Anti-terrorism bill C-51 'dangerous' legislation, 100 academics say

More than 100 academics are urging the government to drastically alter C-51, the Conservatives' proposed anti-terrorism legislation, arguing it is far too broad and doesn't come with safeguards to protect Canadians' privacy rights.

The group, made up mainly of law professors from across Canada, have signed an open letter arguing the proposedbill has major problems that threaten Canadians' privacy and freedom of speech.

• Anti-terrorism bill allows withholding of key information on security certificates
• Intelligence oversight review still not done 4 years after promise
• Anti-terrorism powers: What's in the legislation?

The legal experts also take aim at the government for cutting off debate on the legislation.

"In light of the sweeping scope and great importance of this bill, we believe that circumventing the ability of MPs to dissect the bill, and their responsibility to convey their concerns to Canadians at large ... is a troubling undermining of our parliamentary democracy's capacity to hold majority governments accountable.

"It is sadly ironic that democratic debate is being curtailed on a bill that vastly expands the scope of covert state activity when that activity will be subject to poor or even non-existent democratic oversight or review."

The letter lays out five primaryconcerns and a number of secondary concerns, calling the bill "a dangerous piece of legislation."

Risks making Canada less safe

The question is whether C-51 will make Canadians safer or whether it might inhibit the work done by intelligence and law enforcement officials, saidUniversity of Ottawa Professor CraigForcese.

In an interview with CBC Radio's The House, to air Saturday at 9 a.m., Forcesesays the billchills speech, deters participation in counter-violent extremism programs and sets upa "brave new world in terms of whatthe Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) can do.

• CSIS watchdog agency starved of staff, resources
• Bill C-51 bars CSIS from committing 'bodily harm,' sexual violation
• Anti-terrorism bill's powers could ensnare protesters, MP fears

"All this conducted in an environment where indisputably our review system is in tatters," said Forcese, who is one of twolaw professors on whose work the open letter is based.

"To put all of this together and put it all in play at presentmeans that we risk another series of mistakes and intelligence failures and scandals," he said.

"I think on balance it risks making us more unsafe."

Self-defeating

The government says the powers in C-51 are necessary to keep Canadians safe, and points to the requirement for judges to sign off in advance of CSISbreaking Canadian law, arguing that is adequate oversight for the new powers.

C-51 would give government departments and agencies vast information-sharing abilities with no enhanced protections for privacy.

Combined with the "exceptionally broad way" in which "activities that undermine the security of Canada" are defined, the academics fear the bill is a "deep and broad intrusion into privacy."

The bill also broadly criminalizesadvocating or encouraging terrorism offences in general, which could be counter-productive, the letter says.

"De-radicalization outreach programs could be negatively affected" because those programs depend on frank discussions between the RCMP, communities and parents of those at risk of radicalization, the academics wrote.

"The RCMP may cease to be invited in at all, or, if they are, engagement will be fettered by restraint that defeats the underlying methods of the program."

Further, the professors say they're apprehensive about givingpolice powers to CSIS and giving judges the responsibility for approving CSIS's disruption activities.

"What C-51 now does is turn judges into agents of the executive branch (here, CSIS) to pre-authorize violations of Canadian law.... This completely subverts the normal role of judges."

NDP protest committee vote

Meanwhile, the New Democrats are calling on House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer to rule on whether the Conservatives overstepped their bounds in forcing a vote on the bill at the public safety committee Thursdaynight.

The move put an abrupt end to debate over an NDP proposal that would see the committee hold up to 25 meetings before the March 31 deadline set by the government for moving the bill to the next stage.

After initially proposing the committee devote just three days to expert testimony, the Conservatives put forward a compromise on Thursday to hold up to eight hearings, which was ultimately adopted by the committee over the objections of the opposition.

In his appeal to the speaker, NDP House leader Peter Julian contended that, by overruling the chair Conservative MP Daryl Kramp after he ruled a motion to call the vote inadmissible, the government exceeded the broad parameters for autonomy generally enjoyed by House committees as masters of their own destiny.