population per electoral district)

Ontario 95
Quebec 75
British Columbia 28
Alberta 21
Manitoba 14
Saskatchewan 14
Nova Scotia 11
New Brunswick 10
Newfoundland and Labrador 7
Prince Edward Island 4

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/03/12/the-conservatives-have-an-ethics-problem-that-wont-go-away/

Harper has an ethics problem that just won’t go away
By Michael Harris | Mar 12, 2015 8:59 pm

Public Works Minister Diane Finley answers a question during Question Period in the House of Commons in Ottawa on Wednesday, March 11, 2015. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

By any rational measure, the Diane Finley affair should be the boot that punts Stephen Harper’s sorry butt out of office.

This one’s a dead skunk in the middle of the road — or maybe a dead flounder on the Highway of Hypocrites. Here’s the bare-bones version:

A Jewish community centre in Markham applied for a federal grant from the federal Department of Human Resources to pay for an expansion to its facilities under the Enabling Accessibility Fund. Totally cool.

Public Works Minister Diane Finley’s department received 355 such applications, which her bureaucrats reduced to just 25. The cut-off to make that shortlist was 82 out of a possible 100 points. The top 25 applications were then sent out for external evaluation. Out of that number, just four were ultimately approved for funding.

Since the application at the centre of this scandal scored a lowly 52 out of 100 points, it didn’t make the short list and didn’t qualify to be sent out for external evaluation. At least, it didn’t qualify until the minister personally intervened and overruled her professional staff. Another victory for putrefied politics over sound public policy.

Finley’s extraordinary intervention — which involved multiple violations of the Conflict of Interest Act, according to Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson — was entirely about politics. The application was submitted by Rabbi Chaim Mendelsohn of the Canadian Federation of Chabad Lubavitch, a group dedicated to the world-wide Hasidic outreach program.

Rabbi Mendelsohn is a crony of the Conservative Party of Canada and the Harper government. He is an adviser to the PMO on Jewish cultural protocol, travelled with the Harper delegation that visited Israel in 2014 and accompanied then-foreign minister John Baird on his 2012 trip to the same country. Baird referred to Rabbi Mendelsohn as a “dear friend.”

Despite the fact that public servants in the department of Human Resources disqualified the Mendelsohn application on its merits, a crew of Conservative political heavies revived it. Baird, Peter Kent, Nigel Wright and others in the PMO either advised, strong-armed or lobbied Finley into reconsidering the project. Wright told Dawson that he had advised Finley that the matter had to be considered “carefully and fairly.”

What on earth was the PM’s then chief-of-staff talking about? Considering the matter “carefully and fairly” is exactly what Finley’s professional staff had done, according to the criteria of the program they were running. Or was the man the PM claims he fired for making an unethical deal with suspended senator Mike Duffy suggesting that staff at Human Resources were incompetent, biased or unjust?

The PM’s office said that Finley had ‘acted within her discretionary powers and in good faith …’ In other words, Mary Dawson can go to hell.

If so, he should say it. The probability is that Wright was merely being political. At any rate, Finley got the message from the PMO and her cabinet colleagues. Using her ministerial discretion to overrule the decision made by her own staff based on the facts, the minister ordered that the Mendelsohn application be sent out for “independent” evaluation. This was neither being careful or fair. This was judge-shopping.

But the outside evaluator gave the minister a new migraine. He scored the project 51 out of 80, or just 67 per cent — 15 percent below the departmental threshold for turning the project over to outside evaluation. He also warned that he had reservations about funding the project. Despite an evidence-based shortage of enthusiasm in the department for the Chabad application, Finley personally decided to award the group more than a million dollars of public money.

Dawson found that the rabbi’s application “clearly received preferential treatment.”

Finley is lucky that Dawson isn’t Kevin Page, the former Parliamentary Budget Officer who made his reputation through calling a spade a spade. Dawson could have — and should have — found that Finley was in violation of Section 7 of the Conflict of Interest Act. That section prohibits public office holders “when exercising an official power, duty or function, from giving preferential treatment to a person or organization based on the identity of someone representing that person or organization.” The section Finley was found to have violated — subsection 6(1) — only bars officials from making decisions that “they know, or reasonably should know, would place them in a conflict of interest.”

In the end, Finley’s professional staff at Human Resources and the outside assessor saw their honest judgements vindicated. The Chabad project flopped and the lion’s share of the funding was withdrawn. In the end, the minister’s unethical intervention cost Canadian taxpayers $50,000. Fifty grand to a dutiful friend with a bad idea.

All of which amounts to corruption, plain and simple. What’s far worse is the fact that Stephen Harper, despite his factitious bloviating about values and integrity, endorsed the actions of a minister found to have acted in an unethical manner. The PM’s office said that Finley had “acted within her discretionary powers and in good faith …”

In other words, Mary Dawson, the watchdog with no canines, can go to hell.

An isolated example of Harper experiencing an ethical meltdown? If only. In 2012, his Industry minister, Christian Paradis, was found guilty by the same Mary Dawson of breaking the government’s own ethics standards. Paradis was found to have given preferential treatment to Rahim Jaffer by telling his departmental staff to meet with the former CPC MP about his company Green Power Generation. Before the ink had dried on Dawson’s finding against Paradis, Harper was dismissing the ethics commissioner’s finding as meaningless. He told reporters in Bangkok that Paradis didn’t act with “ill intention of any kind,” and “did no harm.” Again, go to hell Mary Dawson.

Stephen Harper rode into power on a tide of popular revulsion against Liberal corruption in the ad sponsorship scandal. He took office on the promise of accountability and transparency, but delivered neither. The new sheriff failed miserably to clean up Dodge.

Instead, after nearly ten years in power, he has a clothesline buckling under the weight of his own dirty laundry — stretching all the way from the In-and-Out scandal of 2006 to Dawson’s report on Finley.

Now we’re being told by suspended Conservative senator Patrick Brazeau that Finley pulled funding from a community centre because the NDP won the riding in which it was located. Brazeau alleged that he met Finley — then the Social Development minister — and Nigel Wright, then the PM’s chief-of-staff, about the pulled funding.

As long as Stephen Harper enjoys his majority, he can do whatever he wants. But the PM is facing a judgement day of his own. Conservatives didn’t drop five-dollar bills into Kentucky Fried Chicken barrels in basements in Calgary to finance born-again corruption.

Michael Harris is a writer, journalist, and documentary filmmaker. He was awarded a Doctor of Laws for his “unceasing pursuit of justice for the less fortunate among us.” His nine books include Justice Denied, Unholy Orders, Rare ambition, Lament for an Ocean, and Con Game. His work has sparked four commissions of inquiry, and three of his books have been made into movies. His new book on the Harper majority government, Party of One, is a number one best-seller.

Readers can reach the author at michaelharris@ipolitics.ca. Click here to view other columns by Michael Harris.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

 

[GLG]

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bil...otests-denounce-new-policing-powers-1.2994226

Bill C-51 'Day of Action' protests denounce new policing powers
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May join protests in Montreal, Toronto
By Kady O'Malley, CBC News Posted: Mar 14, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 14, 2015 4:15 PM ET

Demonstrators gather on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on March 14. Protests are underway across Canada against the government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation, which would give police much broader powers and allow them to detain terror suspects and give new powers to Canada's spy agency. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)

Bill C-51 'Day of Action' protests across Canada 2:19 http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2658774313/

Protests are underway across Canada against the government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation, which would give police much broader powers and allow them to detain terror suspects and give new powers to Canada's spy agency.

NDP leader Tom Mulcair joined hundreds In Montreal in a march through the city. One protester held up a poster saying "C-51 is an act of terror," while others carried red "Stop Harper" signs.

The protest was expected to end in front of the riding office ofLiberal Leader Justin Trudeau. Trudeau has said his caucus will vote in favour of the bill.

Dubbed "Defend our Freedom," organizers say Bil C-51 is dangerous, reckless and unacceptable.

In a statement to CBC News on Saturday afternoon, a spokesman for Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said the government "rejects the argument that every time we talk about security, our freedoms are threatened."

"Canadians understand that their freedom and security go hand in hand [and] expect us to protect both, and there are safeguards in this legislation to do exactly that," added Jeremy Laurin.
In Toronto, hundreds gathered at city hall to speak out against the proposed legislation, with many holding signs, chanting and drumming in protest of the bill.

"I'm really worried about democracy, this country is going in a really bad direction, [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper's taking it in a really bad direction," said protester Stuart Basden.
Bill C-51 Protest 20150314

A young boy demonstrates to protest on a national day of action against Bill C-51, the government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation, in Montreal. (Graham Hughes/Canadian Press)

"Freedom to speak out against the government is probably at jeopardy ... Even if you're just posting stuff online you could be targeted, so it's a really terrifying bill."

According to the StopC51.ca website, there are currently more than 55 "non-partisan" events slated to take place over the weekend, with protests outside the riding offices of 13 Conservative MPs, including Industry Minister James Moore and Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership candidate Patrick Brown.

Critics of the bill will also gather outside the downtown Ottawa office block that houses the Prime Minister's Office.

Meanwhile, New Democrat Leader Tom Mulcair and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May are expected to speak at rallies in Montreal and Toronto, respectively.

A media advisory issued on Friday states that more than 30 "leading digital rights, pro-democracy and civil liberties organizations" are backing the movement, including OpenMedia, LeadNow, Amnesty International Canada, the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, the Council for Canadians, Tunnelbear and Women Against Stephen Harper.

CSIS power boost, privacy concerns fuel protests

According to the website, the key concerns driving Saturday's protests are the additional powers to be given to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the potential violations of charter rights and provisions to increase the sharing of information among federal departments and agencies, as well as law enforcement.

"This bill disproportionately targets indigenous communities, environmental activists, dissidents, and Muslims, many of whom are already subjected to questionable and overreaching powers by security officials, [and] will make it easier and ostensibly lawful for government to continue infringing upon the rights of peaceful people," the website states.

'Day of Action' online

There's a major online component to the campaign as well, including multiple petitions, specially designed anti-C-51 avatars for Facebook and Twitter and an embeddable video produced by LeadNow.ca.

A letter-to-the-editor generator will automatically send your message to local media outlets based on your postal code.

Although the app doesn't actually fill in the text field, it does include "key points to consider," as well as a "pro tip" that "mentioning the name of your local MP or senator in your letter makes it far more likely they'll take notice and respond."

Justice Minsiter Peter MacKay (left), Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Minister Steven Blane
Justice Minsiter Peter MacKay (left), Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, CSIS director Michel Coulombe and RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson fielded questions on the proposed anti-terror bill during a joint appearance before the House public safety committee on Tuesday. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

The planned rallies were a topic in the House during question period on Friday.

"We have had 12 witnesses appear before the standing committee on public safety and national security this week — witnesses from a wide variety of backgrounds and perspectives," noted New Democrat public safety critic Randall Garrison.

"Every single one of them has highlighted serious problems with Bill C-51," he continued.

"The bill is so bad that Canadians in over 50 towns and cities across the country will be rallying against it this Saturday."

He called on Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, Justice Minister Peter MacKay "or anyone over there" on the government side of the chamber to "start listening to Canadians and pull back on the bill."

Information sharing defended

In response, Blaney's parliamentary secretary, Roxanne James, said she was "very pleased" to respond to concerns raised by one of the committee witnesses — Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde — who told the committee he believed the expanded definition of terrorism could result in First Nations people being put under state surveillance.

"Most people across Canada believe that if one branch of government comes across information pertinent to the national security of this country and the safety and security of our citizens, then that branch of government should be able to relay that information to our national security agencies," she said.

Bill C51 protest in Montreal
Hearings are expected to continue when the House reopens for business on March 23. (Jennifer Choi/ CBC)

"That is precisely what Bill C-51 would do, and I was pleased to be able to answer those concerns."

The House public safety committee, which began its review of the bill on Tuesday, has already heard from several of the bill's most outspoken critics.

In addition to Bellegarde, MPs have been briefed on potential problems with the bill by Ron Atkey, a former chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which is charged with keeping an eye on CSIS, as well as professors Kent Roach and Craig Forcese, who are conducting a "real time" legal analysis of the bill.

Hearings are expected to continue when the House reopens for business on March 23.
<iframe width="460" height="259" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7gC1iP3LBak" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c-5...onstration-of-committee-dysfunction-1.2996906

Analysis
C-51 hearings a real-time demonstration of committee dysfunction

Committees could be fixed immediately and without rewriting House of Commons rules

By Kady O'Malley, CBC News Posted: Mar 17, 2015 5:00 AM ET| Last Updated: Mar 17, 2015 5:20 AM ET

Justice Minister Peter MacKay, left, and Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, right, arrive at the House public safety committee meeting on Bill C-51. The committee has been rife with controversy over procedural matters. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Former SIRC boss says C-51 unconstitutional 2:28

A few years ago, it was as close to what passes on Parliament Hill as an article of faith that committees — as opposed to the House of Commons chamber — were where real parliamentary business was done.

You don't hear that argument very often anymore.

These days, House committees offer little more than a reprise of the same partisan theatrics on display during question period, recast to pit parliamentary secretaries against opposition backbenchers before a slightly smaller live studio audience.

Nowhere has that been more evident than during the public safety committee review of the government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-51, which began under a cloud of procedural uncertainty after the Conservatives used their majority muscle to override the chair to force an end to a NDP-powered filibuster. The New Democrats had been protesting the Conservatives' attempt to limit witness testimony.

The first day of hearings saw an outburst of bickering among committee members — and, at one point, Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney got involved — over who did or didn't extend an invitation to the federal privacy watchdog.

The final meeting of the week ended amid accusations of "McCarthy-esque" attacks on witnesses.

CBC colleague James Fitz-Morris chronicled his frustration with the current process last week, and it's hard to dispute his conclusion that so far, Bill C-51 hearings have been little more than a series of monologues reverberating in an echo chamber.

But on the plus side — and for a true parliamentary Pollyanna, there is always a plus side — the sorry state of the Bill C-51 review to date provides a perfect jumping off point to put forward three relatively quick and easy fixes to the current mechanics that could be implemented without rewriting the rules of the House of Commons:

1. More transparency in planning

At one time — likely the same era that committees were regularly lauded for their nonpartisan industriousness — it made sense for MPs to retreat behind closed doors to discuss what the agenda traditionally refers to, somewhat obliquely, as "committee business." That could range from arranging travel for out-of-town hearings to selecting expert witnesses for an upcoming study.
■Privacy watchdog blocked from committee witness list

The point was to allow committee members to work towards consensus in private, rather than divide down party lines.

With a few exceptions, those days are long gone.

In the current political climate, the cloak of parliamentary secrecy now serves only to protect MPs — opposition and government alike — from explaining, and in some cases, defending, their actions.

Daniel Therrien
It is still unknown why federal Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien was left off the Bill C-51 witness list. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

We still don't know exactly why federal Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien was left off the Bill C-51 witness list. It's likely we will never know.

All we know is his name appeared on the proposed lists submitted by both the New Democrats and the Liberals, and, as of last week, he hadn't received an invitation.

By opening up the process to the public, or even providing more detailed minutes for in-camera planning sessions, there will be less confusion over which witnesses were backed — or blocked — by which parties.

2. More time for witnesses, clause-by-clause review

It's standard to allow witnesses 10 minutes for opening statements. But the prepared remarks could just as easily be distributed as a handout.

The C-51 study has shone a glaring light on the fundamental inefficiency of spending so much time on opening statements, with a witness schedule that packs in three witnesses per panel and one panel per hour. The allotted time is half gone by the time the committee gets to MP questions.

Add to that the 10 minutes given to each party for its opening round of questions — which nearly always include at least a minute of rambling and repetitive preambles from MPs— and it's easy to see where some cuts could be made.

Halving the time allotted for witness statements and reducing the opening rounds to, say, seven minutes per party would go a long way to encouraging both MPs and witnesses to stay focused, while nearly doubling the time available for actual discussion around the committee table.

Witnesses would, of course, be welcome to file more detailed written submissions — which, in an ideal world, could then be posted online to ensure that everyone following a particular study would have access to the same material provided to MPs.

In theory, this could also allow MPs to take a more considered approach when it comes time to move onto clause-by-clause review. In recent years, it seems like the longer the bill, the shorter the turnaround time imposed by the government for reporting back to the House.

In the case of C-51, that deadline is March 31, which will likely give MPs only a few hours to go through more than 70 pages of fine print — including any debate over proposed amendments.

3. More power for chair

Finally, if MPs want to discourage the kind of confrontational approach employed by Conservative MP Diane Ablonczy in her exchange with National Council of Canadian Muslims executive director Ihsaan Gardee last week, they should give the chair more leeway to intervene when the questions seem to be veering over the line between lively discussion and ad hominem attacks.

Ablonczy-C51hearings-2015-03-12
Conservative MP Diane Ablonczy was accused of 'McCarthyesque' questioning at the House public safety committee by the head of a Canadian Muslim civil liberties group. (CBC )

Depending on the nature of the offence, the chair could either direct them back to the topic at hand, or, if warranted, cut them off entirely and move on to the next speaker.

Given how self-conscious most MPs tend to get about being singled out for rebuke, even the threat of having their knuckles publicly rapped could be enough to keep them in line.

Committees could also put some parameters on when the chair can be overruled by a simple majority, and when to require, say, the support of MPs from at least two parties to do so.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csi...-expected-northern-gateway-protests-1.2997913

CSIS helped government prepare for expected Northern Gateway protests

Release comes amid heightened concern over new powers proposed in anti-terror bill

By Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press Posted: Mar 17, 2015 6:45 AM ET| Last Updated: Mar 17, 2015 7:42 AM ET

A newly released document reveals that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) prepared advice and briefing material on protests expected to take place last summer, including the proposed Northern Gateway in British Columbia. (Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press)

Canada's spy agency helped senior federal officials figure out how to deal with protests expected last summer in response to resource and energy development issues — including a pivotal decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service prepared advice and briefing material for two June meetings of the deputy ministers' committee on resources and energy, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show.

The issue was driven by violence during demonstrations against natural-gas fracking in New Brunswick the previous summer and the government's interest in "assuming a proactive approach" in 2014, says a newly declassified memo from Tom Venner, CSIS assistant director for policy and strategic partnerships.

Internal memo cites First Nations concerns, pipeline protests

Release of the material comes amid widening concern among environmentalists and civil libertarians about the spy agency's role in gathering information on opponents of natural resource projects.

Those worries have been heightened by proposed anti-terrorism legislation that would allow CSIS to go a step further and actively disrupt suspected extremist plots.

CANADA-PIPELINE/NORTHERNGATEWAY
Demonstrators block a road during a protest in the streets following the federal government's approval of the Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline in Vancouver in June 2014. (Reuters)

Traditional aboriginal and treaty rights issues, including land use, persist across Canada, Venner said in the memo to CSIS director Michel Coulombe in advance of a June 9 meeting of deputy ministers.

"Discontent related to natural resource development across Canada is largely an extension of traditional concerns," he wrote.

"In British Columbia, this is primarily related to pipeline projects (such as Northern Gateway)."

On June 17, the federal government conditionally approved Enbridge's proposed $8-billion Northern Gateway pipeline, which would see Alberta crude flow westward to Kitimat, B.C.

Prior to the federal decision, Venner drafted a second memo for a follow-up meeting of the deputy ministers on June 19, in which he laid out CSIS assessments of three scenarios: approval, approval with aboriginal consultation, or rejection.

Censored sections mention NGA opponents

Much of the content is blanked out.

Other censored sections indicate that while CSIS believes most Northern Gateway opposition falls into the category of legitimate protest and dissent, it concludes some does not.

Public Safety Canada may lead deputy ministers in a guided discussion "that will consider possible federal responses to protest and demonstration incidents," Venner added.

Packages for both meetings included a CSIS synopsis of violence that flared near the Elsipogtog First Nation in New Brunswick in October 2013 when the RCMP enforced a provincial court injunction against an encampment to protest fracking — an underground rock-fracturing process to make gas and oil flow.

The spy agency's summary — portions of which remain secret — notes that during the raid and subsequent arrests, Molotov cocktails were thrown at Mounties, shots were fired from nearby woods and six RCMP cars were set afire.

'Odd to see CSIS in the middle of this': Greenpeace campaigner

CSIS also gave deputy ministers a federal risk forecast for the 2014 "spring / summer protest and demonstration season" compiled by the Government Operations Centre, which tracks and analyzes such activity.

CSIS spokeswoman Tahera Mufti did not respond to requests for comment on the newly disclosed documents.

The Elsipogtog conflict was a policing matter, not a threat to national security, said Keith Stewart, an energy campaigner for Greenpeace Canada.

"That was a very localized conflict," he said.

"And it was one that we've seen happen over and over again because we haven't dealt with land claims." With that in mind, Stewart was surprised by the degree of spy service involvement in the Northern Gateway discussions.

"I find it odd to see CSIS in the middle of this."

The records make it clear the intelligence service is putting "extensive work" into monitoring protest activity in the extractive sector across Canada, said human rights lawyer Paul Champ.

"The big question I have is, why are they producing these intelligence reports on protest activity they acknowledge is legitimate and outside their mandate?"

© The Canadian Press, 2015

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/feds-...in-compiling-national-risk-forecast-1.2999470

Feds put protest activity under microscope in compiling national 'risk forecast'

'In a true democracy, protest and dissent should be celebrated, not investigated': Paul Champ

The Canadian Press Posted: Mar 18, 2015 7:12 AM ET| Last Updated: Mar 18, 2015 7:12 AM ET

An internal security report prepared for the government last spring pointed to the "notoriety and success" of civil society efforts like the Idle No More movement in inspiring Canadian citizens to start grassroots initiatives and make their voices heard. (Nadya Kwandibens/Red Works)

Use of social media, the spread of "citizen journalism," and the involvement of young people are among the key trends highlighted by a federal analysis of protest activity in Canada over the last half-decade.

A growing geographic reach and an apparent increase in protests that target infrastructure such as rail lines are also boosting the impact of demonstrations, says the Government Operations Centre analysis, obtained under the Access to Information Act.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service included the spring 2014 risk forecast in materials prepared for two meetings of the deputy ministers' committee on resources and energy last April.

The meetings were driven by the federal government's desire to plan for protests that might happen in response to resource development decisions on projects such as the Northern Gateway pipeline.

The newly released documents heighten fears about government anti-terrorism legislation that would allow much easier sharing of federally held information about people, said Josh Paterson, executive director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

"To us, this just looks like the example of exactly why we ought to be concerned about these provisions."

Canadians inspired by Arab Spring, Idle No More: report

The operations centre — an Ottawa-based hub that would figure heavily in responding to a national emergency — based the forecast for the spring and summer protest season on statistics gleaned from more than five years of significant demonstrations in Canada. It also drew on the results of an April 2014 meeting that included nine other federal partners.

It found demonstrations generally fell into four primary issue categories: social, political, environmental and First Nations.

The "notoriety and success" of civil society efforts such as the Arab Spring, the aboriginal Idle No More movement, the Occupy protests, and anti-pipeline demonstrations have inspired Canadian citizens to start grassroots initiatives and make their voices heard, the study notes.

Few demonstrations rise to the level of national interest, and most are peaceful and short-lived, the analysis adds.

The operations centre predicted a low risk during the 2014 protest season, with the possibility of medium-level events — such as disruption to transportation routes.

Officials felt opposition to pipelines and oil-and-gas fracking, as well as broader environmental and aboriginal issues, could lead to "large, disruptive, or geographically widespread protests" but no one had information to indicate "significant organizing activity" in this regard.

Social media, citizen journalism increasing reach

Still, the analysis says "influencing factors" must be considered:
■Social media use that has given civil society movements an expanded digital reach, allowing them to organize larger numbers in more locations;
■Citizen journalism that spreads alternative information into the mainstream through social media and other Internet forums;
■Engagement of youth by issue-related movements established in the last five years.

For the operations centre, it means that individual protests once considered unimportant "are now noted" due to their potential to spawn supporting demonstrations in other towns and cities.

As an example, the analysis points to a one-week aboriginal blockade of a CN rail line in Sarnia, Ont., in December 2012 that disrupted delivery of chemical supplies. The Via Rail passenger corridor in central Ontario was also the focus of protests, and ports of entry, such as the Blue Water Bridge in Sarnia, were targeted.

The systematic monitoring of peaceful demonstrations outlined in the memos is likely unconstitutional, as it creates a chilling effect on freedom of association, said human rights lawyer Paul Champ.

"In a true democracy, protest and dissent should be celebrated, not investigated."

The federal operations centre's monitoring of protest activity stirred concern last year when the NDP accused the government of using the agency to spy on demonstrators.

Roxanne James, parliamentary secretary to the public safety minister, defended the centre's work at the time, saying it monitors any event that may pose a risk to citizens.

"I think that most Canadians in this country would expect nothing less."

© The Canadian Press, 2015

 

[agentaqua]

http://rabble.ca/news/2015/03/chris-hedges-on-c-51-they-have-won-and-it-to-us

Chris Hedges on C-51: They have won, and it is up to us
By Chris Hedges | March 17, 2015

Photo: ucobserver

This is the speech Chris Hedges would have delivered at the Toronto protest against Bill C-51 on Saturday, if he had made it to the city in time. Weather delayed his plane, but rabble.ca was able to obtain the text of his address and present it here.

Hedges has spent much of his career working as a foreign correspondent in war zones across the globe, and has written extensively on the surveillance state and world conflict. rabble.ca interviewed Hedges by phone that day. You can read that interview here.

Here is what Chris Hedges planned to tell the Toronto crowd protesting C-51:

There are no internal constraints left to halt totalitarian capitalism. Electoral politics is a sham. The media is subservient to corporate power. The working class is being disempowered and impoverished. The legal system is a subsidiary of the corporate state. Any form of dissent, no matter how tepid, will soon to be blocked by an internal security apparatus empowered by anti-terrorist laws that will outstrip anything dreamed of by the East German Stasi state. And no one in Ottawa or Washington intends to help us. Opposition parties, such as the Democratic Party, may cry foul when out of power, but once in power they bow to the demands of the omnipotent military and security organs that serve our corporate masters.

Any state that has the ability to inflict full-spectrum dominance on its citizens is not a free state. It does not matter if it does not use this capacity today. It will use it, history has shown, should it feel threatened or seek greater control. The goal of wholesale surveillance, as Hannah Arendt wrote, is not, in the end, to discover crimes, "but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain category of the population." No one who lives under constant surveillance, who is subject to detention anywhere at any time, whose conversations, messages, meetings, proclivities and habits are recorded, stored and analyzed, as ours are, can be described as free. The relationship between those who are constantly watched and tracked, and those who watch and track them, is the relationship between masters and slaves.

There will, if this law is not blocked, be no checks left on state power. State Security will operate outside the law. Citizens will be convicted on secret evidence in secret courts. Citizens will be subject to arbitrary searches and arrests. Due process will be eradicated. Internal security organs will serve as judge, jury and executioner. The outward forms of democratic participation -- voting, competing political parties, judicial oversight and legislation -- will remain, but become meaningless forms of political theater.

...continued...

 

[agentaqua]

Once the security services become omnipotent those who challenge the abuses of power, those who expose the crimes carried out by government are treated as criminals. Totalitarian states always invert the moral order. The evil rule. The righteous are condemned.

Societies that once had democratic traditions, or periods when openness was possible, are often seduced into totalitarian systems because their rulers continue to pay outward fealty to the ideals, practices and forms of the old systems. This was true when the Emperor Augustus dismantled the Roman Republic. It was true when Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized control of the autonomous soviets and ruthlessly centralized power. It was true following the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the rise of **** fascism. And it is true today in Canada and the United States. Thomas Paine described despotic government as a fungus growing out of a corrupt and decayed civil society.

Try to defend the treaty rights of First Nations people and you will go to prison. Try to halt the tar sands, fracking, or the bitumen-carrying pipelines and you will go to prison. Try to oppose Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territories and you will go to prison. And once you are seized by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service you can be subjected to sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, the disorienting poles of extreme light and darkness or extreme heat and extreme cold, along with stress-position torture, waterboarding, beatings and pressure-point torture. And it will all be legal.

Those singled out as internal enemies will include people of color, immigrants, gays, intellectuals, activists, feminists, Jews, Muslims, journalists, union leaders and those defined as "liberals." They will be condemned by reactionary forces, fed and sustained by corporate propaganda and money, and blamed for our decline. The looming economic and environmental collapse will be pinned by these demagogues and hate-mongers -- some of whom have found a perch within the CBC -- on vulnerable scapegoats. And the random acts of violence, such as the attack by a lone gunman on Parliament Hill, will be used to justify even harsher measures of internal control. Fear will be relentlessly orchestrated to manufacture paralysis and consent.

How do we resist? How, if this descent is inevitable, as I believe it is, do we fight back? Why should we resist at all? Why not give in to cynicism and despair? Why not carve out as comfortable a niche as possible within the embrace of the corporate state and spend our lives attempting to satiate our private needs? The power elite, including most of those who graduate from our top universities, academics, politicians, the press and our liberal and intellectual classes, have sold out for personal comfort. Why not us?

Albert Camus argued that we are separated from each other. Our lives are meaningless. We cannot influence fate. We will all die. Our individual beings will be obliterated. And yet Camus wrote "one of the only coherent philosophical positions is revolt. It is a constant confrontation between human beings and their obscurity. It is not aspiration, for it is devoid of hope. That revolt is the certainty of a crushing fate, without the resignation that ought to accompany it."

"A living person can be enslaved and reduced to the historic condition of an object," Camus warned. "But if he or she dies in refusing to be enslaved, he or she reaffirms the existence of another kind of human nature which refuses to be classified as an object."

The rebel, for Camus, stands with the oppressed -- the unemployed and underemployed workers, the people of the First Nations whose land and lives are being exploited, Palestinians in Gaza, the civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the disappeared who are held in our global black sites, the poor in our inner cities and depressed rural communities, immigrants and those locked away in our prison system. And to stand with them means a refusal to collaborate with political systems that mouth the words of justice while carrying out acts of oppression. It means open and direct defiance.

The elites and their liberal apologists dismiss the rebel as impractical. They brand the rebel's outsider stance as counterproductive. They condemn the rebel for being inflexible, unwilling to compromise. These elites call for calm and patience. They use the hypocritical language of spirituality, compromise, tolerance, generosity and compassion to argue that the only alternative is to accept and work with systems of despotic power. The rebel, however, is beholden to a moral commitment that makes this impossible. The rebel refuses to be bought off with government and foundation grants, invitations to parliament, television appearances, book contracts, academic appointments or empty rhetoric. The rebel is not concerned with self-promotion or public opinion. The rebel knows that, as Augustine wrote, hope has two beautiful daughters, anger and courage -- anger at the way things are and the courage to see that they do not remain the way they are. The rebel is aware that virtue is not rewarded. The act of rebellion defines is its own virtue.

"You do not become a 'dissident' just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career," Vaclav Havel said when he battled the communist regime in Czechoslovakia. "You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society. ... The dissident does not operate in the realm of genuine power at all. The dissident is not seeking power. The dissident has no desire for office and does not gather votes. The dissident does not attempt to charm the public. The dissident offers nothing and promises nothing. The dissident can offer, if anything, only his or her own skin -- and the dissident offers it solely because the dissident has no other way of affirming the truth he or she stands for. The dissident's actions simply articulate his or her dignity as a citizen, regardless of the cost."

We have the capacity to say no, to refuse to cooperate. Any boycott or demonstration, any occupation or sit-in, any strike, any act of obstruction or sabotage, any refusal to pay taxes, any fast, any popular movement and any act of civil disobedience ignites the soul of the rebel and exposes the dead hand of authority. It is only this refusal to cooperate that will not save us.

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop," Mario Savio said in 1964. "And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."

Rebellion in the face of tyranny is its own justification. Rebellion allows us to be free and independent human beings. Rebellion chips away, however imperceptibly, at the edifice of the oppressor and sustains the flames of empathy, solidarity, hope and finally love. And in moments of profound human despair these flames, no matter how dim, are monumental. They keep alive the capacity to be human. We must become, as Camus said, so absolutely free that "existence is an act of rebellion." Once we attain that freedom we discover that rebellion is not defined by what it achieves, but by who we become.

Those who do not rebel in our age of totalitarian capitalism, those who convince themselves that there is no alternative to collaboration with corporate tyranny are complicit in their own enslavement. They commit spiritual and moral suicide. They extinguish hope. They become the living dead.

No one Ottawa or Washington will halt the rise of the most sophisticated security and surveillance state in human history. The corporate coup is over. And they have won. It is up to us. We are the people we have been waiting for.

I do not know if we can build a better society. I do not even know if we will survive as a species. But I know these corporate forces have us by the throat. And they have my children by the throat. I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists. And this is a fight that in the face of the overwhelming forces against us requires us to find in all acts of sustained rebellion the embers of life, an intrinsic meaning that lies outside of certain success. It requires us to at once grasp reality and then refuse to allow this reality to paralyze us. It is, and I say this to people of all creeds or no creeds, to make an absurd leap of faith, to believe, despite all empirical evidence around us, that good always draws to it the good, that the fight for life always goes somewhere. We do not know where. The Buddhists call it karma. And in these sustained acts of resistance we make it possible to reclaim a future for the generations that come after us, a future that the corporate state, if not overthrown, will obliterate.

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/03/1...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=180315

How Bill C-51 Eviscerates Privacy Protection

And why virtually everyone in Canada's privacy community opposes it.

By Michael Geist, Yesterday, TheTyee.ca

Anti-terror bill cartoon
Cartoon by Greg Perry.

As witnesses line up to warn about the dangers associated with Bill C-51, Canada's anti-terrorism bill, it is increasingly clear that the proposed legislation is an unprecedented undermining of Canadian privacy protection.

Much of the focus on the bill has related to oversight: the government implausibly claims that it increases oversight (it does not), the Liberals disappointingly say they support the bill but would like better oversight, and much of the NDP criticism has also centred on oversight. Yet with respect to privacy and Bill C-51, lack of oversight is only a part of the problem.

The privacy-related concerns stem from Bill C-51's Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, a bill within the bill, that goes far further than sharing information related to terrorist activity. It does so in three steps.

First, the bill permits information sharing across government for an incredibly wide range of purposes, most of which have nothing to do with terrorism. The government has tried to justify the provisions on the grounds that Canadians would support sharing information for national security purposes, but the bill allows sharing for reasons that would surprise and disturb most Canadians.

Second, the scope of sharing is exceptionally broad, covering 17 government institutions with government granting itself the right to expand sharing to other departments. In fact, the bill even permits further disclosure "to any person, for any purpose." In other words, there are few limits on how information the government collects can be shared internally, with other governments, or with any entity it sees fit.

Third, oversight is indeed a problem since the privacy protections found in the Privacy Act are widely viewed as already outdated. In fact, Bill C-51 effectively neuters the core protections found in the Privacy Act by opening the door to the very kind of information sharing that the law is intended to prevent.

Surveillance 'for virtually unlimited purposes'

In recent weeks, all privacy commissioners from across the country have spoken out. For example, Privacy Commissioner of Canada Daniel Therrien, appointed by the government less than a year ago and described as an expert by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, slammed the bill in a submission to the Standing Committee on Public Safety:

The scale of information sharing being proposed is unprecedented, the scope of the new powers conferred by the Act is excessive, particularly as these powers affect ordinary Canadians, and the safeguards protecting against unreasonable loss of privacy are seriously deficient. While the potential to know virtually everything about everyone may well identify some new threats, the loss of privacy is clearly excessive. All Canadians would be caught in this web.

All provincial privacy commissioners have offered a similar analysis, jointly calling on the government to withdraw the information sharing aspects of the bill. They also warn of routine surveillance of large portions of the population: 
It could be used to authorize, in effect, surveillance across governments in Canada, and abroad, for virtually unlimited purposes. Such a state of affairs would be inconsistent with the rule of law in our democratic state and contrary to the expectations of Canadians.

The privacy community may be unanimous in condemning Bill C-51, but perhaps the biggest disappointment is to see how Harper has flipped on the importance of privacy protection over the information collected by governments.

Nearly 20 years ago, he was a Reform MP commenting on a proposed electronic voter registry and warning that "the first and main concern is the privacy issue… since the information is to be shared by different levels of government and different governmental bodies. There is a risk that privacy can compromised."

Today, the prime minister is fast tracking a bill that represents the biggest ever reduction in Canadian public sector privacy protection and even blocking the Privacy Commissioner of Canada from appearing before the committee studying the bill. This is a remarkable about-face, and one that could leave Canada with some of the weakest safeguards against government information sharing in the developed world. [Tyee]

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can be reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.