Author Archives: ICLMG CSILC

Hogue Commission succeeds in setting the record straight on foreign interference, but misses opportunity to highlight government failure to protect civil liberties

January 29, 2025, OTTAWA – The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) expresses mixed feelings with the release of the report from the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference, led by Justice Marie-Josée Hogue. The report does an exemplary job of investigating and setting the record straight on the impact of foreign interference in Canada, making it clear that, while interference is a serious and ongoing concern, some of the most heated and sensational accusations – that our institutions are under existential threat or that there are traitors in parliament – are incorrect and suffered from exaggeration or inaccuracy. However, the report disappointingly fails to engage with some of the key concerns arising from this heated debate, including increases in hateful and xenophobic rhetoric, and the use of these unsupported allegations to justify the rushed adoption of significant legislation that will have clear and negative impacts on fundamental rights and freedoms in Canada.

“In Spring 2024, Parliament rammed the Countering Foreign Interference Act through both the House of Commons and Senate with little to no time to study the bill, extremely limited debate, and with legislators saying their hands were tied when it came to important proposed amendments to ensure that fundamental freedoms were protected while addressing foreign interference,” said Tim McSorley, national coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. “This was justified by what we now know were unfounded or exaggerated concerns regarding the breadth and depth of the impact of foreign interference in Canada.”

He further stated that: “The Inquiry rightly highlighted that the debate around foreign interference has decreased trust in public institutions. However, it is deeply disappointing that the Inquiry did not take this opportunity to urge lawmakers, going forward, to ensure that measures to counter foreign interference are the subject of robust, in-depth debate, analysis and amendment, and to clearly state that precautions must be taken to ensure fundamental freedoms are protected.”

The ICLMG co-organized open letters to MPs and to Senators, signed by more than ten leading civil liberties, human rights, legal and free expression organizations in Canada raising concerns about Bill C-70 before its adoption, and launched an online letter-writing campaign for the public to express their views. The ICLMG also raised these concerns in appearances before the House of Commons and Senate committees studying the bill, and submitted a policy brief to the Hogue Commission outlining the problems with the government’s approach to Bill C-70, the Countering Foreign Interference Act, in particular.

Among the concerns shared:

  • The expedited study of Bill C-70 – an almost unprecedented six weeks – meant that there was no time for in-depth analysis or drafting of briefs, severely limiting the ability of civil society organizations and experts to weigh in.
  • Parliamentarians expressed that while they understood concerns, they were unable to formulate and present amendments on such a short timeline, and worried that amendments would further delay the process.
  • While action to address foreign interference is necessary, it was premature to adopt legislation before knowing the full scope of the problems.
  • Heated rhetoric, based on classified reports and leaked documents, created an atmosphere of fear and panic which was used to justify speedy action at the expense of careful examination. We now know, thanks to the Inquiry’s report, that these concerns were overblown.
  • Several parts of Bill C-70, including amendments to the CSIS Act and the Criminal Code, new foreign interference offences, changes to the Canada Evidence Act, and the proposed Foreign Influence Registry, contained provisions that were overly broad, presented threats to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and undermined access to fair and open court proceedings.

Despite these concerns, the ICLMG welcomed several of the Commission’s recommendations, including addressing problems of over-classification of government documentation, ensuring greater public transparency around foreign interference, the need for greater caution around intelligence sharing, and the need to address acts of transnational repression.

The ICLMG also noted the proposal for a new agency to collect and monitor open-source intelligence. Any proposal to do so will need to take into careful consideration the potential of increased surveillance of Charter-protected communication and expression, especially given existing issues regarding efforts by national security agencies to collect and analyze “publicly available” or online material.

The ICLMG will continue to raise these concerns and monitor the creation and application of new laws and policies as well as the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission and how the Canadian government addresses foreign interference.

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!
make-a-donation-button

Combating interference without trampling on rights

Crédit: André Querry

Written by Tim McSorley, National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group

Translated by Barbara Ulrich, translator

Originally published in the December 2024 issue “Imaginer une ville des droits humains” of the Droits et libertés magazine by La Ligue des droits et libertés. Subscribe or purchase a copy here (in French only).


Worries around “foreign interference” continue to make headlines across Canada and Quebec, generating intense scrutiny, controversy and calls to act as quickly as possible to address what the national security agencies have hyperbolically called an “existential threat” to Canada.

There are clearly instances of foreign interference that raise urgent concerns. The revelations, for example, that members of the Sikh community in Canada are being targeted for harassment, violence and even murder by agents of the Indian government, along with other threats of transnational repression of human rights defenders in Canada and their families.

But too much of this debate has also been characterized by xenophobia, racism, political partisanship and one-upmanship, and a mad dash to bring in severe and wide-ranging new laws that will have significant impacts on fundamental rights in Canada, including freedom of expression and association, but also on protest and dissent, international cooperation and solidarity, academic freedom and freedom of the press.

Much of this has also been driven by secret intelligence leaked by anonymous sources, whose accuracy and provenance remains in serious question. Some of this has been addressed by the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference, but with the inquiry’s final report yet to come, the trustworthiness of these leaks remain in question.

Rights violated, once again

Despite these outstanding questions, the government’s response has focused almost exclusively on granting new powers to national security agencies and creating significant new offences that will result in over-reach and the over-securitization of responses to this issue. Our work on the impact of national security and anti-terrorism laws since 2002 has shown the importance of clear definitions, evidence-based decision-making, and responses that are necessary and proportionate.

Failing to adhere to these principles inevitably undermines fundamental rights and with it democratic involvement and participation. The result is the marginalization of a variety of organizations and communities, especially those from racialized, Indigenous or immigrant populations, as well as those involved in dissent, protest and challenging the status quo.

Law adopted at full speed

The most glaring example is the adoption, in haste, of Bill C-70 – the Countering Foreign Interference Act – in June 2024, which made significant changes to Canada’s national security, intelligence and criminal justice systems.

A bill of such breadth required in-depth study. However, in the rush to address issues of foreign interference as quickly as possible, the bill passed through the entire legislative process in less than two months, which is nearly unheard of.

This astoundingly short study resulted in many aspects of the legislation going unstudied and areas of concern going unaddressed: less time meant that experts and organizations with limited resources had to rush their analysis of the bill, and made submitting briefs and appropriate amendments nearly impossible. Even when members of parliament and senators recognized concerns, the refrain was that the bill’s study could not be delayed in order to adopt new rules before an eventual election, which with a minority government could happen at any time.

Powers unrelated to interference

For example, Bill C-70 changed the CSIS Act to create new, more easily obtainable warrants for one-time searches and to secretly collect information located outside of Canada. The new powers must still be approved by the courts, but takes place behind closed doors. This is essentially a reward for CSIS, which, for years, has been contravening existing warrant rules, particularly by misleading the courts. High thresholds for obtaining secret warrants is one of the key ways our charter rights are protected; Bill C-70 watered these down.

This is just one part of the many changes to the CSIS Act that are only in part related to fighting foreign interference, and will in fact apply to any form of intelligence gathering or investigation that CSIS undertakes from now on.

Human rights defenders, international development and solidarity organizations, politicians, academics, labour organizers, environmental activists and Indigenous land defenders, journalists, and many others in Canada work directly with foreign counterparts daily. Many of these international colleagues may work for or represent governments, foreign state-owned or affiliated businesses, foundations, academic institutions or media, or work for multilateral organizations composed of foreign states. These international partnerships are crucial, helping to bring new perspectives, make advances in research and policy, share the work of people in Canada internationally, and help build cooperation and international solidarity.

Negative impacts on rights

However, in its response to allegations of foreign interference, the federal government has introduced rules that will almost certainly have a negative impact on the freedom to associate with international colleagues, freedom of expression and on the ability of people in Canada to engage in protest and dissent.

C-70 made significant changes to the Security of Information Act, renaming it the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act (FISI). Alarmingly, FISI creates much more severe penalties – up to life in prison – for offences already included in the Criminal Code, including harassment and intimidation, if they are committed “at the direction of, for the benefit of, or in association with, a foreign entity” or, in certain cases, with a terrorist organization.

Another troubling sections of FISI reads:

20.4 (1) Every person commits an indictable offence who, at the direction of, or in association with, a foreign entity, engages in surreptitious or deceptive conduct with the intent to influence a political or governmental process, educational governance, the performance of a duty in relation to such a process or such governance or the exercise of a democratic right in Canada.

In favour of clear definitions

The issue is not because it sets out to protect democratic processes, but rather the way it attempts to do so. The most glaring example is the term, “in association with”, a broad term that is not defined in the legislation. For example, it could easily mean that a person who collaborates with an individual or organization that works for or closely with a foreign entity (including governments, but also state funded arms-length agencies, or even multilateral bodies) on issues of mutual interest, and then sets out to advocate a change of policy, could be seen to be violating the law even if no actual influence is exerted by the foreign entity. The government says that such influence activities would only be illegal if done in secret. But if you are not operating under the influence of a foreign entity, you could easily believe that is not necessary to share your association publicly –  opening the possibility of violating this law.

The definitions of what constitutes a political process, educational governance and the exercise of a democratic right are also very broad. Even if the goal of this new law is laudable, the way it is formulated threatens serious impacts on freedom of expression, dissent and protest.

For example, look at campus encampments in solidarity with Palestinians and against the Israeli government’s genocide in Gaza. One of their key calls was for university administrations – which are bodies of educational governance – to divest from arms manufacturers that supply the Israeli army. This is clearly legitimate advocacy meant to influence a university policy; more specifically, there could be calls for certain board members to be removed, or for students to campaign for student union on this issue. However, there were unfounded and spurious allegations that these encampments and campaigns were either funded by or coordinated with foreign governments. Under Bill C-70, Canadian security agencies would have justification to investigate these activists, and, if they discover even an association with any individual or organizations affiliated with a foreign government, they could face serious penalties. The same could apply to those fighting for better labour standards, for climate justice, for Indigenous rights, and more.

Increased surveillance to be expected

It’s important not to fear-monger, and it isn’t clear that these kinds of charges are in any way imminent – but they are absolutely possible under these new laws. We simply don’t know, despite assurances from the government, how they will be used. But so long as the possibility exits, they can lead to increased surveillance, threats of reprisal, and, at the end of the day, a chilling effect on freedom of expression and other fundamental rights.

The concerns around “in association with” also extends to the newly created Foreign Influence and Transparency Act, establishing a Foreign Influence and Transparency Commissioner and the long-expected Foreign Influence and Transparency Registry. The new registry will require individuals and organizations to file for registration should they, under the direction of or in association with a foreign principal:

  • communicate with a public office holder;
  • communicate or disseminate information that is related to the political or governmental process;
  • or distribute money, items of value or provide a service or use of a facility.

The requirement to register is broader than the process described above, since a “foreign principal” is defined more broadly than a “foreign entity” and includes advocating in a much more general way for policy changes. The penalties are also less severe, and includes the options to provide individuals with notices before the laying of charges. However, the need to register for a “foreign influence” registry for simply acting in association with a foreign principal, raises similar concerns. Any group in Canada that may work with a foreign, state affiliated organization – even if they are not acting at the behest of this foreign organization – would need to register publicly that they are acting under “foreign influence.” This has raised serious concerns in other countries. In the United States, for example, a similar registration law has led to unfounded investigations of environmental organizations, and the requirement for at least one well-respected national environmental organization to register as a “foreign agent.” We can expect similar results in Canada, chilling free expression, free association, and the ability to work with international partners on important social causes.

Freedom of expression under pressure

Finally, Bill C-70 expanded existing sabotage offenses under the Criminal Code to include the offense of interfering with a broad new category of “essential infrastructure,” which includes transportation, food supply, government operations, financial infrastructure, or any other infrastructure prescribed by regulation. Any number of these may at some point be the focus of a protest, or impacted by the carrying out of a protest activity that could interfere with their operations. While the new law also includes an exclusion for advocacy, protest or dissent, but only If the individuals involved do not intend to cause harm.

This leaves a huge amount of discretion to interpret the “intent” of a protest. For example, Indigenous land defenders have engaged in rail and highway blockades as acts of civil disobedience, with the stated goal of disrupting economic activity to pressure government officials. Knowing that the intent is to cause a disruption, and that it could theoretically entail harm, it would not be outlandish to imagine the government using such a law to criminalize protests, with a potential sentence of up to 10 years. This will no doubt cause people in Canada to reconsider whether to participate in acts of protest that could now be considered the much more serious crime of sabotage.

Over the next months, the government will be setting our regulations and naming the new Foreign Influence Commissioner, impacting how these laws are interpreted and implemented. It is essential that the public and civil society groups remain vigilant and continue to pressure the government to not sacrifice fundamental rights in their names of fighting foreign interference.

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!
make-a-donation-button

What we’ve been up to in 2024. Please help us protect civil liberties in 2025!

Here is what we’ve accomplished in the second half of 2024 thanks to your support:

ICLMG Twentieth Anniversary publication

We launched our 20th anniversary publication on September 11, 2024, the 23rd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and the start of the so-called “War on Terror.” We are grateful to all the contributors, translators and reviewers who volunteered their time to make this possible!

  • We launched the publication with a webinar in English on September 11
  • We had a second launch in person in Montreal, held in French organized by our member La Ligue des droits et libertés
  • The bilingual publication is available online for free, and people can get physical copies as well.

Help us fight for justice and human rights.
Donate to the ICLMG!

Bill C-20: Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

Bill C-20 will create a new, independent review agency for both the RCMP and CBSA. It will replace the current RCMP review body, and create the first ever independent review body for the CBSA. The creation of an independent review body for the CBSA has been a longstanding, key demand and advocacy priority of the ICLMG coalition. Since June, ICLMG:

  • Organized meetings with partner organizations and member groups to coordinate strategy
  • Sent a joint brief with colleagues including proposed amendments for the Senate committee study
  • On October 31, 2024, Bill C-20 received Royal Assent. ICLMG will continue to work on bringing improvements to the new review body throughout the regulation process and as it is established.

Bill C-27: Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022

Bill C-27 is the government’s proposed update to Canada’s private sector privacy law, namely the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. It will also increase powers granted to the Privacy Commissioner, create a new tribunal, and enact a new Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA). While our primary focus is not on the private sector, there are key aspects of this bill that have an impact on national security and privacy rights. AIDA will have more direct repercussions on our work, given the growing use of AI in surveillance capitalism and government surveillance. Since June, ICLMG:

  • Continued to organize meetings with partner organizations and privacy experts to discuss strategy
  • Engaged with MPs on the progress of the bill and needed amendments
  • Monitored the bill’s progress at committee.

C-41: International assistance and anti-terrorism laws

Humanitarian aid and international assistance generally is being hindered by Canada’s anti-terrorism laws, particularly in Afghanistan – a risk ICLMG has long warned about. In Spring 2023, the government tabled Bill C-41 to ostensibly address the issue. Despite several remaining shortcomings, the bill received royal assent in June 2023. The authorization regime was finally launched in June 2024; as of December 2024, no application has been approved. Since June, ICLMG:

  • Discussed advocacy strategies to raise concerns about the implementation of the authorization regime with ICLMG members and partners
  • Participated in a Public Safety Canada briefing on the implementation of Bill C-41 and raised concerns around the authorization regime delays in processing and review.

Bill C-63: Online Harms Act

The federal government introduced Bill C-63 in February 2024. Known as the “Online Harms Act,” it responds to many of our concerns with the government’s original “online harms” proposal from 2021, but several aspects of the bill continue to raise serious concerns. Since June, ICLMG has:

  • Continued participating in meetings of the “Online Harms Network”
  • Presented at the Digital Justice Summit on Legal and Policy Solutions for Online Harms organized by NCCM and OpenMedia in September in Ottawa
  • Met with NDP MP Peter Julian regarding concerns with the bill
  • Submitted a brief and testified at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for their pre-study of the bill
  • Saw a major victory with the government’s announcement that they will be splitting the bill, a key demand we advocated for.

Bill C-70: Foreign Interference legislation

Although the federal inquiry into foreign interference had yet to issue its final report, in May 2024 the federal government introduced new foreign interference legislation, Bill C-70. Much of it reflects proposals from a consultation held from December to February, but fails to respond to many of the concerns that we raised with the government. Following an extremely rushed parliamentary process, the bill was adopted in June 2024 with very little study and minimal amendments. Since June, we:

  • Wrote a letter to the House committee studying the bill, co-signed by several partner organizations, to urge MPs to extend the study of C-70
  • Submitted briefs to and appeared at both the House of Commons Public Safety committee and the Senate National Security committee to present our urgent concerns
  • Created a letter-writing campaign calling on MPs and Senators to extend their study and amend the bill.
  • Co-wrote an urgent public statement to Senators, signed by partner organizations, urging them to amend Bill C-70: “Charter Rights Under Threat if Senate Fails to Fix Foreign Interference Bill”
  • Participated in two webinars on foreign interference:
  • Understanding Bill C-70: Beyond a National Security State”, organized by the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute
  • What to do about foreign interference”, organized by the Centre for Free Expression
  • Provided feedback on thematic document and questions for the Policy Phase of the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference (PIFI) and, in Oct 2024, submitted a brief for the Policy phase of the PIFI

Bill C-353: The Foreign Hostage Takers Accountability Act

Although we agree with the intent of the bill to support survivors of hostage-taking and arbitrary detention as well as their families, this bill is unnecessary, and would have very broad, negative, and unintended consequences.

  • We shared our concerns with the bill at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development

Combatting Racism & Islamophobia

The ICLMG continues to oppose racial, religious and other forms of profiling and targeting by national security activities and laws, particularly that of Muslim and Arab communities and people of color. We are also aware of, and attempt to combat, the instrumentalization of acts of xenophobia, Islamophobia and racism to justify new or expanded use of national security laws. To that effect, we have:

  • Met with Amira Elghawaby, the federal Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, to discuss the rise of Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism in Canada
  • Presented our research on the targeting of Muslim charities by the Canada Revenue Agency at the International Cooperation Futures Forum
  • Participated in an invite-only conference on counter terrorism financing and civil society, where we shared our research on systemic Islamophobia and the charitable sector

Canada’s terrorist entities list

Following the addition of Samidoun to Canada’s terrorist entities list on October 15, 2024:

  • We published a statement reiterating our long-standing position that the list must be abolished – which garnered a lot of attention and engagement on social media
  • We created an action calling of the abolition of the list and shared it widely, including following the addition to of Ansarallah to the list on December 2, 2024.
  • We participated in a webinar organized by Just Peace Advocates and Canadian Foreign Policy Institute entitled “Canada’s terror list enables Israeli terror”

Palestine and the right to dissent

The Israeli government, and its supporters, have attempted to justify their ongoing genocide against Gazans as “fighting terrorism,” a view echoed by Canadian officials. ICLMG has continued to monitor the situation and take action. Since the last June, we have:

  • Shared news, analysis, and joint letters calling for a ceasefire, an arms embargo, for Palestinian refugees to be let into Canada, and for Canadian support for the ICC’s work with respect to Palestine/Israel
  • We published a new statement to condemn one-year of genocide on October 7, 2024, as well as the smear campaigns, surveillance, harassment, fining and criminalizing of people, in Canada and abroad, expressing support for the rights of Palestinians
  • We have included concerns around the use of anti-terrorism as an excuse to stifle free expression and justify the Israeli military’s violence in our critique of various pieces of new legislation and during speaking engagements.

Hassan Diab & Extradition

As revealed on the November 20th episode of CBC’s Power & Politics, Dr. Hassan Diab has recently been the target of a smear campaign, including calls for his dismissal from Carleton University, attacks on his reputation and, appallingly, death threats against him and his family. In this context, we have:

  • Published a statement reiterating our support for Dr. Hassan Diab, an innocent man who was wrongfully convicted in an unfair trial
  • Sent a letter to the CarletonU president and board of governors in support of Dr. Diab
  • Updated and shared our letter-writing campaign urging Canada to commit to protecting Dr. Diab.

Mohamed Harkat & Security certificates

ICLMG has continued to work to eliminate security certificates, and defend the rights of those who are placed under one. Since June, this work has included:

  • Sending another letter to the Public Safety Minister for him to allow Moe to stay in Canada
  • Updating and pushing the Moe Harkat letter-writing campaign on June 26, the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, as well as on December 10, that marked 22 years since his arrest, calling for an end to his deportation to torture once and for all
  • We shared Sophie Lamarche Harkat’s powerful text on their ongoing ordeal and fight for justice with the updated action.

Canadians detained in Northeastern Syria

At least 17 Canadians, including 7 children, and three non-Canadian mothers remain indefinitely detained in camps and prisons in northeast Syria. On October 16, F.J., a Quebec mother of six who Canada refused to repatriate alongside her six children, was found dead in a Turkish deportation centre after having been acquitted of any criminal/terrorist allegations by a Turkish judge. As a result, we have:

  • Sent a letter to Minister Joly urgently calling for an independent investigation into FJ’s death
  • Updated and promoted our letter-writing campaign in favour of repatriation of all to add a call for an independent investigation into FJ’s death

Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism

The ICLMG continues to participate in this coalition. Since last June, this has included:

  • Participation in quarterly coalition meetings to exchange information and strategize around impact of international counter-terrorism mechanisms on human rights in Canada and internationally
  • Participation in quarterly working group meetings regarding impact of UN counter-terrorism activities on civil liberties and human rights

UN Counter-terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED) Canada assessment

2023 marked the 2nd assessment of Canada’s implementation of UN counterterrorism resolutions by CTED. We have continued efforts for the public release of their report on Canada. To that end we have:

  • Remained in contact with CTED regarding the status of the report
  • Followed up with Global Affairs Canada on the status of the report and urging its release.

UN Cybersecurity Treaty

In December, we were among the twenty leading organizations and experts that signed onto a letter calling on the Canadian government to reject the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime as it will in fact, despite its name, undermine cybersecurity, undermine human rights on a global scale, and imperil Canadian diaspora communities facing growing threats of transnational repression.


ICLMG IN THE MEDIA

Civil society groups urge to not rush the committee study of C-70: radio interview with ICLMG,” Shaye Ganam, 630 CHED in Edmonton and QR Calgary – 770 AM

Don’t rush committee study of foreign interference bill, civil society groups urge,” Tim McSorley, The Canadian Press, June 6, 2024

« Loi concernant la lutte contre l’ingérence étrangère: La précipitation est mauvaise conseillère », Tim McSorley, La Presse, 6 juin 2024

Opposition to stampeding Bill C-70 through Parliament grows,” John Price, Canadian Dimension, June 10, 2024

Civil liberties groups raise alarm as Ottawa votes on foreign-interference bill,” Marieke Walsh & Kristy Kirkup, The Globe and Mail, June 12, 2024

Bill C-70: Trudeau’s latest assault on free speech,” Dimitri Lascaris’s blog, June 17, 2024

Civil society groups argue ‘mad dash’ leaves no time for proper study of foreign influence registry bill,” Jesse Cnockaert, The Hill Times, June 17, 2024

Senators approve bill to fight foreign interference after voting down amendment,” Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press, June 20, 2024

Commentary: The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group at 20 w/ Tim McSorley,” FIPA podcast: Access and Privacy online, September 25, 2024

Criminalization of Samidoun is an attack on the Palestine solidarity movement – Press release,” CJPME, October 24, 2024

The Israel Lobby Wants You Suspended, Fired Or In Prison,” Davide Mastracci, The Maple, October 30, 2024

RCMP plans to go undercover online to trap violent extremists,” Elizabeth Thompson, CBC, Nov. 3, 2024

New independent review body for CBSA welcome, but falls short,” Redeye podcast, Nov. 16, 2024

Check out all coverage of ICLMG in the media here.

We have also published many reactions and commentary on our social media accounts, which continue to reach tens of thousands.

We publish our News Digest every other week, which is distributed to thousands of people and has received numerous accolades.

+ Check out the News Digest archive if you’ve missed some of our issues.

+ If you know anyone interested in receiving it, send them an invite to sign up!


What we have planned for the 2025!

The coming year will present many challenges, old and new. Much of our successes from this past year will continue to need follow-up, as we track the establishment of the new CBSA review body, and push back against new foreign interference laws and attempts to silence protest. There are also the challenges we will face with the incoming US government, which is already playing out its promises to increase the securitization of the US-Canada border with more police, drones and facial recognition surveillance. This will place the rights of all travellers, but especially asylum seekers searching for protection and better living conditions, at risk.

We’ll also have our own election in Canada this year, and ICLMG will be working to both make sure the public is aware of the parties’ track records on civil liberties and national security, as well as to secure commitments to protect our rights from candidates and the new government once it is in office.

Your support will allow us to continue our work on these issues and much more in the next year:

  • Pressuring lawmakers and officials to protect our civil liberties from the negative impact of national security as well as opposing the discourse of “countering terrorism” to repress dissent, such as protests in support of Palestinian rights and lives
  • Co-creating a mechanism to monitor how the new Countering Foreign Interference law is used, as well as continue pushing back against xenophobic fear-mongering
  • Ensuring that the Canadian government’s proposals on “online harms” do not violate fundamental freedoms, or exacerbate the silencing of racialized and marginalized voices
  • Protecting our privacy from government surveillance, including facial recognition, and from attempts to weaken encryption, along with advocating for good privacy law reform
  • Addressing the lack of regulation on the use of AI in national security, including proposed exemptions for national security agencies
  • Monitoring the implementation of the authorization regime for organizations that provide international assistance to vulnerable populations in areas controlled by “terrorist” groups
  • Pushing back on the false narrative depicting migrants and refugees as security risks, and advocating for rights protection and accountability for border agencies, including by monitoring the creation of a new CBSA and RCMP watchdog and complaint body
  • Greater accountability and transparency for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
  • Advocating for the repeal of the terrorist entities list, the Canadian No Fly List, and for putting a stop to the use of the US No Fly List by air carriers in Canada
  • Keeping you and our member organizations informed via the News Digest
  • And much more!


If you think our work is important, please support the ICLMG!

We do not receive any funding from any federal, provincial or municipal governments or political parties so your support is essential to our work.

We are counting on people like you.

Thank you for your support in protecting civil liberties!

— Xan & Tim

PS: For what we were up to in the first half of 2024, click here!

PPS: For what we’ve been up to since ICLMG was created in 2002, check out our Achievements page!