Bill C-51 Case Study

The schematic format of this paper is to provide a brief inquiry of Parliament’s response to the legislature, examine the issues surrounding oversight, and investigate the violations of constitutional rights. Although C-51 is divided into five parts, the following experts will examine privacy protection from parts one through four. These include, the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, the Secure Air Travel Act, the Criminal Code, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (Parliament of Canada, 2015).

The article, “How Ottawa’s New Terrorism Act Could Chill Free Speech” by Kent Roach and Craig Forcese is briefly about how the new terrorism law restricts people from free speech. The authors of this article believe that this law, also known as Bill C-51 is panoptic and that it accuses even those who have no intention to promote acts of violence. In addition, they consider that this recently passed act condemns constitutionally legal speeches by providing a hypothetical example of a foreign affairs newspaper columnist who expresses her views on the Ukrainian crisis. The journalist ideates that the Canadian government should support Ukrainian rebellions who are intending

Recently there have been two “anti-terrorism” bills that are really affecting Canadian citizens who weren’t born here. Bill C-24 is an attack on duel citizens that were not born in Canada or are eligible for another citizenship. This bill allows these the Canadian government to revoke your citizenship if you have committed or are suspected of serious crimes. They could also deport you. This creates the idea of second class citizens. Some are not able to be targeted well others are immune. Bill C-51 is one that is really complicated, but the something it does are: It gives CSIS and the RCMP larger power in order to “prevent” terrorism. The issue is no checks and balances, no safeguards, and nothing in place to make sure what CSIS is doing is legal. It also even has allowed CSIS to break the charter of rights with permission without the public ever being notified. It also vastly expands our definition of security and that of which terrorism falls under. The terms definition of terrorism is very vague. Threats of terrorism can now be considered: interfering with public safety, the economy or financial security of Canada East. This could trap illegal protestors or the blockading railways and much more under terrorism charges. The bill also effects a lot more and threatens the rights and freedoms of many

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States of America is very similar to the current Bill C-51 and they can be compared, as firstly it fails to define “terrorist activity”, secondly it targets immigrants and lastly, the INA has been amended various times. Under the INA, people who are considered to be a part of illegal and aggressive acts are prohibited to enter the United States of America. " The ground for inadmissibility include but are not limited to:(1) the [individual] has “engaged in terrorist activity”; (2) an immigration officer has “reasonable grounds to believe” the [individual] engaged in or is likely to engage in terrorist activity; (3) the [individual] has incited terrorist activity under circumstances indicating an intent to cause death or serious bodily harm; (4) the [individual] is a representative of a Tier I terrorist organization;

The purpose of this act is to encourage and monitor the sharing of information between Government of Canada institutions in order to protect Canada against activities that threaten the security of Canada, but this bill not only fails to fix those flaws, it recreates and causes more underlying problems without adding any meaningful safeguards to ensure the expansive powers it grants will not be similarly abused. The bill allows information sharing across 17 government institutions for a wide range of purposes, most of which have nothing to do with terrorism. After the bill was passed, it has raised serious concerns regarding the potential impact is has on the basic civil liberties of all Canadians. The new legislation significantly expands CSIS’

On June 9th 2015, Stephen Harper and the Canadian government passed Bill C-51. It’s an anti terrorism act, with only the best intentions at mind for Canada and its national security. However since it’s approval, there has been much controversy surrounding the bill. There are five key changes in Bill C-51 and many Canadians aren’t pleased with them, such as, the right to exchange information between national agencies, unwarranted arrests and also the increase in surveillance that will occur with both of these new conditions (Watters, 1). Bill C-51 also interferes with sections of the Charter and other key legal philosophies such as the Magna Carta and the Rule of Law.

The purpose of this act is to encourage and monitor the sharing of information between Canadian government institutions in order to protect Canada against activities that threaten the security of Canada, but this bill not only fails to fix those flaws, it recreates and causes more underlying problems without adding any meaningful protection to ensure that the powers it grants will not be abused. The bill allows information sharing across 17 government institutions for a wide range of purposes, most of which have nothing to do with terrorism. After the bill was passed, it has raised serious concerns regarding the potential impact is has on the basic civil liberties of all Canadians. The new legislation significantly expands CSIS’ (Canadian Security

Not only did it infringe Canadian’s privacy, but it also violated virtually every Charter Right and Freedom.

As a Canadian in today’s society we believe we have a certain set of inalienable rights. One of those rights that seem to be at the forefront of the 2015 Canadian election is privacy. As Dr. Kent Roach and Dr. Craig Forcese state, “privacy is, in our society, the right to be left alone by the state.” The Conservative upbringing of Bill C-51 challenges the ideology around our right to be private, as well as our government’s role in the protection of Canada from threats of terrorism. The Harper government essentially, will increase their role in national security to keep a constant watchful eye on potentially harmful situations and end them before anyone is hurt or killed. If passed, the bill would allow the government to arrest anyone suspected of terrorism without that person even committing a crime. Furthermore, the language used in the bill is extremely vague and makes one question, where the line will be drawn? Will our basic rights to peaceful protest and free speech be affected? Unfortunately perhaps they will. One of the most concerning parts of the bill in regard to privacy is the fact that the government will now be able to access several sensitive documents about citizens from top agencies such as the Public Health Agency, Canadian Border Services Agency as well as the Canadian Border Services Agency. Privacy is changing in Canada. This is a landmark bill and as such it is creating quite a splash in the ongoing Canadian Election.

This is declared by Edward Snowden, a former NSA member who leaked information about government surveillance in America, discussing security, liberty, and Bill C-51 in Canada. Multiple former prime ministers are aware that their surveillance lacks liberty and is weak but the government muzzles them and refuses to let them talk to the public about the issue. Bill C-51 is a document that declares that information from Canadian citizens is being collected and documented, while they are unaware. Spy agency are primarily targeting mobile phones and their apps to find information about the user as it the easiest way possible. The surveillance of Canadian citizens breaks many sections of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and the Privacy Act. In the Privacy act it state that no personal information shall be collected by a government institution unless it relates directly to an operating program or activity of the institution, and that the government institution shall inform any individual from whom the institution collects personal information about the individual of the purpose for which the information is being collected. Both of these sections are being denied. PIPEDA follows very strict guidelines in relation to the Privacy act. It states that the individual must know why their information is being collected and who is in charge of the protection of the of the collected information. It is very similar to one must having a warrant to inspect ones personal property. These two sections are also broken in Bill C-51. Edward Snowden explains that a Bill C-51 is useless as it occurs that one is more likely to die to lightning much higher than dying in a terrorist attack. When there is more laws to serve the protection of citizens for unlikely reasons, it decreases the liberty, people don’t want to be caught up in political movements and motives they just

Surveillance and biopolitical governance are terms usually associated with the internal surveillance methods of the United States, especially in light of the Snowden NSA leaks. However, Canada has developed an elusive biopolitical national security policy that has both social and political consequences. In April 2004, the Canada’s federal government introduced its first national security legislation, Securing an Open Society: Canada’s National Security Policy (Bell 147). Discussions surrounding a national security agenda has expanded rapidly since the tragic events of 9/11. Canada has quoted $690 million in national security policy and strategy however, this only reflects a portion of the actual total amount of money put towards security and

Today, Canadian’s lives today are as translucent as ever. Most organizations especially the government constantly watches each and every one of our moves. By definition, surveillance is any systematic focus on any information in order to influence, manage, entitle, or control those whose information is collected. (Bennet et Al, 6). From driving to the shopping mall to withdrawing money from the ATM machine, Canadians are being watched constantly. With Canada’s commitment to advance technology and infrastructure in the 1960s, government surveillance is much easier and much more prevalent than it was hundreds of years ago. Even as early as 1940s, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics used punch cards and machines to determine who is available

The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator

Bill C-51 also known as the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, is a bill that was first tabled in Parliament in January 2015. It was introduced to enhance Canada’s original anti-terror laws which were created shortly after the terrorist attack on September 11th 2001 in the United States of America. Moreover, the need to revise and amend these laws became even more evident after recent attacks both in Canada and abroad. In doing so the government recognized the need to adopt a more preventative approach to dealing with internal and external threats. However, there are a large number of individuals, groups and institutions which opposed this bill. This was evident in March of 2015 when political protests were held and over fifty-five rallies took place across Canada (Lepore, 1). The majority of those opposed to the new anti-terror legislation expressed concerns with three major components of the bill and the vagueness; to privacy concerns with the new information sharing between agencies, new amendments to the Criminal Code surrounding terrorism offences and the increased powers provided to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS); specifically their perceived lack of oversight. Although this piece of legislation is crucial to the safety and security of Canada against acts of terrorism it requires some amendments in order to ensure proper oversight and respect for Canadian values. This paper will argue that changes need to be made to the CSIS act, specifically regarding

As most of the infrastructure of the internet is based in the United states all information’s transmitted from Canada have to be routed through The US this makes our information like online bills and emails susceptible to NSA (the US online spying agency) interception. Clement and Obar Authors of the book Law, Privacy and surveillance explain that all interactions on the Internet are data packets being transmitted between routers and not cloud data like the majority of us think. Clement and Obar conducted an experiment to show the problem with internet traffic going through a foreign country, they found that an email from Toronto went to New York to Chicago finally coming back to Toronto in their experiment they found that 22% of our internet traffic gets routed through a major city in the USA. This poses a problem as when data passes through a foreign country like the US spying Agencies like the NSA who have the ability to intercept and use our data through “splitter” sites in all major US cities. This is more problematic considering that we have no constitutional rights on our information as Clement and Obar write, “Canadian data running through the U.S. has no protection, constitutionally or otherwise, regarding its interception and use by American intelligence services” .