Advertisement

Liberals pushing intrusive powers over privacy, report says

[Justice Minister Jodi Wilson-Raybould maintains she’s open to repealing problematic elements of Bill C-51. Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press]

The Liberal Party of Canada came to power with a promise to review and reform the previous government’s controversial anti-terrorism law.

Last month, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government announced a public consultation on national security. But that consultation seems more of a sales job than the balanced review promised, says a report published this week by Citizen Lab research associate Christopher Parsons at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs.

“This was presented to the Canadian public as a way of reconsidering some of the more problematic elements of the national security framework as it’s developed over the years, with an eye to maybe adding some additional safeguards that maybe haven’t been there,” says Tamir Israel, a co-author of the report and a staff lawyer at the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa.

“So it’s been anticipated as a civil liberties-enhancing exercise.”

But the green paper and background document released by the government to spur discussion for the consultation are disappointing, Israel tells Yahoo Canada News.

“It does kind of mention up top that there is a need for respect for civil liberties and privacy rights, but most of the document is really just a defence of new powers,” he says.

Recycling rejected proposal

The most problematic aspect of the consultation for critics is the focus on re-examining legislation that would give law enforcement the ability to compel subscriber identification from telecommunications companies without judicial oversight.

That’s a power that has been visited by several previous governments before being soundly rejected by information and privacy experts along with the general public, according to Israel.

“It really looks like an attempt to reintroduce a power that was already dealt with in great detail and with a lot of public debate and rejected by the public fairly soundly as being too invasive,” he says.

Meanwhile, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould has called the process a step toward meeting the Liberal commitment to “repeal the problematic elements" of Bill C-51.

“Our goal is to ensure the safety of Canadians, while protecting our rights and freedoms,” she notes in a statement.

The news release adds the Liberal government has also introduced legislation to create a national security and intelligence committee of Parliament “to strengthen scrutiny and accountability of all our security agencies.”

‘Additional intrusive powers’

Unfortunately, the framing of the consultation shows minimal regard for privacy and civil liberties, says the Citizen Lab report.

“It is primarily preoccupied with defending the existing security framework while introducing a range of additional intrusive powers,” the paper states.

There is no discussion of the need for judicial oversight of Canada’s foreign intelligence agency, the Communications Security Establishment, or regulation of the agency’s surveillance activities, the report says. And the documents do not provide any detailed suggestions for improving accountability or transparency around existing surveillance and investigative tools, it adds.

Israel and Parsons are planning to publish reports that will explore data retention, which would compel Internet service providers to store metadata tracking contact between users online and the websites they visit. That information, for the most part, is not currently recorded.

Such measures have been struck down as unconstitutional in the European Union and rejected in the United States.

They will also examine more closely the proposal that would compel people to disclose passwords to law enforcement, which Israel calls “problematic.”

Those behind the report plan to attend some of the public consultation meetings and are expected to pen a written submission to the panel.

“The point of having this consultation was actually to address that rollback, but as you read the documents, it doesn’t look like that,” Israel concludes.