A good way to know what will be a party’s position on national security in the next Parliament, is to know how they have acted on that topic in the past. On this page, you’ll find:
Votes on national security legislation from 2015 to 2019
These votes are the votes in the House of Commons at 3rd reading for the bills to be adopted and sent to the Senate, unless specified otherwise.
Laws/Parties
Liberals
CPC
NDP
Greens
Bloc
C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act
The act repealed the two-tiered citizenship regime created by Bill C-24 that discriminated against dual nationals.
This act amends the Citizenship Act to remove the grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security. Those grounds were introduced by the Harper government with Bill C-24. They effectively created a two-tiered citizenship regime that discriminates 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. Source 1 & source 2 The vote at third reading consisted of a motion for unanimous support to move forward on several bills, including C-6 to go to Senate. The motion passed but we don’t know who was present during that vote. Here is the breakdown for the vote at 2nd reading.
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act
This act authorizes the Canada Border Services Agency to collect, from US border agents, personal information on all persons who are leaving or have left Canada. It also allows this information to be kept for 15 years.
The kind of data collected ties a person to their movement across borders and can therefore paint a very specific and revealing portrait, especially if and when it is combined with other information collected by government agencies (telecommunications data, employment records, health records, government benefits, etc.) For example, this type of data could be added in bulk to CSIS datasets introduced with Bill C-59, creating a massive archive of the travels of Canadians who are not direct subjects of national security investigations. Source Vote at 2nd reading (the vote at 3rd reading was not counted).
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
C-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
Additional review mechanisms to our national security apparatus are welcome, however this one includes several shortcomings.
This act establishes the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and sets out its composition and mandate. Its shortcomings are the following:
+ The Minister responsible for a department that the Committee wishes to review can refuse to provide information or refuse to be reviewed altogether if they determine that it would be “injurious to national security”. That decision is final and cannot be appealed in courts by the Committee.
+ The Committee’s reports are submitted to the Prime Minister, and not Parliament. The Prime Minister also has the power to censor reports.
+ The Government appoints the members to oversee… the Government.
+ Members cannot rely on their parliamentary privilege for protection if they disclose information in the House.
+ The Committee’s recommendations are not binding. Source 1 & source 2
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
C-23, Preclearance Act, 2016 Preclearance areas in US and Canada allow for people and goods to go through customs before boarding transportation to the other country, rather than at destination, for expediency reasons. There are, however, several issues with this legislation including: the granting of sweeping civil or criminal immunity to US preclearance officers; losing the right to withdraw from preclearance without further questioning; and US officers being allowed to proceed with a strip search even if a Canadian officer declines to carry it out.
This act implements the Agreement on Land, Rail, Marine, and Air Transport Preclearance between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America (the Agreement), done in Washington on March 16, 2015, to provide for the preclearance in each country of travelers and goods bound for the other country. The issues with the legislation are the following:
+ The Department of Homeland Security will have undue influence over the security clearance of Canadian workers.
+ The Agreement was reached without parliamentarian input or approval. Government MPs then argued that they could not amend the law, as it would go against the agreement. This is a violation of Canadian sovereignty, and particularly of the Parliament.
+ The granting of sweeping civil or criminal immunity to US preclearance officers.
+ Losing the right to withdraw from preclearance without further questioning.
+ US officers being allowed to proceed with a strip search even if a Canadian officer declines to carry it out. Source 1 & source 2
Yes
Yes
No
No
Didn’t vote
C-59, the National Security Act, 2017 Among many other things, the act introduced important albeit flawed oversight and review mechanisms, legislated huge mass surveillance powers, created dangerous cyber hacking powers, and gave immunity to CSIS agents for actions or omissions that would otherwise be crimes.
The National Security Act, 2017 (formerly Bill C-59) received royal assent in June 2019. The Liberal government has touted it as being a “fix” for the previous government’s dangerous Bill C-51 (the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015). But while it brings some improvements, C-59:
+ Continues to allow CSIS to engage in secret and dangerous threat disruption powers;
+ Maintains the secretive No Fly List, which violates due process and has never been proven to be effective;
+ Preserves overly-broad information sharing rules that infringe on privacy, free expression and the right to dissent;
+ Improves on review of national security activities by creating the overarching National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, but falls far short by allowing the weakest aspects of current national security review bodies to persist in the new agency;
+ Grants sweeping new surveillance powers to both the CSE and CSIS, including the collection of metadata, vaguely defined “publicly available information,” and the incredibly broad category of “unselected information” (which essentially means any information);
+ Introduces new powers to give CSIS agents or designated individuals immunity for committing crimes in the line of their work;
+ Fails to prohibit the use and sharing, in all circumstances, of information linked to mistreatment and torture;
+ Allows the CSE to engage in broad and powerful new “active cyber operations” with little oversight, creating the risk of retaliation as well as attacks from leaked new cyber-weapons. Source + More info on CSIS breaking the law
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
C-98, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act – NOT ADOPTED This act amends the RCMP Act to rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP as the Public Complaints and Review Commission, and amends the CBSA Act to grant to that new Commission powers to conduct a review of the activities of the CBSA and to investigate complaints concerning the conduct of any CBSA officers or employees.
At second reading, a motion to pass and refer the bill to committee for study was agreed to on division. There was no recorded vote so we don’t know which MPs and parties opposed it. At third reading, it was ordered by unanimous consent that Bill C-98 be deemed to have been concurred in at the report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed. Following that, Parliament rose for the summer recess and was then dissolved for the election; therefore, the bill died. Source 1 & source 2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
S-205, An Act to amend the Canada Border Services Agency Act – NOT ADOPTED Introduced in the Senate in December 2015, it aimed to create an Inspector General of the CBSA whose mandate is to receive and consider complaints about the Agency. It passed third reading in the Senate but was never read in the House of Commons.
Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale testified at the Senate Committee studying the bill and said that the government couldn’t support the bill because it was conducting a national security consultation and wanted to see its results before moving forward with a bill creating an independent review mechanism for CBSA. The consultation ended in December 2016. The government finally introduced such a bill – C-98 (see above) – in May 2019. The bill of course died when Parliament rose for the summer recess not long after it was introduced and was then dissolved for the election, leaving CBSA without an independent review mechanism. Source 1 & source 2
Non-legislative actions and positions on national security
Afghan Detainees
In 2004, Canadian Forces transferred Afghan detainees to Afghan security and intelligence authorities. Canadian officials are alleged to have known about substantial risks of torture. Despite this grave violation of human rights, successive governments have refused to hold a full inquiry to clarify what occurred and to ensure accountability for those involved.
Liberals
Refusal to launch a public inquiry into the Afghan detainees, even though the Liberal opposition under the Harper government called for such an inquiry. There are some concerning questions about the involvement of Liberal Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan. Source 1 & source 2
CPC
Refusal to launch a public inquiry into the transfer and torture of Afghan detainees during the Harper government. No change in position during the Trudeau government.
NDP
In favour of launching a public inquiry into the transfer and torture of Afghan detainees.
Greens
In favour of launching a public inquiry into the transfer and torture of Afghan detainees.
Bloc
Supported an inquiry into the transfer and torture of Afghan detainees in the past. Current position unclear.
BDS – Boycott Divestment and Sanctions
The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign calls for a boycott and economic sanctions against Israel as a response to the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories and associated human rights abuses. Various groups in Canada, including Jewish organizations, have endorsed the BDS campaign, but it remains unjustly attacked as “anti-Semitic.” The Conservative Party brought a motion condemning the BDS movement: This motion violates the right to free expression enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and could have a chilling affect on BDS advocates. Criticizing or opposing Canada’s policies and/or a foreign country’s policies should not be condemned: it is the essence of our freedom and democracy.
Liberals
Voted overwhelmingly in favour of the motion. Three Liberal MPs voted against the motion. Source
CPC
Voted in favour of the motion condemning the BDS movement.
NDP
Voted against the motion condemning the BDS movement.
Greens
Absent for the vote. Party leader and MP Elizabeth May has voiced opposition to BDS, but party members adopted a resolution supporting the goals and tactics of the BDS movement.
Bloc
Voted against the motion condemning the BDS movement
Dissent and protest
Liberals
The Liberals didn’t bring any changes to prevent CSIS’s illegal spying on the peaceful protest and organizing activities of Indigenous groups and environmentalists, nor did they improve CSIS’s review and secrecy around it, even with the creation of the new overarching review body through the National Security Act, 2017 (former Bill C-59). Source & More info
The Liberals sent out the RCMP and military on Unist’ot’en and to repress Indigenous peoples exercising their sovereignty on their territory and protecting the land and water.
CPC
Anti-terror strategy during the Harper government put environmentalists in the same category of “domestic extremism” threats as white supremacists, although the first group has never hurt anyone, but the latter has been responsible for a lot of violence. Source
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) illegally spied on the peaceful protest and organizing activities of Indigenous groups and environmentalists who were opposed to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project under Harper’s government. The Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), the body responsible for CSIS oversight, held secret hearings in 2015 to find out what really happened. While SIRC ultimately ruled that there was no wrongdoing on CSIS’ part, BCCLA argues that the report itself clearly shows that illegal spying and information has taken place. Source & More info
NDP
Have spoken out against the surveillance and targeting of activists
Greens
Have spoken out against the surveillance and targeting of activists
Bloc
Unknown
Hassan Diab
Hassan Diab was extradited to France in 2014 on accusations of participating in a terrorist bombing in 1980, despite the very weak and convoluted evidence presented during the extradition case. He then spent more than 3 years in a French prison, mostly in solitary confinement, while judges investigated his case, without ever going to trial. Judges decided not to lay charges as they found he was not even in France at the time of the bombing, and closed the case. He was eventually released and returned to Canada in January 2018, although the French government is appealing the decision. Since his release, more and more evidence of Canadian Department of Justice officials interfering on behalf of the French government have arisen. Legal and human rights experts have called for an inquiry into Dr. Diab’s extradition as well as the reform of the Extradition Act. Source
Liberals
Have refused to launch a public inquiry into the case of Hassan Diab and to reform the extradition law. Commissioned an external review of which the report amounts to a whitewash.
CPC
Conservative justice minister approved Hassan Diab’s extradition to France. They have not supported the call for a public inquiry into Dr. Diab’s case or the reform of the Extradition Act.
NDP
In favour of a public inquiry into the case of Hassan Diab.
Greens
In favour of a public inquiry into the case of Hassan Diab
Bloc
No known position
Mohamed Harkat and Security Certificates
Mr. Harkat, a United Nations Convention refugee who has lived in Canada for 22 years, faces deportation to Algeria under a highly controversial security certificate. Security certificate hearings take place in secret, which means neither he nor his lawyers have ever been allowed to confront and cross-examine his accusers. Mr. Harkat faces deportation to Algeria where he will risk imprisonment, and torture. He has lived in fear for almost 17 years despite never having been charged with a crime. No one should be deported to torture. Get more details
Liberals
Have refused to lift Mohamed Harkat’s security certificate and put a stop to his deportation to Algeria, where he will face imprisonment and risk of torture.
Have refused to repeal security certificate provisions. They also refused to undo the change brought by the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2015 (former Bill C-51), which reduced the amount of information special advocates can access. This change made an unfair system where an accused can’t properly defend themselves even more unfair.
CPC
The Harper Conservative government initiated the deportation order against Mohamed Harkat, even though he poses no threat to national security, and risks being detained and tortured if sent back to Algeria.
They refused to repeal the security certificate regime and introduced a change with the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2015 (former Bill C-51) which reduced the amount of information special advocates can access, thereby making an unfair system where an accused can’t properly defend themselves, even more unfair.
Their position has not changed in opposition.
NDP
Oppose the deportation of Mohamed Harkat to Algeria
In favour of significant reforms to the security certificate system
Greens
Critical of the security certificate system and advocate for stronger powers for special advocates.
Bloc
Unknown
M-103
Motion 103was a non-binding motion stating that the MPs called on the Government of Canada to condemn Islamophobia in Canada. It also called on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to carry out a study on how racism and religious discrimination can be reduced and collect data on hate crimes. The motion passed by a vote of 201–91 on March 23, 2017. Source
Liberals
Supported M-103
CPC
Opposed M-103
NDP
Supported M-103
Greens
Supported M-103
Bloc
Opposed M-103
National security consultation
The Liberal government launched a National Security consultation in the fall of 2016. Despite important biases in the guiding document accompanying the consultation, Canadians responded with overwhelming support for our positions and stronger human rights protection in general.
Liberals
While the Liberals launched the consultation, it was criticized for being biased and focusing primarily on granting new powers to law enforcement.
In the end, the government ignored nearly all of the demands and concerns from Canadians regarding national security and human rights. The one exception was the creation of an overarching national security review body. The new National Security Act, 2017 (formerly Bill C-59) made some modifications in order to protect charter rights and bring in new oversight mechanisms, but it did not go far enough. This is especially true in its provision of new powers to security agencies that raise concerns about impacts on human rights and civil liberties. Source
CPC
Did not say much regarding the consultation itself, but were opposed from the beginning to the consultation’s goal of reforming parts of the previous Conservative government’s Anti-terrorism Act, 2015 (previously Bill C-51). Source 1 & source 2
NDP
Spoke out about the National Security Consultation and Green Paper (the guiding document for the consultation) being biased towards granting law enforcement more powers, as opposed to undoing Bill C-51, ensuring more effective security policies and protecting the rights of people in Canada. Source
They also criticized the government for not following the results of the consultation, which overwhelmingly called for the repeal of Bill C-51 and further action to protect rights. Source
Greens
Supported a review of national security, particularly in order to address problems instigated by the former Bill C-51. However, they criticized the process for being biased and not going far enough, writing, “Therefore, I regret that my response to the Green Paper is to find it slanted and distorting. It should not be the frame within which the previous parliament’s Bill C-51 is reviewed.” Source
Bloc
No public position, although the Bloc Québecois expressed opposition to the previous Bill C-51.
Public Report on the Terrorism Threat to Canada
The 2018 Public Report on the Terrorism Threat to Canada contains unfounded allegations and stigmatization of Muslim and Sikh communities, and minimizes the white supremacist threat, yet again. While officials have reviewed the inclusion of Shia, Sunni and Sikh as qualifiers in the text, there are still concerns that although the langage may have changed, the targeting may not have. Source
Liberals
The report was issued by the Liberals. After considerable pressure, the government agreed to review and eventually changed the language.
CPC
Opposed the change in language.
NDP
Supported the change in language.
Greens
Unknown
Bloc
Unknown
Safe Third Country Agreement
Under the Safe Third Country Agreement, in effect since December 2004, Canada and the US each declare the other country safe for refugees and close the door on most refugee claimants at the US-Canada border. The US is not a safe country for refugees, therefore some will irregularly (not illegally, as this is legal under Canadian and international law) cross the US-Canada border between official land crossing points to be able to ask for asylum. The fact that many people do not feel safe to make their asylum request in the US should not disqualify them for asking for asylum in Canada and have a fair hearing. No one is automatically accepted. Immigrants and refugee claimants are processed in entirely different programs and selected on different criteria. The latter do not take the spots or delay the processing of the first, therefore there is no “queue-jumping”. Source 1, source 2 & source 3
Liberals
In favour of the Safe Third Country Agreement and expanded it through the 2019 omnibus budget bil with provisions that bar individuals from making a refugee claim in Canada if they have made a prior asylum claim in certain countries, particularly the United States.
During the previous session of parliament, three main cases of torture and redress arose:
Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin were all subjects of the Iacobucci Inquiry, which found that Canadian agents were complicit in their torture abroad;
Omar Khadr was illegally imprisoned, and tortured in the Guantanamo Bay prison;
Abousfian Abdelrazik was unjustly imprisoned, and tortured in Sudan, while the Canadian government blocked his attempts to return home until the Federal Court ordered his return in a decision harshly criticizing the actions of CSIS and the government.
There was also debate on the need to strengthen the rules that govern the use of information linked to torture, or the sharing of information that could lead to torture. These are known as ministerial directives on torture, or torture memos.
Liberals
Provided compensation and apologies for torture survivors Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Elmaati, Muayyed Nureddin. Source
Refusal to give redress to torture survivor Abousfian Abdelrazik, and suspended his lawsuit unnecessarily and indefinitely.
Introduced new laws around avoiding complicity in mistreatment. Made public, and mandatory, but do not actually outlaw the requesting, obtaining and/or sharing of information tainted by torture and/or that could lead to torture.
CPC
Were in power during Abousfian Abdelrazik’s ordeal in Sudan, and refused to provide redress during the Harper government. No change in position during the Trudeau government.
Called inquiry into torture of Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Elmaati, Muayyed Nureddin in 2006, but refused to apologize or to provide compensation after the inquiry recommended those actions. Eventually did say that anyone who faced torture deserves compensation. Source
Opposed compensation and apology for Omar Khadr, and continue to consistently vilify him and attack the decision to provide redress. Read this if you agree with those actions
Introduced secret “torture memos” during the Harper government, and have not changed their position since. Those memos allowed security and intelligence agencies to use and share information that could come from torture or lead to torture in “exceptional circumstances,” whereas the sharing and use of such information should be prohibited in all circumstances. Source
NDP
Supported apology and compensation for Omar Khadr
Supported compensation and apologies for torture survivors Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Elmaati, Muayyed Nureddin
Proposed strong amendments to Bill C-59 to prevent complicity in torture
Greens
Supported apology and compensation for Omar Khadr. Source
Have opposed use of torture generally, and proposed amendments to Bill C-59 to legislate against the use of information obtained through torture.
Bloc
Supported apology and compensation to Omar Khadr. Source
Want even more information on parties’ positions? Check out theNational Security Info Cardwe made for the last federal election covering the period from 2001 to 2015.
National Security Platform Promises + Responses to ICLMG
Here are our Top 10 National Security and Human Rights Asks for the 2019 Federal election, which we have sent to all major federal party leaders:
Stop and effectively outlaw all mass surveillance.
Stop the surveillance, profiling and harassment of Indigenous people, Muslim communities and environmental defenders.
End all deportations to torture, including Mohamed Harkat’s, and abolish security certificates.
Launch an independent and public inquiry into the case of Hassan Diab and the Extradition Act.
Fix the many problems created by the National Security Act, 2017 (Bill C-59), and address the ongoing issues it perpetuated.
Abolish the No-Fly List and the Terrorist Entities List.
Ensure justice and full redress for victims of torture.
Bring home Canadian citizens being detained in Syria.
Suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States.
Address Islamophobia, xenophobia, hate, racism, gendered and domestic violence, unemployment, poverty and more to create a better society for all. Get more details
Platform promises
Response to ICLMG’s Top 10 Asks
Liberals
To better coordinate efforts to prosecute terror suspects to the fullest extent of the law, we will move forward with the creation of a Director of Terrorism Prosecutions. This new office will make sure that Canadians who travel abroad to join terrorist organizations, or who participate in terrorist organizations here at home, are brought to justice.
ICLMG’s take: This proposal raises several concerns. It is not clear how a Director of Terrorism Prosecutions will fit within the current framework at the Department of Justice. What powers will this director have? There is a risk of this type of position becoming politicized and being pressured to file a certain number of terrorism charges per year, or to focus on one kind of “terrorism” over another. While the focus appears to be on individuals who traveled abroad, would it be restricted to that portfolio? And it is unclear whether there is evidence that this kind of Director is truly what is missing in order to improve the government’s attempts to prosecute individuals who committed terrorist acts abroad.
We will also move forward with more support for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, so that they can hire and train 100 additional officers for offices and embassies abroad.
ICLMG’s take: Absent from this promise to increase resources at offices and embassies abroad is any mention of the need to increase services for Canadians facing mistreatment or torture abroad. While the government has held much needed discussions on this topic during the last term, a clear position in the Liberal platform would send the message that all Canadians traveling abroad would receive consular support.
We will also move forward with reintroducing legislation to create a review body for the Canada Border Services Agency – the only remaining security agency that does not have its own independent review.
ICLMG’s take: This is a positive promise. However, this was also promised in the 2015 Liberal platform, and legislation was introduced at the last moment, in May 2019, just before the summer recess and elections – essentially guaranteeing that the legislation would not pass. What will be different this time?
We will amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to ensure that CSIS can take actions to disrupt terrorist threats. With Bill C-59, Justin Trudeau has tied the hands of our national security agencies, leaving them unable to effectively respond to threats of terrorism. For example, a CSIS agent now requires a warrant to speak to the family of an individual who is suspected of being involved in terrorist activity. This unnecessarily hamstrings them from investigating suspected threats to the security of Canadians. There are more effective ways to ensure the accountability of CSIS without hampering their mandate to maintain the security of Canadians. That is why we will mandate the Intelligence Commissioner to review these actions.
ICLMG’s take: This promise is misleading and threatens to further undermine Charter rights in Canada. Under changes enacted through Bill C-59, CSIS maintains its threat reduction powers, but the law specifies that if CSIS takes and action that would limit a Charter freedom, they must seek out a warrant; it also lists the categories of actions that a judge may authorize CSIS to take under a warrant. It is false to state that the new rules force CSIS to obtain a warrant in order to speak to an individual’s family, since this would not infringe on a Charter right (CSIS has already publicly stated they have done so, without needing to seek a warrant). Rolling back the changes made by Bill C-59 would do nothing to change this. Instead, it would allow CSIS to obtain a warrant to violate any Charter right, a power that many have described as unconstitutional and which threatens to violate the fundamental freedoms of people across Canada. Further, Bill C-59 already provides for the review of threat reduction activities by the new National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. Granting further review powers to the Intelligence Commissioner – a quasi-judicial position created to provide real-time oversight to surveillance authorizations – makes little sense and would add an unnecessary burden on a position that already faces a substantial workload.
To stop terrorist fundraising, financing, and planning, we will streamline the process for listing terrorist entities by amending the Criminal Code and allow Parliament to add terrorist groups to this list.
ICLMG’s take: We have significant criticisms of the current terrorist entities listing system, but granting the power to parliament to add an entity to the list would do nothing to address these. It is unclear what this promise would accomplish. In a majority government situation, it would be highly unlikely that a majority of parliament would vote for an entity to be listed if the governing party’s Minister of Public Safety had already declined to list them. More likely, it would only serve a symbolic and political tool for opposition parties to attempt to push the government to list an entity. Would parliament also be granted to power to vote to remove an entity fro the list? This would add more politics into an already fraught system.
To make sure that anyone who travels overseas to engage in terrorist activities ends up behind bars, we will create a reverse onus offence for travel to designated terrorism hot spots. Prosecutions of overseas terrorist offences are challenging due to the difficulties of converting intelligence into evidence. This will make it clear that merely travelling to a terrorism hot spot is unacceptable unless the traveller can prove that they had legitimate reasons for going there.
ICLMG’s take: This proposal, similar to laws brought in by the UK and Australia, raises significant concerns. Reverse onus charges exist in Canada, but are rare. Beyond forcing an individual to prove their innocence (rather than the government prove their guilt), this law would also limit an individual’s mobility rights, guaranteed under the Charter. To deem entire regions as a “terrorism hot spot” would have a detrimental impact on individuals traveling to visit family, to conduct research or business, or to engage in humanitarian aid. The decision of what constitutes a “hot spot” and what is a “legitimate reason” for travel is open to wide interpretation and to manipulation for political gains.
We will create a process to ensure that young Canadian children of terrorists detained overseas can return to Canada. However, we will draw a hard distinction between radicalized parents who travel overseas for terrorist purposes and the innocent children who have been tagged along in their parents’ travels.
ICLMG’s take: It is important that Canadian minors held overseas are able to come to Canada, however this promise is limited and raises questions of oversimplification. What is meant by “young children”? Would other minors – for example, teenagers – be excluded? What about adults about whom there is no evidence of criminal activity? Will children be separated from their parents? Who would care for them? This falls far short of a coherent plan to repatriate Canadians held abroad, to provide support and resources for those who need them, and to ensure that those who committed crimes are held accountable for their actions.
New Democrats will deal with threats to our national security, including foreign interference and espionage, terrorism and cybercrime, by working with our international allies, enhancing real-time oversight of security services, and fully respecting the privacy and Charter rights of all Canadians.
ICLMG’s take: This is a positive statement, however it is very limited in specifics, particularly around what reforms they would make to protect privacy and Charter rights. At the same time, the NDP’s response to our Top 10 Asks was positive (right column) and demonstrates a clear openness to working to address the shortcomings in Canada’s current national security framework.
“Thank you so much for writing and for ICLMG’s strong advocacy in defence of human rights. New Democrats share your values and are your natural allies when it comes to protecting and enhancing human rights in Canada and abroad. We are hearing from tens of thousands of Canadians about the issues that matter most, and the need for better protection of human rights is a frequent topic. Unfortunately, time does not permit to address each and every point in your correspondence, and some are so specific that we have not included them in our platform, even though we do agree in principle.”
Greens
Change the law to require the Communications Security Establishment and CSIS to get a warrant before intruding on Canadians’ communications.
Prohibit the routine surveillance of Canadians who protest against the government and the sharing of protesters and NGO staff information with the National Energy Board, and others.
Significantly increase the powers of the Privacy Commissioner, in particular to protect identity and personal data, and to enforce privacy laws.
Prohibit cyber surveillance and bulk collection of data by intelligence and police agencies.
Require that internet service providers may only release data when required to do so by warrant, except in emergency situations.
ICLMG’s take: These commitments are very positive and would serve to improve the protection of Charter rights in Canada.
… 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!
