May 7 2024, OTTAWA – While diaspora groups have made it abundantly clear that more needs to be done to address foreign interference, especially when it involves threats or leads to violence, many of the proposals in the newly-introduced An Act respecting countering foreign interference go far beyond addressing foreign interference and will have wide-ranging impacts on the rights and liberties of people in Canada, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) is warning.

Areas of concern for the ICLMG include significant changes to CSIS’ powers to secretly collect and analyse troves of information about people both inside and outside of Canada; what information CSIS can disclose and to whom, including foreign entities; as well as new rules around what evidence can be disclosed in open court, and the ability of defendants to challenge those decisions.

“These are concerns we raised during the federal government’s consultation on new foreign interference measures, but they have decided to charge ahead,” said Tim McSorley, national Coordinator of the ICLMG. “These and other changes deserve their own specific scrutiny but instead are being lumped in with another omnibus bill.”

The areas of the bill specifically addressing foreign interference will also require a great deal of scrutiny to ensure they do not infringe on Charter rights of freedom of expression and association, and the ability to participate fully and freely in democratic processes in Canada, while addressing threats to Canadians and people in Canada, says the coalition. Some items that raise immediate questions are new stand-alone offences regarding interference with very broadly defined “essential infrastructure” and provisions of the proposed Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act.

-30-

The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, founded in 2002, is an Ottawa-based coalition of 46 Canadian civil society organizations that works to defend civil liberties in Canada in the context of anti-terrorism and national security.

More information:

Tim McSorley
National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
(613) 241-5298
national.coordination@iclmg.ca

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.You 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!

TAKE ACTION

As people across Canada come together to voice their concerns over the crisis in Gaza, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG), representing 46 Canadian civil society organizations, is urgently calling on government, university, law enforcement and other officials to uphold the Charter-protected rights of freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

“Recent rhetoric by some officials and commentators, which conflates criticism of the Israeli government with support for terrorism, not only undermines the principles of free expression, assembly, and association but also threatens the civil liberties of those engaged in peaceful protests,” said Tim McSorley, national coordinator of the ICLMG. “Such unfounded allegations serve to mischaracterize legitimate political expression as dangerous extremism, creating a chilling effect on open dialogue and perpetuating discrimination against Muslim and Arab communities. It is imperative that all levels of government uphold the Charter’s protections and resist any attempts to erode the legitimate exercise of these rights through misrepresentation or over-policing.”

This is a continuation of the vague, unfounded allegations of support for “terrorism” that have for decades been used to justify surveillance, over-policing and significant rights abuses directed particularly at Muslim and Arab communities.

For example, over the past several days, peaceful protest camps on the campuses of McGill University, the University of British Columbia, the University of Toronto and the University of Ottawa have been wrongly attacked by politicians and officials as being “antisemitic,” “dangerous,” “pro-Hamas,” and in support of “terrorism.” Calls by student protesters to discuss their demands for divestment and a just peace have been answered by university administrations with unwarranted requests for police intervention to remove protesters. The involvement of police, as seen with recent efforts to clear encampments on university and college campuses in the United States, has often been the cause of escalating tension and violence, as opposed to the encampments themselves.

Attempts to vilify and discredit protest camps as expressing support for “terrorism” and posing a threat to public safety comes after months of the same accusations being directed at marches and protests that have swept the streets of Canadian cities, resulting in unfounded arrests, unwarranted ticketing, and the curtailment of free expression.

The coalition is also expressing its deep concern with the recent ban on the keffiyeh in the Ontario legislature. The keffiyeh is a common and culturally important piece of clothing for Arab, and particularly Palestinian, communities. Whatever one may think of banning political props from legislatures, applying such a rule to clothing of cultural significance is misplaced, reductive, and discriminatory. Banning the keffiyeh inhibits Palestinians and Arabs the legally protected ability to engage in democratic processes, and propagates racism.

The ban also sends a dangerous message that the keffiyeh is an unacceptable piece of clothing that should be excluded from public venues. This was recently demonstrated at an Oakville, ON, high school where a student was asked to remove his keffiyeh because it reminded a staff person of terrorists. The keffiyeh ban is part of a disturbing trend of students and workers facing repercussions again for simply supporting Palestinian human rights, and must be overturned.

As the toll from Israel’s attack on Gaza continues to mount, reaching 34,000 people killed and 77,143 injured as of April 29, 2024, and the International Court of Justice‘s interim measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza from acts of genocide are being ignored, the ICLMG is also reiterating its Fall 2023 appeal for Canada to not only call for a permanent ceasefire, but to halt all arms sales, transfers and military aid to Israel. To refuse to do so is a violation of Canada’s obligation under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to do all in its power to prevent genocide.

In summary, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group urges:

• Officials to stop equating Charter-protected expression and dissent with “support for terrorism,” and refrain from calling for law enforcement to forcibly end or prevent protest activities.
• Law enforcement agencies to refrain from acting against protesters exercising their Charter-protected rights, including at encampments.
• The Ontario legislature to immediately reverse the keffiyeh ban.
• Canada to call for a permanent ceasefire and to halt all arms sales, transfers and military aid to Israel.

Parliament can’t fix the Minister’s rushed, confused and flawed Bill; full public consultation needed now.

APRIL 24, 2024 — Today, nearly 60 leading civil society organizations, corporations, experts and academics released an open letter to Innovation, Science and Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne, calling for the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) to be withdrawn and given a full public consultation. AIDA is currently bundled into the government’s proposed privacy legislation, Bill C-27, resulting in what the letter describes as a “hasty, confusing, and rushed” study by the House of Commons Industry and Technology Committee, and a “fundamentally flawed bill which lacks democratic legitimacy.”

The open letter sharply criticizes the government’s introduction of AIDA without the open public consultation process warranted for such highly impactful legislation. Stakeholders were not given any opportunity to hear what the government had in mind and to lay out their concerns and hopes for AI legislation before it was introduced. Furthermore, the government promised a major rewrite of much of AIDA on the first day of committee consideration, catching off guard both stakeholders who were attempting to participate, and committee MPs themselves. Some stakeholders were forced to rework and resubmit their input in response to the revised proposal, while others denied a formal feedback window raised fundamental unanswered questions about AIDA’s current design and objectives.

The letter follows on September and December communications to the Minister raising serious concerns, but significantly increases the signatory count of past letters. The signatories, who reflect a diverse range of civil society groups, think tanks, and businesses, ask the government to:

• Withdraw AIDA from Bill C-27 and initiate a thorough and inclusive public consultation with ample time for submissions from various stakeholders and incorporation of their feedback;
• Reintroduce a revised and improved AIDA that addresses the concerns raised from the start.

Some signatories of today’s letter have also endorsed a March 2024 package of bare minimum recommended changes to AIDA, in the event that the government insists on pushing forward with the current bill.

Today’s letter follows on the government’s budget announcement of a $5.1 million fund for the AI ​​and Data Commissioner proposed in AIDA, just 1/8th of what the Office of the Privacy Commissioner receives. This amount also pales in comparison to the government’s $2 billion budgeted investment for stimulating the AI ​​industry, reflecting the government’s unbalanced priorities for AI.

In the past two years, more than 20,000 signatures and letters were sent to government officials calling for effective legislation to address the impacts of AI and facial recognition. Since November 2021, more than 34,000 signatures have been collected by OpenMedia petitions calling for new privacy laws in Canada, and more than 17,800 messages have been sent to the government calling for enhanced personal privacy protections.

The Joint Letter has been signed by:

Organizations:

• Amnesty International Canadian Section (English-speaking)
• BC Civil Liberties Association
• Canadian Arab Federation
• Canadian Civil Liberties Association
• Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council
• Center for Digital Rights
• Center for Free Expression
• Communications Program, Glendon College, York University
• Digital Public
• National Federation of Teachers of Quebec (FNEEQ-CSN)
• Firearms Institute for Rational Education
• International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
• InterPares
• Just Peace Advocates/Mouvement Pour Une Paix Just
• League of Rights and Freedoms
• Macdonald-Laurier Institute
• Mines Action Canada
• National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE)
• NSTP Consulting Corp.
• OpenMedia
• Privacy and Access Council of Canada
• Public Interest Advocacy Center
• Response Marketing Association
• Rideau Institute on International Affairs
• Tech Reset Canada

Individuals:

• Alessandra Renzi, Associate Professor, Concordia University
• Alexandra Flynn, Associate Professor, UBC
• Andrew Clement, Professor emeritus, University of Toronto
• Azeezah Kanji, legal academic and journalist
• Bianca Wylie, writer and public technology advocate
• Dr. Blayne Haggart, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Brock University
• Dr. Brenda McPhail, Public Policy Program, McMaster University
• Christelle Tessono, Technology Policy Researcher University of Toronto
• Dr. Colin Bennett, University of Victoria
• Daniel Konikoff, University of Toronto
• Evan Light, Associate Professor, York University
• Fenwick McKelvey, Associate Professor, Concordia University
• Jane Bailey, Professor, University of Ottawa Faculty of Law
• Joanna Redden, Associate Professor, Western University
• Jonathan Obar, Associate Professor, York University
• Jonathan Roberge, full professor, INRS
• Dr. Kate Milberry
• Dr. Kate Tillecczek, York University
• Dr. Kristen Thomasen, Assistant Professor, UBC
• Leslie Shade, Faculty of Information, University of Toronto
• Luke Stark, Assistant Professor, Western University
• Mariette Pilon, lawyer, member of the Quebec Bar
• Dr. Mary Ott, Assistant Professor, York University
• Matt Malone, Assistant Professor, Thompson Rivers University
• Natasha Tusikov, Associate Professor, Department of Social Science, York University
• Nicole St-Pierre, President, NSTP Consulting Corp.
• Nkechi E. Agugoesi, Internationally Trained Lawyer
• Ori Freiman, Digital Society Lab at McMaster University
• Sara M. Grimes, Professor, University of Toronto
• Dr. Sava Saheli Singh, York University
• Sharon Polsky, President of the Privacy and Access Council of Canada
• Spencer Izen, Researcher, BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association
• Sun-ha Hong, Assistant Professor, Simon Fraser University
• Tamir Israel, Technology & Human Rights Lawyer

 Selected Quotes:

“Ensuring that artificial intelligence tools, especially those that have the potential to impact crucial and sensitive areas of people’s lives, are properly regulated is essential. This is especially true for those used by law enforcement and national security agencies. The government’s lack of public consultation on this bill means these risks are not being properly addressed. AIDA is not up to task, and needs to be withdrawn.” – Tim McSorley, National Coordinator at the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group

“Artificial intelligence may be one of the most impactful developments of our times– but that makes it crucial that our government regulates it right, not first. Through AIDA’s time in parliament we’ve seen the government bill largely rewritten by the own amendments, and critical stakeholders across civil society and corporate space report their feedback was hurriedly solicited after AIDA was designed, if at all. We believe Canadians deserve a better, more considered process than this, with all feedback fully and publicly accounted for.”- Matt Hatfield, Executive Director, OpenMedia

“AIDA is a disaster for privacy and human rights. The Parliamentary process is a disaster for democracy and Reconciliation.” — Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, Executive Director, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

“The Industry Minister introduced AIDA in the absence of any public consultations, either with independent experts or Canadians more generally, resulting in deeply problematic legislation with widespread negative implications. The Minister’s recently proposed amendments appear informed mainly by meetings with industry insiders but not a single organization representing those most likely to be affected by AI application. It is hardly surprising then that the re-written Bill fails to correct its fundamental flaws. AIDA needs a reset with a proper democratic process.” — Andrew Clement, Professor emeritus, University of Toronto

“AI legislation should treat privacy as a fundamental right and guiding principle. AIDA treats it as an afterthought. Canadians deserve a better law, one that could only result from a better process.”— Aislin Jackson, Policy Staff Counsel, BC Civil Liberties Association

“Further consultations are necessary, not only because it is the right thing to do, but particularly at such a pivotal point in time, when citizens are questioning democratic practices more and more.” — Nicole St-Pierre, President, NSTP Consulting Corp.

“This open letter is a collective call to separate AIDA from Bill C-27 and redraft it. It is not only about improving procedural integrity but also ensuring legislation is crafted to follow the wisdom of the Canadian Mosaic. Additional consultation is necessary. With AI, it is better to get the Act right than get it fast.” — Ori Freiman, Digital Society Lab at McMaster University

– 30 –

Media Contacts

Tim McSorley
National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
1 (613) 241-5298
nationalcoordination@iclmg.ca

Matt Hatfield
Executive Director, OpenMedia
1 (888) 441-2640 ext. 0
matt@openmedia.org

Aislin Jackson
BC Civil Liberties Association
1 (604) 687-2919, ext. 116
aislin@bccla.org

John Lawford
Executive Director, the Public Interest Advocacy Center
1 (613) 562-4002
jlawford@piac.ca

Andrew Clement
Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto
1 (250) 526-3029
andrew.clement@utoronto.ca

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.You 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!