Bill C-51, Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

53 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred
Bill C-51, Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

*

Regions: 
mark_alfred

I did a search, but couldn't find a forum thread dedicated specifically and solely to Bill C-51 (though I did find a few that were dedicated to using Bill C-51 as a vehicle for partisan sniping).

 

Here's the actual Bill:  Bill C-51, Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

Here's the Conservative position:  The Anti-Terrorism Act (C-51)

Con website wrote:
The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada [..] The Anti-Terrorism Act will [..] help law enforcement stop planned attacks.  [Bill C-51 is one of] our efforts to keep Canada glorious and free.

Here's the Liberal position:  Remarks by Liberal Party of Canada Leader Justin Trudeau on Bill C-51

Justin Trudeau wrote:
This bill can be improved, but on the whole, it does include measures that will help keep Canadians safer. As such, we will support it.

Here's the NDP position:  Protecting Canadians must include protecting freedoms

NDP website wrote:
After a careful analysis of Bill C-51, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has announced that New Democrats will oppose it.

Here's the Green position:  Elizabeth May issues statement: Anti-Terrorism Act must be rejected

Elizabeth May wrote:
I completely agree with the editorial in the Globe and Mail today that Parliament must reject this bill.  In the House of Commons today, I urged all MPs to read the editorial and not allow the Conservatives to turn CSIS into a secret police force.

 

There are ongoing protests being held by opponents of this legislation.  Initially it had mass public support (near 80%) but that has dropped to about 50% (I think).  I myself oppose it, and I am glad both the NDP and the Green Party chose to oppose it.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

I hope this thread will continue exactly as started -- focused on the bill rather than the opposition reponse to it.

josh
Sean in Ottawa

Indeed, much has been said about China's great firewall around the internet where the government seeks to clean the internet of what it deems unacceptable. Given the extremely sweeping definition of terrorism in C-51, this bill is an act that can enable exactly the same level of censorship here.

Some may debate whether the government would put the resources into such a comprehensive effort but that is not the point. The legislation as it stands is enough to do exactly that without any new legislation beyond this Bill. The government would be left with options on enforcement that could see either a widespread cleaning of anti-government views or it could choose to target specific organizations it considers political enemies. This government has already erased any lines between the political and the government structures.

It is not clear to me which is worse -- the widespread destruction of free speech on the internet in Canada, or targeting of priorities the Conservatives want to see silenced. The first would be a widespread reduction in freedoms obvious to all. The second might leave the illusion of greater freedom while targeting any who the Conservatives think merit attention. The illusion of freedom of speech where it does not exist in this context might be more dangerous.

You can see why the government would want to promote the message that Canada is Strong, Proud and Free. It is important to remember that governments are most inclined to promote messages that they think the population would not (without the advertising) agree with.

mark_alfred

Here's a useful site:  http://www.ndp.ca/tellaliberal

This site will find the closest Liberal MP in your area (according to your postal code) and will assist you to post the following tweet to her/him:

Quote:
Stephen Harper is attacking our rights & freedoms. Please do the right thing and #VoteAgainstC51

Use it today to help get the Liberals on board with this important fight.

mark_alfred

Eric Snowden quote on privacy

NDPP

Constitutional Lawyer Rocco Galati Plans to Challenge C-51 in Federal Court

https://youtu.be/-AhhC0sngPo

Debater

Conservative groups’ last minute plea to Harper: stop C-51

June 2, 2015

OTTAWA – A number of traditional Conservative Party supporters have written a joint letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper asking him to kill Bill C-51, the government’s controversial anti-terror legislation.

“Bill C-51 creates a domestic spy agency designed to target all Canadians,” they write. “Do you really want to live in a C-51 Canada that you don’t govern? We thought not. We don’t either. Kill Bill C-51.”

The letter is signed by traditionally conservative organizations like the National Firearm Association and Free Dominion, as well more than fifty individuals. It was facilitated by OpenMedia, the group behind the public campaign against the anti-terror legislation.

The groups warn Harper’s Bill C-51 will cost the Conservative Party at the polls.

“They could drain off enough votes to deny the CPC a victory and lead to the return of the Liberals, or insert the New Democrats or a coalition into government,” they write.

----

More:

http://globalnews.ca/news/2030045/exclusive-conservative-groups-last-min...

NorthReport

This is nonsense.

Why would people leave the Cons for the Liberals as the Trudeau Liberals voted for C51?

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

This is nonsense.

Why would people leave the Cons for the Liberals as the Trudeau Liberals voted for C51?

Perhaps the argument is that these people would stay home allowing others to win.

Not impossible. Of course the Liberals have a similar problem on the same Bill. But perhaps they can convince a few to go along with their goofy position of saying they reject it and would change it while voting for it.

takeitslowly

https://www.change.org/p/leadnow-stop-supporting-the-liberals

 

We, the undersigned Canadians, insist that LeadNow stop presenting the Liberal Party of Canada or its candidates as a vote for change in 2015. The real progressive vote, and the real vote for change, is a vote against Bill C-51. The Liberal Party voted unanimously for the bill in our House of Commons and has no intention of repealing it.

For those of us who value democracy and don't want to live in a police state, excluding Liberals is strategic.

The campaign against C-51 has united a vast and inspiring coalition of individuals, civil society organizations, and movements to oppose this repressive legislation and the dangerous shift in our national politics it represents. We thank LeadNow for helping in this effort. However, the Liberals are on the opposite side of Canadian history and democratic politics, and LeadNow should not be lending them credibility by including them in its election campaign.

Sean in Ottawa

takeitslowly wrote:

https://www.change.org/p/leadnow-stop-supporting-the-liberals

 

We, the undersigned Canadians, insist that LeadNow stop presenting the Liberal Party of Canada or its candidates as a vote for change in 2015. The real progressive vote, and the real vote for change, is a vote against Bill C-51. The Liberal Party voted unanimously for the bill in our House of Commons and has no intention of repealing it.

For those of us who value democracy and don't want to live in a police state, excluding Liberals is strategic.

The campaign against C-51 has united a vast and inspiring coalition of individuals, civil society organizations, and movements to oppose this repressive legislation and the dangerous shift in our national politics it represents. We thank LeadNow for helping in this effort. However, the Liberals are on the opposite side of Canadian history and democratic politics, and LeadNow should not be lending them credibility by including them in its election campaign.

Leadnow = Liberalnow = Liberalalways

bekayne

takeitslowly wrote:

https://www.change.org/p/leadnow-stop-supporting-the-liberals

 

We, the undersigned Canadians, insist that LeadNow stop presenting the Liberal Party of Canada or its candidates as a vote for change in 2015. The real progressive vote, and the real vote for change, is a vote against Bill C-51. The Liberal Party voted unanimously for the bill in our House of Commons and has no intention of repealing it.

For those of us who value democracy and don't want to live in a police state, excluding Liberals is strategic.

The campaign against C-51 has united a vast and inspiring coalition of individuals, civil society organizations, and movements to oppose this repressive legislation and the dangerous shift in our national politics it represents. We thank LeadNow for helping in this effort. However, the Liberals are on the opposite side of Canadian history and democratic politics, and LeadNow should not be lending them credibility by including them in its election campaign.

Who's behind this petition? 

http://www.therealvote.ca/

And who's behind www.therealvote.ca?

 

Debater

NorthReport wrote:

This is nonsense.

Why would people leave the Cons for the Liberals as the Trudeau Liberals voted for C51?

You're like a broken record.  You just say everything is nonsense all the time.

Why not just try to read & understand what these groups are saying before lashing out?

Their point is that Libertarian voters who have voted Con in the past and who are opposed to C-51 may decide to stay home and that the decreased Con turnout could help the Opposition parties.

It's also possible that some disgruntled Con voters could decide to vote Liberal based on other issues.

Policywonk

Debater wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

This is nonsense.

Why would people leave the Cons for the Liberals as the Trudeau Liberals voted for C51?

You're like a broken record.  You just say everything is nonsense all the time.

Why not just try to read & understand what these groups are saying before lashing out?

Their point is that Libertarian voters who have voted Con in the past and who are opposed to C-51 may decide to stay home and that the decreased Con turnout could help the Opposition parties.

It's also possible that some disgruntled Con voters could decide to vote Liberal based on other issues.

Or even NDP or Green.

iyraste1313

 The real progressive vote, and the real vote for change, is a vote against Bill C-51

if I remember correctly, the NDP has promised only to modify the Bill...has this changed?

before you consider NDP a progressive alternative I´d suggest you check up on their plans!
Typically the NDP only criticizes cosmetics...they do not have the backbone to challenge the corporate elite control and designs for Society...the only progressive vote is to build a real alternative political movement in Canada, one of the political dynosaurs of the planet! 

trotwood73

iyraste1313 wrote:

 The real progressive vote, and the real vote for change, is a vote against Bill C-51

if I remember correctly, the NDP has promised only to modify the Bill...has this changed?

[...]

Mulcair vows to repeal Bill C-51 at NDP rally in Surrey [Vancouver Observer]

Tom Mulcair: NDP will repeal Bill C51 [YouTube]

iyraste1313

thanks for this...this is good news! Congratulations to the movement that pressured this change! Hopefully it will carry through!

A good example of the People´s will to force change in government, which admittedly will have more influence with the NDP....

hopefully now people will put pressure on their foreign imperialist policies, and demand a no bailout policy to the financials, energy and commodities, as they go down...how about some control over Canada´s disgraceful arms sales policies...maybe the NDP spinelessness can be propped up by powerful civil movements...the anti Bill C51 is a good start!

Sean in Ottawa

I am not convinced that the distinction between amendment and repeal are that significant.

You can repeal and replace with something problematic or you can amend and change it so radically that you have something completely different.

The distinction is simplistic.

What is important is what is being said about what is needed and planned -- the specifics.

There is a lot of politicking on this but the substance is more relevant than the means of change.

I would like to see the approach be as follows:

1) provide oversight to existing powers (from before C-51)

2) remove the current C-51 measures

3) fund existing law enforcement appropriately and improve communication between agencies

4) bring in a better funded mental health strategy that will address those who are at risk of attaching their illness to some radical ideas -- as well as many other types of mental heatlh risk

The terrorist threat to Canada is mostly domestic unmanaged mental illnesses that have no direct relationship with what is happening overseas. This does not mean we should not address this risk but it should be done in the context of mental health support for all who need it rather than just those who might be attracted to the culture of terrorism. Teen suicide is another symptom of unmet mental health needs. The required response addresses all of this.

The four measures above could be contained in an amended C-51 or a repeal and new legislation that replaces it. The difference between the two is more political than practical.

 

iyraste1313

¨I would like to see the approach be as follows:¨

It perhaps would be convenient to solve the problem of so called terrorism in Canada with such moderate measures...

The essentail problem with C51 is that it´s is using the pretext of mentally deranged violence to launch an attack on critical civil society.

This is not unique to just this particular Bill, although this one goes to the extreme, including its torture provisions.....

the attack on opposition to the (capitalist imperialist) status quo saturates Society...

I just witnessed a demo by over 70,000 outraged people surrounding the National palace...not a security guard in sight....whereas a demo of 50 in Canada may be confronted with 100 security people shooting photos, videos, marshalling the crowds to of course not interfere with economic progress ad nauseum...just an example of the degree of the authoritarian nature of Canadian Society...

yes of course the Bill and so many Bills must be repealed...but the Charter must become sacrosanct, and in particular Sections one and two!

where fundament principles of freedom must be respected and our freedoms only mitigated by demonstratedly proven arguments to warrant legislations, bylaws whatever (I personally was branded a T. by a supreme court judge just from my attempts to defend myself using my charter rights!).

But to install the Charter means to cleanse the judicial system of the corporate based corruption of the judges, not to mention providing respect and access to law by ordinary cisitzens...

What I suggest is that moderate solutions just doesn´t cut it...a profoundly revolutionary transformation must be done...

takeitslowly

It passed the Senate.http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/06/09/news/bill-c-51-passed-senate

Bill C-51 passed the Senate on June 9 in a 44-28 vote despite Liberal members’ opposition, but those opposed have vowed to fight until it is repealed.

“Proud to stand today with 25 Lib Senators against Bill C51. But the Con majority passed the bill which will affect your rights,” said Sen. Jim Munson (L) on Twitter just minutes after the vote,

takeitslowly

while the liberal senators congratulate themselves for standing against bill c 51, Trudeau pretend these senators are not liberal due to the corruption and scandals..hilarious.

NDPP

"Bill C-51 is now awaiting royal assent from the governor general, the last step before it becomes law."

An attempt should obviously be made to block this 'last step' into the Canadian police state. Rideau Hall, 1 Sussex Drive is where his Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston lives. Let's see if he's either excellent, honourable or 'Right'. His email is info@gg.ca

Phone 1-800-465-6890

There are precedents for such requests:

Governor General Should Withold Royal Assent...

"Governor General David Johnston is being urged to withold his royal assent on controversial changes to the Canadian Wheat Board until the issue can work its way through the courts...Rae said it would be within the Governor General's rights to withold royal assent on the bill because of the law and order questions that were raised..."

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/governor-general-should-withold...

Why hasn't Tom Mulcair asked GG David Johnston NOT TO SIGN A CANADIAN POLICE STATE INTO LAW?

Ask him: thomas.mulcair@parl.gc.ca  Ph 613-995-7224

 

This is what the GG says he believes in. He should be put to the test. NO ROYAL ASSENT FOR C-51!

Towards An Innovation Nation: Inspiring a Culture of Creativity and Forward Thinking For a Better Canada

http://www.cbj.ca/media-advisory-governor-general-of-canada-to-address-t...

gzap

Question for those who are more informed then me:

 

Now that Harper is using ISIS footage in attack ads on Trudeau, can Harper be charged with 'promoting terrorism' under C-51?

Brachina

I believe technically he could if it recieved royal assent, but in practice its unlikely to be inforced against a Prime Minister or former Prime Minister.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Now that Harper is using ISIS footage in attack ads on Trudeau, can Harper be charged with 'promoting terrorism' under C-51?

Do the ads actually promote terrorism??  Wouldn't that be the first, obvious question?

gzap

CTV thinks maybe.

 

Latest Conservative ad could violate government's own anti-terror law

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/latest-conservative-ad-could-violate-gove...

 

And we now know that the conservatives are in possession of terrorist propaganda.

The new C-51 legislation gives a judge “the power to order the seizure of terrorist propaganda or, if the propaganda is in electronic form, to order the deletion of the propaganda from a computer system.”

 

Could we not sick the police on them in order to seize the terorist propaganda they are propagating?

NorthReport

Not to worry. Trudeau and  Harper voted for C51 and as a result both their political careers will be over in October.

quizzical

gzap wrote:
CTV thinks maybe.

 

Latest Conservative ad could violate government's own anti-terror law

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/latest-conservative-ad-could-violate-government-s-own-anti-terror-law-1.2440047

And we now know that the conservatives are in possession of terrorist propaganda.

The new C-51 legislation gives a judge “the power to order the seizure of terrorist propaganda or, if the propaganda is in electronic form, to order the deletion of the propaganda from a computer system.”

Could we not sick the police on them in order to seize the terorist propaganda they are propagating?

good question given the rcmp's mandate is to protect the government and we just experienced the government protecting them.

i think Prime Minister Harper blew it big time with this ad. hope other Canadians see how evil it is.

Doug Woodard

A thought from the UK which applies to Canada -

By inflating Islamic extremism Cameron has lost sight of what really threatens us - Monbiot:

http://gu.com/p/4aphj/sbl

 

mark_alfred

Civil liberties groups launch legal challenge against Bill C-51.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c-51-sees-charter-challenge-from-civil-l...

 

CBC article wrote:

New powers for Canada's spy agency are unconstitutional and represent an extraordinary reversal of the traditional role of the judiciary, two national groups say in a newly filed legal challenge of the Conservative government's omnibus security bill.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Journalists for Free Expression are asking Ontario's Superior Court of Justice to hear their constitutional case against the federal anti-terrorism measures, commonly known as Bill C-51.

NDPP

Bill C-51 Not in Keeping With Canada's International Obligations: UN

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bill-c-51-not-in-keeping-wi...

"The UN Human Rights Commission is raising concern about Canada's new anti-terror legislation, saying it could run afoul of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The committee says it's concerned sweeping powers in the law, known as C-51, do not contain enough legal safeguards to protect people's rights."

 

Bureaucrats Told to Provide Rob Nicholson 3 Terrorism-Related Statements A Week

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bureaucrats-told-to-provide-rob-nicholso...

"Foreign Affairs bureaucrats were told this spring to produce three terrorism-related statements for minister Rob Nicholson to make to the media each week, ahead of a fall election in which security and Canada's response to terrorism are expected to be key issues.

The government has highlighted security measures since last October's attacks in St Jean sur Richelieu, Que and Ottawa, and passed a controversial anti-terrorism bill, C-51."

mmphosis

Canada joins failing 'war on terror' (aljazeera.com)

The introduction of stricter homeland security measures do not make citizens safer.

NDPP

nor are they intended to.

mark_alfred

The Macleans federal leadership debate happened.  Here are the leader's statements on Bill C-51:

Tom Mulcair:  "The NDP will repeal Bill C-51."

Elizabeth May:  "Makes us less safe."

Justin Trudeau:  "We supported that legislation because there were specific elements in there (Bill C-51) that immediately and concretely protect Canadian's security and we're committed to repealing the problematic elements that have been highlighted and actually bringing in the proper oversight ... We can take a responsible position at a time of politics of attack and division, because Mr. Harper wants everyone to be scared that there are terrorists hiding behind every leaf and rock and Mr. Mulcair wants us to be scared for our Charter and basic rights and freedoms."

I couldn't find a clip of Stephen Harper on it, but I do recall him boasting about Bill C-51 as an important and necessary tool in the fight against terrorism.

NDPP

Canadian Prime Minister Proposes Ban on Travel To Areas Under 'Terrorist' Control

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/08/17/cana-a17.html

"The announcement represents a major threat to basic democratic rights. The new law would enable the government, which has a long list of organizations it deems to be 'terrorist' to outlaw travel to any part of the world."

quizzical

 this is last weeks news.......

mark_alfred

Karl on Parl has an update on how the government is planning to deal with the Anti-terrorism Act.  He says there's some hints they're starting to take action  to revise it, but we'll have to wait until the House reconvenes in late January for more info.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2016/01/liberals-take-fir...

terrytowel

NDP Ian Capstick (Former Press Secretary to Jack Layton) likes parts of Bill C-51 and says we need better anti-terror legislation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVDx8RLmjJU

Sean in Ottawa

terrytowel wrote:

NDP Ian Capstick (Former Press Secretary to Jack Layton) likes parts of Bill C-51 and says we need better anti-terror legislation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVDx8RLmjJU

The emphasis is on parts. Most can find parts they like -- and of course parts they hate. I don't think that is the big point.

Also Ian is not a representative of any party either.

Finally, I think the bill goes in the wrong direction and, among other things is a heavy hammer that risks a lot of damage. It also fails to recognize the relationship of public mental health to the attraction to extremism. This key point is the missing part of the strategy. I am really not sure why the emphasis on mental health is missing from almost everyone's discussion even though the examples seem to cry out for such attention. Mulcair had it right in one interview but he seems to have forgotten that and rarely mentions it now.

The parts that make the most sense are the inter-agency cooperation and information sharing but they never were controversial.

terrytowel

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Also Ian is not a representative of any party either.

He is a member of the NDP, his company represents unions affilated with the NDP, he speaks on behalf of the NDP on political panels and his husband works for Tom Mulcair.

Sean in Ottawa

terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Also Ian is not a representative of any party either.

He is a member of the NDP, his company represents unions affilated with the NDP, he speaks on behalf of the NDP on political panels and his husband works for Tom Mulcair.

So what if he is close to the NDP? -- like I said he is not a representative of the NDP any more than I was. He is free to say what he likes and his opinions are his own.

iyraste1313

The parts that make the most sense are the inter-agency cooperation and information sharing but they never were controversial......

???!!!

Right now I am fighting the right of CRA to information share our activist work with the CSIS ad nauseum?

So now in Canada any legal organization must have their info, their activities shared with our security and intelligence?

So if you disaprove of Canada going around the world destroying people`s livlihoods, or e.g. endorsing a protest against destructions in Indigenous Territories, it`s okay to share your Organization`s data with CSIS and the RCMP most famous for its Gustafsen Lake Terror?

I could give personal info of how such sensible info sharing landed me in torture chambers...but won`t bother here!...Whew!

terrytowel

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So what if he is close to the NDP? -- like I said he is not a representative of the NDP any more than I was. He is free to say what he likes and his opinions are his own.

He represents the NDP on these political panel shows.

mark_alfred

Criminy terrytowel, that clip was from months ago.  And clearly he was expressing a personal opinion, and thus he did not "represent the NDP on [this particular] political panel show."  Further, on the show it was stated clearly that the NDP had taken a very different and condemning position on Bill C-51 from Mr. Capstick's own personal opinion. 

Are you yourself trying to advocate for Bill C-51 (aka An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts)?  What's with this attempt to wrongly implicate Capstick's own personal opinion with that of the NDP?

terrytowel

In hindsight the NDP & Mulcair should have listened to Ian Capstick as they spent way too much time, too much political capital trying to make C51 an election issue. They kept up the attacks daily during the election campaign on the Liberals & the Cons over it. They organized 'days of action' against C51, they plastered Stop C51 on NDP election signs, their candidates talked about it non-stop on radio, TV and local debates. There was even a Trudeau radio attack ad on C51 by the NDP. But it wasn't an election issue or a ballot issue as Capstick had said MONTH before the writ was dropped. That is my only point. The NDP should have listened to Capstick. His husband even worked in the NDP war room!

I have to wonder what focus groups the NDP was using. I read somewhere that the Liberals were not concerned about backlash from C51. Because their polling and focus groups showed nobody cared about it. Again I hate repeating this but the Liberals relied on hard data from analytics to push their message. And the NDP chose NOT to use anayltics. Even though both the Liberals & Cons were relying heavily on analytics. Which did not make a level playing field as the NDP was at a disadvantage not knowing the mood of the general public. From that standpoint the NDP was behind, even though some polls showed them ahead. And I got laughed at from babblers on this board when I said anayltics was going to make a huge difference in this campaign. Libs & Cons anayltic research showed C51 WAS NOT an issue with voters. Did the NDP even poll voters outside their base?

It does shows a sad state of affairs that the general public doesn't care about C51 and it didn't move votes, as Capstick said in the clip above.

Sean in Ottawa

terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So what if he is close to the NDP? -- like I said he is not a representative of the NDP any more than I was. He is free to say what he likes and his opinions are his own.

He represents the NDP on these political panel shows.

No he does not. He represents himself. He does not represent the NDP anymore.

These shows tend to pick individuals who have had past associations with parties in order to balance viewpoints. He does not represent the NDP in any official way.

Come on you must know this.

Sean in Ottawa

iyraste1313 wrote:

The parts that make the most sense are the inter-agency cooperation and information sharing but they never were controversial......

???!!!

Right now I am fighting the right of CRA to information share our activist work with the CSIS ad nauseum?

So now in Canada any legal organization must have their info, their activities shared with our security and intelligence?

So if you disaprove of Canada going around the world destroying people`s livlihoods, or e.g. endorsing a protest against destructions in Indigenous Territories, it`s okay to share your Organization`s data with CSIS and the RCMP most famous for its Gustafsen Lake Terror?

I could give personal info of how such sensible info sharing landed me in torture chambers...but won`t bother here!...Whew!

I just did a scan and I can say again there is no evidence that they were controversial.

BTW here is the text again:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode...

The first thing you see in the legislation on this is the disclosure purpose:

5. (1) Subject to any provision of any other Act of Parliament, or of any regulation made under such an Act, that prohibits or restricts the disclosure of information, a Government of Canada institution may, on its own initiative or on request, disclose information to the head of a recipient Government of Canada institution whose title is listed in Schedule 3, or their delegate, if the information is relevant to the recipient institution’s jurisdiction or responsibilities under an Act of Parliament or another lawful authority in respect of activities that undermine the security of Canada, including in respect of their detection, identification, analysis, prevention, investigation or disruption.

Specific to the income tax  Act: Then you have

(9) An official may provide to the head, or their delegate, of a recipient Government of Canada institution listed in Schedule 3 to the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act

(a) publicly accessible charity information;

(b) taxpayer information, if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the information would be relevant to

(i) an investigation of whether the activity of any person may constitute threats to the security of Canada, as defined in section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, or

(ii) an investigation of whether any of the following offences may have been committed:

(A) a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, and

(B) an offence under section 462.31 of the Criminal Code, if that investigation is related to a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of that Act;

What we see here is that the Act requires the disclosure to be related to a security inquiry. If the language of application is limited (a problem with the Act and likely the most controversial aspect of it) then none of this applies except in the case of a legitimate security  investigation.

Therefore other than the definition of application, there has been no controversy as most Canadians accept that interagency cooperation is a good idea -- when related to specific security threats.

The wide application of the Act is the part that is controversial not the cooperation part.

terrytowel

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

No he does not. He represents himself. He does not represent the NDP anymore.

These shows tend to pick individuals who have had past associations with parties in order to balance viewpoints. He does not represent the NDP in any official way.

I sent him a tweet to ask him, and if he responds I'll post it here.

terrytowel

OK Sean you were right! Ian Capstick response is

"I’ve been on for seven years, and never a spokesperson. I’m an analyst and paid by the CBC"

Pages