Author Archives: ICLMG CSILC

A Victory for Citizenship Equality!

By Tim McSorley

The ICLMG was among the first to denounce the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (adopted in June 2014, formerly Bill C-24) as unconstitutional and anti-Canadian for discriminating against dual nationals by allowing the removal of citizenship for national security reasons. This law effectively created a two-tiered citizenship regime that discriminated against dual nationals, whether born abroad or in Canada, and naturalized citizens. These Canadians had more limited citizenship rights compared to other Canadians, simply because they or their parents or ancestors were born in another country. ICLMG supported a legal challenge against the law, writing:

The ICLMG opposed Bill C-24 since it was tabled in Parliament. The Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act is a step backward for our democracy and rule of law principle. With this new Citizenship Act, Canadians are divided into two classes: those who will keep their Canadian citizenship no matter what and those who can be stripped of their Canadian citizenship if some federal bureaucrats decide so. Thus, if you are born in Canada but you have parents or ancestors from another country, your Canadian citizenship is worth less. It can be revoked not by the court but by the government and this is unacceptable by any democratic standards.[1]

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act (formerly Bill C-6) was adopted in June 2017 and removed the grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security, effectively killing that two-tier citizenship regime.[2]


Tim McSorley is the National Coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group

Footnotes

[1] ICLMG, “Press release: ICLMG joins other rights groups to denounce the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act as discriminatory and anti-Canadian,” ICLMG, August 20, 2015.

[2] For more information on the fight against citizenship revocation, see: Macklin, Audrey. “A Brief History of the Brief History of Citizenship Revocation in Canada,” in « Canadian Terror: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives on the Toronto 18 Terrorism Trials », Manitoba Law Journal, vol. 44, no 1 (2021), pp. 425-455.

Back to table of contents

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

CSIS, Duty of Candour and Immunity for Illegal Activities

MP Salma Zahid (left), ICLMG’s National Coordinator Tim McSorley (centre left), and NCCM’s CEO Stephen Brown (centre right) and Senior Legal Counsel Karine Devost (right) at a press conference introducing Bill C-331. Credit: Jeffrey Jedras.

By Tim McSorley

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) has a troubling history of skirting the law and engaging in unethical and even unlawful behavior in the course of its work, ranging from their complicity in the rendition, detention and torture of Canadians, harassing Muslims at school and in their workplace, surveilling environmental activists, or misleading the courts. Recently, there have been key revelations of ways that CSIS continues to engage in this troubling pattern.

Duty of candour and misleading the courts

In the past five years, multiple court rulings and reviews1Federal Court, Canadian Security Intelligence Services Act (CA) (Re), (2020 FC 616): https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/482466/index.do#_Toc45630178 [2020 FC 616]; Federal Court, In re motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order in Peshdary v AGC (2018), (2020 FC 137): https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/460406/index.do; NSIRA, Review arising from Federal Court’s Judgment in 2020 FC 616: https://nsira-ossnr.gc.ca/nsira-review-arising-from-federal-courts-judgment-in-2020. [NSIRA 2020] have found that CSIS has misled the courts and withheld important information from judges when applying for warrants, including that information used in support of these warrants was obtained illegally. This is known as breaching its “duty of candour” towards the courts – meaning CSIS has a duty to tell the truth to the courts, but didn’t. This is particularly important given that CSIS and government lawyers present information to the courts during hearings that are held in private. There is no one present to oppose the application, nor anyone apart from the judge to question the information being provided in support of these warrants – which is problematic in and of itself.

The most significant of these rulings was issued by Federal Court of Canada Justice Patrick Gleeson, in which the court reviewed multiple instances of CSIS breaching its duty of candour over several years. In an incredibly damning ruling, the Justice wrote, “The circumstances raise fundamental questions relating to respect for the rule of law, the oversight of security intelligence activities and the actions of individual decision-makers.”22020 FC 616 Following this ruling, and another from Justice O’Reilly revealing another breach just two months later, ICLMG wrote to the minister of Public Safety at the time, Bill Blair, demanding that he take immediate action to put an end to this abuse of power and hold the CSIS officers involved accountable.3Tim McSorley, “New revelations of spy agency’s unlawful activities and misleading courts shows need for concrete action and accountability,” ICLMG, September 2, 2020: https://iclmg.ca/new-revelations-of-csis-misleading-courts/ Alongside the letter, we launched an email action that resulted in more than 1,600 messages being sent to the Public Safety and Justice ministers.

Continue reading

Footnotes

Information Clearinghouse on Border Controls and Infringements to Travellers’ Rights

Illustration made for Human Rights Watch in 2021. Credit: Brian Stauffer

By Patricia Poirier

The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) launched the Clearinghouse project on June 18, 2008, which marked the first-year anniversary of the coming into effect of the Canadian no-fly list or the Passenger Protect Program. The aim of the project was to investigate the border control practices used to screen travellers at Canadian airports and Canadian-US border crossings, and their impact on the privacy, civil liberties and human rights of individuals living in Canada, whether citizens, landed immigrants or asylum- seekers.

We had been witnessing a growing number of border incidents, as well as a change in the nature of these incidents, coinciding with the implementation of the no-fly list program and the linking in real-time of Canadian and US law enforcement databases and watchlists. The well-documented racial and religious profiling and targeting of Muslims and members of Arab communities was now expanding to other groups, including academics as well as peace, labour and justice activists.

It could be said that the no-fly list program was the most visible initiative resulting directly from the growing efforts to integrate Canadian and US security systems within the framework of the 2001 Smart Border Declaration, and the subsequent 2005 Security and Prosperity Partnership. They included: the Nexus program, the National Risk Assessment Centre, the High-Risk Traveller Identification Initiative and the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams.

In December 2011, Canada and the US unveiled the Beyond the Border agreement and quietly began implementing initiatives towards establishing a North American Security Perimeter. This included expanding trusted traveller programs, as well as enhancing integrated law enforcement and information-sharing cooperation which raised many privacy concerns.

With some of our members and partners – the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Ligue des droits et libertés – we wanted first-hand information that would inform our advocacy work and bring the issues of surveillance and watchlists to the attention of the public at large. The project combined research, policy analysis and first-hand accounts of travellers who were barred from flying, intercepted or detained. Over a two-year period, we filed access to information requests and met with government as well as with federal and some provincial privacy commissioners and their staff.

We found and analyzed countless reports from both sides of the border regarding the dizzying number of agreements, measures, programs or databases of the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, the RCMP, Transport Canada and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. To find out how these different programs and regulations were impacting travellers, we set up a website and a toll-free phone number to allow people to report their encounters with airlines, transport and border officials. The information collected was kept confidential unless participants agreed to be identified. Over 70 stories were thus collected.

We released the 55-page final report in February 2010, on the eve of the opening of the Vancouver Winter Olympics.1ICLMG et al., Report of the Information Clearinghouse on Border Controls and Infringements to Travellers’ Rights, ICLMG, February 2010. It was particularly timely as there were several reports of visitors who were questioned and detained upon their arrival at the local airport or at the Canada-US border. Free speech activists were especially targeted, including well-known US broadcaster Amy Goodman. Our report listed the growing array of databases and watchlists used to keep tabs on North American travellers, described how information was collected, sifted, cross-referenced, stored and shared with government agencies on both sides of the border, and with other foreign governments.

Since September 11, 2001, identifying, assessing and mitigating risk were central to border management practices. The CBSA had already acknowledged that its goal was to create a “virtual border” that is closest to the possible source of risk, and away from the traditional physical border.

We found that:

  • Racial and religious profiling is a fact of life at the Canada-US border
  • There was a real potential for abuse and violation of travellers’ rights due to the discretionary and arbitrary powers granted to officials of the CBSA
  • Most people will never know why they are targeted
  • There was no credible redress mechanism for passengers who were repeatedly questioned, detained and sent to secondary screening at the airport, or for individuals “randomly” stopped or turned back at the border
  • Many, especially Muslims, said they no longer travelled outside Canada for fear of being targeted and that Maher Arar’s ordeal was often on their minds
  • The lack of any meaningful redress mechanism exacerbated the potential for abuse and violation of Charter rights, notably the rights to privacy, mobility and equality

The ICLMG recommended a number of actions to the government and members of Parliament, who had virtually ignored the issue of the no-fly list since its inception, including the following:

  • The Government should acknowledge that racial and religious profiling is a determining factor in the way individuals are treated and caught by no-fly lists and other watchlists. It must review these unconstitutional practices that violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • The no-fly list program (which was expanded by the imposition of the US Secure Flight Program on Canadian airlines planned for December 2010), should be reviewed by Parliament in light of the Charter because of a lack of due process and judicial review.
  • An independent watchdog should be set up to monitor the Canada Border Services Agency in light of its discretionary and arbitrary powers, and the lack of any accountability mechanism, as recommended by Justice O’Connor in his 2006 inquiry into the case of Maher Arar.
  • Parliament should address concerns over privacy and the deployment of biometrics and other technologies targeting travellers.

Finally, our report rightly predicted that the situation would be made worse by the North American Security Perimeter Agreement (released in December 2009) which for all practical purposes established one harmonized border protection and national security regime for all of Canada and the US.

In August 2022, the Federal Court upheld the constitutionality of the no-fly list, saying it did infringe on mobility rights but that the breach was justified. It ruled: “Ensuring safety in air transportation and limiting air travel for terrorist purposes necessarily involves some infringement of mobility rights.” We disagree.

ICLMG continues to fight to abolish Canada’s no-fly list, end Canadian government compliance with the US Secure Flight program, and establish an independent complaint body for the CBSA.


Patricia Poirier is a former journalist who has been involved with human rights, justice and privacy issues as a researcher and communications consultant in Ottawa, Moscow, Jerusalem and Montreal where she volunteers.

Back to table of contents

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

Footnotes