Canada gets its own Patriot Ac v2t: bill C-7 [priv]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Canada's Bill C-7 - Trading Real Liberties, For What?
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:47:40 -0400
From: Robert Vinet, The Privacy Manager <Robert () ThePrivacyManager com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
References: <40449024.6010708 () well com>

Hi Declan,

Please consider posting this to the [Politech] list.

An HTML version (along with the weeks other privacy news) is available
at http://www.theprivacymanager.com/privacynews.htm

Cheers,

Robert

~~~

Canada's Bill C-7 - Trading Real Liberties, For What?

In response to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the Government
of Canada quickly introduced anti-terrorism legislation as part of its
security agenda. In December of 2001, Bill C-36 - The Anti-Terrorism Act
- was passed by Parliament. This Bill has threaten civil liberties,
decrease privacy, and some say, justified the targeting of Arabs as
terrorists.

On May 6, 2004, Bill C-7, the Public Safety Act, received Royal Assent
<http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/May2004/06/c0127.html>. This Act
amends several other laws and further threatens civil liberties and
human rights of Canadians. Where the Anti-Terrorism Act focused on the
criminal law aspects to combat terrorism, the Public Safety Act
addresses the federal framework for public safety and protection.

However, the Public Safety Act erodes the right to privacy for Canadians
in that it allows federal government agencies and departments (including
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canadian Security Intelligence
Services (CSIS), Transport Canada, Revenue Canada and Customs & Excise)
to collect and secretly share air passenger information, for national
security reasons. That very personal information can also be secretly
shared with US and other government law enforcement and intelligence
agencies with little oversight, even when Canadians are not flying into
those countries.

The new national private sector privacy act, the Personal Information
Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) has been amended so
that air carriers must now provide Transport Canada, the RCMP, CSIS, and
other government agencies and officials with the Advanced Passenger
Information (API) and Passenger Name Record (PNR) immediately upon
request. The only requirement is that this request must be made for
transportation or national security purposes.

The API is basic information for each passenger, such as name, gender,
date of birth, citizenship and a travel document number. PNR is
information related to the traveler's reservation, such as flight number
and itinerary.

The Public Safety Act mandates that Transport Canada destroy the air
passenger information within seven days. The same time frame applies to
the RCMP and CSIS unless they reasonably required the information for
the purposes of transportation security or the investigation of threats
to the security of Canada.

When the RCMP accesses and screens the passenger information for the
purpose of transportation security, and "incidentally" discover a person
wanted for a crime punishable by five years or more imprisonment, the
passenger information information can be used to immediately execute the
warrant.

Bill C-7 effectively suspends "due process" in the Canadian legal system
under the pretext of security. Law enforcement, intelligence and
security agencies now have unprecedented powers. But there's more.

The Bill states that Ministers and their delegates have the authority to
“make an Interim Order if the Minister believes that there is a
significant [security] risk.”

With the stroke of a pen, a federal government Minister, and his
delegates, now have the extended and concentrated power to arbitrarily
and unilaterally amend existing federal legislation on the advice of a
security agency, without any parliamentary debate, without any
accountability or the usual safeguards.

The Act gives Ministers the authority to issue an interim order if
immediate action is required to deal with a serious threat or
significant risk - direct or indirect - to health, safety, security, or
the environment.

This is a dangerous combination of excessive concentration of power, a
license to infringe on individual rights and a lack checks and balances.

The federal Ministers who administer the Aeronautics Act, Environmental
Protection Act, Exports, Department of Health Act, Food and Drugs Act,
Hazardous Products Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, Pest Control
Products Act, Quarantine Act, Radiation Emitting Devices Act, and the
Canada Shipping Acts now have the power to amend the acts and declare
Interim Orders when they believe immediate action is required in order
to protect national security. Interim Orders are executive regulations
without the usual Parliamentary or Cabinet scrutiny or approval.

Interim Orders must be published in the Canada Gazette within 23 days
but need not be tabled in the House of Commons until the 15th day on
which the House is sitting after the Order was made. However, there is
no legal requirement that the House be convened if it is not sitting for
Interim Orders to be tabled. Once created, Interim Orders may continue
in force for periods of up to two years. At that time the Minister of
the day can make another Interim Order.

Bill C-7, what some have called Canada's version of the USA Patriot Act,
is the fourth version of the draconian Public Safety Act. In November
2001, one month after the atrocities in the US, it was called Bill C-42.
That bill was withdrawn due to strong criticism by civil liberty groups
and individuals. In April 2002, after some minor tweaking, the bill was
reintroduced in Parliament as Bill C-55. In October 2002 it was replaced
with Bill C-17 and this too was withdrawn. In February 2004, the “new”
and “improved” omnibus Bill C-7 was introduced, although in reality,
little has changed since the original.

All four versions had the same title and essentially the same content,
but with different bill numbers. These Bills represent a significant
and, many would argue, wholly unjustified intrusion on the fundamental
civil liberties and democratic rights of all Canadians.

The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) expressed serious concerns about each
bill, noting the unacceptably broad reach of provisions governing air
rage, military security zones and the collection of airline passenger
information. On March 18, 2004, the CBA said the latest bill posed a
serious threat to the privacy, individual rights and freedoms of
Canadians, and should not be passed.

In a letter to the Chair of the Senate Committee on Transport and
Communications, <http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/04-09-eng.pdf>
the CBA reiterated that, despite some progress towards a more tailored
response, the latest Bill “still fails to find any appropriate balance
between security and privacy and human rights.” The CBA has serious
concerns about access to passenger lists for a full week without a
warrant, and the sharing of passenger information with foreign states.

“We recognize that security and the fight against terrorism are
important and legitimate government objectives,” says CBA Past President
Simon Potter. “However, these objectives must not be achieved at the
expense of the rule of law and the civil liberties, privacy, equality
and due process rights that Canadians are entitled to under the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms (Canada's Constitution).”

The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group said, "the proposed
new power would turn all Canadians into suspects."

On March 4, 2004, Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT)
president Victor Catano and executive director James Turk wrote to the
Canadian Senate, raising concern over Bill C-7. The CAUT was asking the
Senate to delay the passage of the bill. They expressed their utmost
concern as it allowed the collection of personal information about
Canadians and for the sharing of this information with foreign
governments with inadequate controls. They wrote that it represented a
grave risk to Canadians' rights and freedoms, and to Canadian sovereignty.

Bill C-7 also establishes a pool of military judges in the event of
martial law. And Canadian law enforcement agencies now have the power to
search without first obtaining a warrant when investigating matters of
national security.

Many would argue that due to the rise of global terrorism, national
governments must continuously re-balance civil liberties and rights
against security concerns. They would argue that preventative measures
and emergency powers are needed for the protection of society. However,
since the Anti-Terrorism Act was passed in 2001, there are many examples
of regrettable and very public intelligence failures that have lead to
authorities abusing their draconian powers, much to the publics' outcry.

Bill C-7 is not asking Canadians to accommodate extra inconveniences
such as more detailed cross-border and airport security checks. The
consequence of Bill C-7 could be more devastating. People's lives could
be adversely and permanently affected. Suspects will not be granted due
process and recourse to defend themselves and government agencies and
decision makers will not be held accountable for mistakes.

Canada's long and proud democratic history took a wrong turn on May 6th.
The federal government's willingness to compromise the basic civil
rights of Canadians is leading to a dangerous crumbling of society's
safety nets. Canadians are slowly losing their civil liberties, in
exchange for what? A false sense of security?

---
Robert Vinet
ThePrivacyManager.com
http://www.theprivacymanager.com


_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)