The threat of terrorism to Canada should not be minimized, but neither should it be exaggerated. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government are doing the latter. In going too far, they threaten to erode the democracy they claim to protect.
In January, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act. The bill would broaden police powers and allow police to detain terrorism suspects. It would give new powers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. These new powers come without corresponding provisions that would keep a proper check on those powers.
Harper and his cabinet have played on people’s fears as they promote the new legislation, and in doing so, have raised more fears than they have quelled. Thousands of people, including a huge crowd in Victoria, rallied across Canada on Saturday to protest the proposed legislation’s sweeping powers and threats to civil liberties.
The risks from terrorism are real, and we see and hear of horrifying scenes abroad, but the risks are relatively small in Canada. Despite highly publicized incidents, the vast majority of Canadians are not in danger from acts of terrorism from without or within. But all Canadians are in danger of having freedoms curtailed and their privacy invaded by legislation that is unnecessary.
We do not advocate a blasé attitude toward terrorism; we do not suggest the government should do nothing about it. But doing too much can be as damaging as doing too little, if it means giving police and security agencies sweeping, unchecked powers.
It is human nature to abuse power; that’s why good laws come with safeguards that take into account human tendencies and weaknesses. The evolution of modern democracy and the western system of justice has always involved reining in authority so that it does not stampede out of control.
Bill C-51 contains too much vagueness, giving too much latitude to this and future governments to define threats to suit political or ideological purposes. Already, the Harper government has shown an amazing philosophical flexibility, tossing out the long-gun registry and the long-form census because of alleged invasion of privacy, yet this legislation tramples all over privacy.
Daniel Therrien, Canada’s privacy commissioner, has suggested amendments to the bill, noting that in its current form, it would fail to provide legislation that protects both Canadians’ safety and their privacy.
“Clearly, protecting the security of Canadians is important,” Therrien wrote to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security of the House of Commons, “and we recognize that greater information-sharing may sometimes lead to the identification and suppression of security threats. However, the scale of information-sharing being proposed is unprecedented, the scope of the new powers conferred by the act is excessive, particularly as these powers affect ordinary Canadians, and the safeguards protecting against unreasonable loss of privacy are seriously deficient.
“While the potential to know virtually everything about everyone may well identify some new threats, the loss of privacy is clearly excessive. All Canadians would be caught in this web … In a country governed by the rule of law, it should not be left for national security agencies to determine the limits of their powers.”
Harper is long on passing bills but short on paying bills. The problem for police and security agencies in combating terrorism is not lack of laws, but a shortage of resources. Most activities related to terrorism are already illegal. We don’t need new laws; we need the resources to enforce existing ones.
Thousands of Canadians gathered in large crowds Sunday, in Victoria and elsewhere, without fear of disruption by terrorists. However, they do fear future disruptions from a government that appears prepared to sacrifice democracy to save democracy.
