Ottawa — A parliamentary report calling for greater review of Canada’s national security activities in order to protect Canadians’ rights and freedoms is a step in the right direction, even if much more must be done, says the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG). “The ball is now in the Canadian government’s court,” said Tim McSorley, national coordinator of the ICLMG.

On Tuesday, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) issued their anticipated report on Canada’s national security framework.

The ICLMG supports the SECU committee’s call for a much-needed review body for the Canada Border Services Agency, for the removal of the vague and overly-broad term “terrorism offences in general”, and for an integrated national security review body that will coordinate existing bodies and provide review of all other departments involved in national security activities.

For a decade, the ICLMG has advocated for the implementation of Justice Dennis O’Connor’s recommendation at the close of the Arar Inquiry for such an independent, national security review mechanism.

The ICLMG testified to the committee and submitted a brief arguing that while the Liberal government’s proposed committee of parliamentarians (Bill C-22) is a first step to ensure national security oversight, more needed to be done. The coalition was pleased to see its brief cited to that effect in the committee’s final report.

It is important to note, though, that Bill C-22 has not yet passed, and to be effective will still need important changes. This includes removing the government’s ability to block committee members’ access to important information or to outright limit the committee’s work based on national security concerns.

The ICLMG is disappointed the SECU committee’s majority report ignored the overwhelming calls by experts and the general public – cited by the NDP in their supplementary opinion – for the complete repeal of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2015 (Bill C-51), a dangerous and unnecessary piece of legislation.

The coalition is also concerned that the report contributes to legitimizing and solidifying the government’s continued use of secret evidence in criminal, immigration and national security proceedings. The committee’s solution is to extend the fundamentally flawed “special advocate” system from the security certificate regime to criminal courts and no fly list reviews. Such advocates, while tasked with protecting the interests of defendants, do not act in their defense, and cannot share evidence with the individuals in question, which tremendously affects their capacity to defend themselves in court.

“While the committee has acted in good-will to attempt to remedy the problem of secret evidence being used in cases of national security, expanding the use of special advocates will not solve the problem,” said McSorley. “The only way to ensure due process and a free and fair trial is to allow an individual to see the evidence against them.”

Regarding Canada’s “no fly list,” the coalition reiterated that reforms will not fix this flawed program, and that instead it must be repealed. Canada has clear laws that could be used to prevent a person suspected of criminal activity from boarding a flight. The use of a secret list to limit access to travel is a violation of due process and a violation of mobility rights.

Finally, the ICLMG is perplexed at the recommendation that Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale should review the ministerial directives allowing the use of information that may have been obtained through torture (the “torture memos”) since Minister Goodale has been reviewing the directives for more than a year, after calling them “troubling” in January 2016. The coalition therefore calls for the immediate removal of the directives that create a market for torture-tainted information and violate international human rights law.

The ICLMG is a coalition of more than 40 Canadian organizations that, since 2002, has been dedicated to defending civil liberties and human rights from the impacts of national security laws and the so-called “war on terror.”

– 30 –

Read ICLMG’s brief to the SECU committee on the National Security Framework: 15 years of problematic national security and anti-terrorism policies and their consequences

Continue reading →

Ottawa, April 4, 2017 —The Canadian Senate must take action to ensure the credibility and effectiveness of national security oversight in Canada, says the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG), a coalition of more than 40 Canadian organizations dedicated to defending civil liberties from the impact of national security and anti-terrorism laws.

“We are gravely disappointed and concerned that the Canadian government has allowed flawed national security oversight legislation to pass through the House of Commons,” said Tim McSorley, national coordinator of the ICLMG. “We are urging the Senate to take action to improve the proposed Committee of Parliamentarians, giving it the tools and capabilities necessary to carry out its crucial duties.”

The ICLMG’s statement came as the House of Commons voted at third reading in favour of Bill C-22, sending it to the Senate. Bill C-22 aims to create a Committee of Parliamentarians to oversee national security and intelligence laws and activities in Canada, and was introduced in June 2016 by Liberal House Leader Bardish Chagger.

The coalition is asking senators, including the Senate Committee on National Security and Defense, to amend C-22 to:

• Allow the committee access to all documents and information necessary for its members to accomplish their work;
• Restrict the ability of the Canadian government, including ministers and the Prime Minister’s Office, to block investigations – especially on broad grounds of national security;
• Grant the Committee of Parliamentarians the same power as parliamentary committees to compel people to appear and for documents to be provided;
• Allow the committee to seek judicial review of government decisions that would restrict the committee’s access to information, deny their ability to carry out specific investigations, or block sections of committee reports from being made public.

Continue reading →

Ottawa — The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) is disappointed that the Liberal government continues to refuse to make important changes to Bill C-22, which would create a Committee of Parliamentarians to oversee national security activities and policies. Last Friday, March 24, the government voted down an NDP motion to send Bill C-22 back to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) for further study.

Earlier that week, amendments moved by Liberal House Leader Bardish Chagger were adopted by the government,  undoing important changes brought to C-22 by the SECU committee after thorough study, and bipartisan debate and discussion.

The improvements brought by the SECU committee were based on expert testimony, significant consultation, and were supported by many rights and civil liberties groups who studied the bill. The amendments served to strengthen the future Committee of Parliamentarians’ ability to access the information they required, to call witnesses, to investigate national security matters in a timely manner, and to generally conduct effective oversight.

“The government has repeatedly stated their commitment to establishing a committee that will bring strong, effective oversight to Canada’s national security policies and agencies,” said Tim McSorley, ICLMG national coordinator. “It is frustrating to see the government walk away once again from an opportunity to meet that commitment.” At the same time, he pointed out that while SECU’s amendments improved the bill, the coalition was hoping for further changes, including making the committee responsible to Parliament, as opposed to the Prime Minister.

Bill C-22 is slated for third reading in the House on Monday, April 3, after which it will most likely go on to be studied by the Senate.

“We cannot support this bill in its current form,” said McSorley. “Not only will it not create a Committee of Parliamentarians capable of real and strong oversight over our national security apparatus, its mere creation will give Canadians the impression that proper parliamentary oversight exists – which will not be the case. The bill is irresponsible.”

Continue reading →