News from ICLMG

Brief to the SECU committee on Bill C-59, the National Security Act of 2017

In 2015, the Conservative government caused uproar with Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015. Ostensibly in response to the killing of two members of the Canadian Armed Forces in separate events, many saw it as the government seizing an opportunity to pass national security legislation long in the works. Thousands of Canadians took to the streets, tens of thousands spoke out, denouncing the process and the content of the bill. The ICLMG and our 45 member organizations were part of the movement to protect Canadians’ civil liberties.

We were disappointed with the Liberal Party’s decision at the time to vote in favour of the bill, and not promise an eventual repeal. At the same time, we were hopeful that the promise of fixing the worst elements of Bill C-51 would result in substantial changes.

We were buoyed by the report from the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on its review of Canada’s national security landscape. We also welcomed the findings of the third-party analysis of the federal National Security consultation that the vast majority of respondents favoured moves to protect civil liberties and that provisions of Bill C-51 and other powers proposed in the federal Green Paper went a step too far.

While we recognize that Bill C-59 makes efforts in some areas to move in this direction – particularly around new review and oversight bodies, as well as some changes to the criminal code – unfortunately we do not believe it goes far enough. Rather, we see Bill C-59 fitting into the steady progression, since the first Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, of expanding and enshrining significant, secretive powers in the hands of Canada’s national security agencies.

In our brief, we present realistic and necessary recommendations, suggestions and areas of examination that we believe will help to strengthen not just Canadians’ rights, but also our security. Our recommendations are listed below. You can read the fill brief here.

Don’t forget to take action to fix Bill C-59 and protect our rights!

List of Recommendations

Part 1: The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency

  1. The minimum number of members of the NSIRA be set at 5 and the maximum number be increased to 8 (in addition to the chair).
  2. In addition to nomination of NSIRA members being carried out in consultation with opposition parties, the final appointment be made by a 2/3 vote in the House of Commons.
  3. The NSIRA complaints mechanism be amended to apply to all federal national security activities, regardless of department. At a minimum, it should be modified to include both CBSA’s and Global Affairs Canada’s national security activities.
  4. Adding a more specific requirement under “Public Reports” that would mandate a listing of each departmental study requested, and its result.
  5. That the NSIRA be granted binding recommendation powers.
  6. Mandating an annual follow-up and review on previous recommendations in the NSIRA’s annual public reports.
  7. That the complaints investigation and reporting mechanisms be amended to ensure greater transparency and accountability; that all representations or recommendations made during the complaints investigation process are available to complainants; and that, to the greatest degree possible, complaint findings are released to the public

Part 2: The Intelligence Commissioner Act

  1. The Intelligence Commissioner should be nominated by the Governor in Council, but be approved by a 2/3 vote in the House of Commons.
  2. The IC should be appointed on a full-time, rather than part-time, basis.
  3. The IC not be restricted to a retired superior court judge, and that the pool should also include active superior court judges.
  4. Amend the Intelligence Commissioner Act to require the issuance of written reasons when approving any authorization or amendment
  5. That the IC be mandated to produce an annual, public report, outlining their activities from the past year, including the number of authorizations reviewed, the number approved and the number rejected, and reasons for those rejections.
  6. That the NSIRA be mandated to include a section regarding the work of the Intelligence Commissioner, including an external review of their work.
  7. Amending the Intelligence Commissioner Act to allow the IC to impose conditions on approved authorizations.
  8. Require both approval of the IC and consent of the Minister of Foreign Affairs for all cyber operation authorizations.

Part 3: The Communications Security Establishment Act

  1. International affairs should be removed from the CSE’s cyber operations mandate.
  2. That greater restrictions be placed on any CSE activities that are directed at Canadians or people in Canada. In particular, a warrant should be required for any activities related to its technical and operational assistance to other law enforcement and intelligence agencies such as the RCMP and CSIS.
  3. Further safeguards should be placed on Active and Defensive cyber operations.
  4. Further restrictions be placed on any collection of “publicly available information.”
  5. Increasing the powers of the Intelligence Commissioner to review all of the CSE’s activities.
  6. Take steps to further narrow the scope of the CSE’s surveillance and cyber activities overall.
  7. The CSE Act should define metadata; strongly limit its collection, use and retention; and require a warrant to collect it.
  8. The targeting of unselected information be removed from the CSE Act, or, at a minimum, that the Intelligence Commissioner be granted the powers to rule on whether such actions are disproportionate, and/or impose binding limits.
  9. Any information collected by the CSE should not be retained longer than necessary to fulfill the intended objective.
  10. Authorizations for foreign intelligence activities should not last for an entire year, and any extension or changes should be examined and approved by the Intelligence Commissioner.
  11. To ensure accountability of the CSE, the independence and transparency of the work of the Intelligence Commissioner should be strengthened and, to the greatest amount possible, the CSE’s powers and authorizations should narrowly defined.
  12. Under no circumstances should the Canadian government – including the CSE – engage in mass surveillance.
  13. Any collection of publicly available information should be subject to narrow restrictions, be authorized through Ministerial authorization, and subject to similar safeguards as those for other CSE information collection practices.
  14. Impose greater restrictions, including limits on how information is collected, retained, analyzed and disposed of, in the course of the CSE carrying out work in support of the Investment Canada Act.
  15. Include a limit on how long incidentally acquired information can be retained in the CSE Act.
  16. The CSE Act must enshrine strong privacy protections around CSE’s activities into law.
  17. Information gathered in order to protect information infrastructure from mischief, unauthorized use or disruption should not be disclosed for any other purpose.
  18. Regarding designating persons for the purposes of disclosure of Canadian identifying information, the Minister of Public Safety should report such a designation and the reasons for it to either the Information Commissioner or Privacy Commissioner, who may then rule on the designation. These reports should also be provided to the NSIRA.
  19. Arrangements with foreign countries should be strongly regulated, limited and approved by the Intelligence Commissioner,
  20. When sharing information with a foreign country, it should be necessary for the Intelligence Commissioner to explicitly determine the likelihood that bodily harm – including mistreatment or torture – could be at play in any arrangement.
  21. The Intelligence Commissioner should integrate an analysis of impact on mistreatment or torture into authorization approvals as necessary.
  22. Section 56(5) should include an exception preventing a judge from ordering that confidentiality be respected if it hinders due process.
  23. Five Eyes spying on each other should be outlawed, and the Canadian government should take actions to that effect.
  24. Cyber operation powers are akin to military actions and should be discussed publicly, and further restrictions should be placed on them, including oversight and reporting from the Intelligence Commissioner.
  25. The definition of possible cyber operations should be narrowed.
  26. Active cyber operations, as well as the creation and use of any cyberweapons, should be strongly limited.

Part 4: Amendments to the CSIS Act

  1. Amend Bill C-59 to repeal CSIS’ current threat reduction powers.
  2. Documentation of all queries of Canadian and foreign datasets (including reasons for and results) should be shared with the NSIRA for review within 30 days.
  3. The Federal Court should have the power not only to examine the relevance of a query but also any eventual use of that query in order to ensure that ramifications of an illegal query are addressed.
  4. Limit authorizations to one year, with the possibility of extension by the Intelligence Commissioner for another year.
  5. Impose stronger thresholds for querying datasets for foreign intelligence purposes.
  6. Restrict the definition, collection, and use of publicly available information as CSIS datasets.

Part 5: The Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act

  1. SCISA should be rescinded and be replaced instead by strong privacy protections.

Part 6: Amendments to the Secure Air Travel Act

  1. The government should include clear guidelines for the creation of a redress system for false positives.
  2. Listing decisions, if necessary, should be reviewed and approved by a court.
  3. Individuals should be given written notice that they have been listed.
  4. Ultimately, the Safe Air Travel Act should be repealed.

Part 7: Amendments to the Criminal Code

  1. The offence of “counselling terrorism offenses” seems superfluous and should simply be removed.
  2. Similar to the changes to preventative detention, the threshold for peace bonds should be increased to “necessary” to prevent a crime.
  3. Bill C-59 should repeal the “Terrorist Entities Listing” in favour of simply using laws that already prohibit organizations from taking part in criminal activities.

Part 9: Review

  1. Reduce review period to five years for new oversight and review mechanisms and to 3 years for new CSIS and CSE powers.

What’s missing from Bill C-59

  1. A strong review mechanism to look at the CBSA and its activities outside of national security.
  2. Bill C-59 should include a provision that puts an end to the security certificate regime.

Read our full brief here.

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. Here at ICLMG, we are working very hard to protect and promote human rights and civil liberties in the context of the so-called “war on terror” in Canada. We do not receive any financial support from any federal, provincial or municipal governments or political parties.

You can become our patron on Patreon and get rewards in exchange for your support. You can give as little as $1/month (that’s only $12/year!) and you can unsubscribe at any time. Any donations will go a long way to support our work.panel-54141172-image-6fa93d06d6081076-320-320You can also make a one-time donation or donate monthly via Paypal by clicking on the button below. On the fence about giving? Check out our Achievements and Gains since we were created in 2002. Thank you for your generosity!

Resources against Islamophobia

January 29, 2018 marks the one-year anniversary of the attack on the Quebec City mosque that killed 6 men and wounded 19. ICLMG is committed to combatting Islamophobia as it is both a cause and a consequence of the racist foundations and applications of national security.

Despite many hateful incidents reported in the media in the last year, and the obviously islamophobic character of the January 29, 2017 massacre, many people seem to think that Islamophobia is not real, and that the word was created recently to stifle free speech and criticism of Islam.

We know that this is not the case and that this belief is an attempt to divert attention from the very real islamophobic attacks on Muslims. Others might be aware that Islamophobia is real, alive and kicking but be unsure how to combat it. Here are some resources (it is not a complete list) that may help you understand or show others what Islamophobia is, and how to fight it. Feel free to use and share them widely!


This brief was submitted by the Noor Cultural Centre to the parliamentary Heritage Committee, for its Motion M103 hearings on Islamophobia in Canada. The ICLMG has endorsed this brief. I highly suggest you read it and share it widely.


National Council of Canadian Muslims’ trainings:

A few slides from the workshop on Islamophobia given by Rana Nazzal during OPIRG Carleton’s 2017 Tools for Change Symposium:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


Monia’s blog, columns and books – follow her on Twitter @MoniaMazigh:

NCCM’s map of anti-Muslim incidents in Canada:

Fear Inc. Explore the $57 million network fueling Islamophobia in the United States:

Network against Islamophobia:


All Muslims are often blamed for single acts of terror. Psychology explains how to stop it.

When people ask you why Muslims don’t denounce terrorism, show them this: The 712-page Google doc that proves Muslims do condemn terrorism:


National Council of Canadian Muslims: &

Linda Sarsour:  &

Dalia Mogahed:

Middle Eastern Feminist:

Muslim Girl:

The Secret Life of Muslims:

Coalition Against White Supremacy & Islamophobia (CAWSI):

Collectif Canadien Anti-Islamophobie:

Association des Musulmans et des Arabes pour la Laïcité au Québec:


Islamophobia: The Right Word for a Real Problem:

A Non-Muslim Guide to Standing up to Islamophobia:


Arun Kundnani, The Muslims are coming: Islamophobia, Extremism and the Domestic War on Terror, 2015

Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and The Politics of Empire, 2012

The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims by Nathan Lean, 2012


Our panel on National Security & Islamophobia in Canada with author and activist Monia Mazigh and lawyer Yavar Hameed:

Islam, the Quran, and the Five Pillars All Without a Flamewar: Crash Course World History #13:

Islam and Politics: Crash Course World History 216:

Emotional speech by Muslim woman on Islamophobia in Canadian parliament:

What do you think when you look at me? | Dalia Mogahed :


Extreme(ly queer) Muslims series:

Islamophobin, a gum to cure anti-Muslim bigotry!

7 Questions British Muslims Are Tired of Hearing:

Things Not To Say To Someone Who Wears A Burqa:

Some of the Best Responses to Islamophobia in 2016:

Documentary Reel Bad Arabs, How Hollywood Vilifies a People:

Other TedTalk on Islamophobia:

Civil Liberties Coalition Welcomes the Release of Canadian Hassan Diab

Update: Hassan Diab is now back, safe and sound, in Canada with his family.

Jan. 12, 2018 – After a decade-long ordeal, French judges have dropped all allegations against Canadian Hassan Diab and ordered his immediate release.

“We are overjoyed for Hassan, his partner Rania, and their two children, that this ordeal is finally coming to a close,” said Tim McSorley, national coordinator with the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. “That Hassan Diab was extradited in the first place continues to raise serious questions about Canada’s judicial process. For now, though, we look forward to seeing Hassan safe and sound back in Canada.”

Hassan Diab was arrested by the RCMP for extradition to France in 2008, on allegations that he participated in the 1980 bombing of a synagogue in Paris that killed 4 bystanders. He was extradited to France in 2014. Since then he has spent more than three years in pre-trial detention, as investigative judges weighed whether to proceed to trial.

Since 2008, the ICLMG has joined Rania, Hassan’s lawyers, the Justice for Hassan Diab support committee and others in questioning the evidence presented against Hassan, and criticizing the Canadian extradition system that allowed him to be sent to France in the first place.

It is important to remember that at the time of the extradition hearings, Justice Maranger described the evidence against Hassan as “illogical”, “very problematic,” and “convoluted,” but that the low threshold for evidence under Canada’s extradition law left him no choice but to commit Dr. Diab to extradition. “It will be important to remain vigilant to ensure that no other Canadian faces the ordeal that Hassan has been through,” said McSorley.

The ICLMG congratulates Rania, Don Bayne and all of Hassan’s lawyers, and the support committee for their tireless work in ensuring that an innocent man was not forgotten and is finally being freed.


Tim McSorley
National Coordinator
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
613-241-5298 / 514-561-9919

Page 1 of 4812345...102030...Last »