Harper’s Agenda is Harper’s Agenda

                  By Kenneth Bagnell

    It’s now some 20 years since an honorable acquaintance of mine — who for a length of time was in a position to know — said this of a young businessman named Stephen Harper, then heading a group called The National Citizens Coalition: “If Stephen ever gets into politics and rises to power, absolutely no one will ever be able to change his mind on anything once he’s made it up.  No one.” About a decade ago, I told my now distant friend that by the evidence of our Prime Minister’s stewardship, the observation he ventured to tell me was the most prescient observation I’ve ever seen in my now long life. Scarcely a week goes by without it being justified.

      The current issue is about as major a matter as we’ve seen in the Harper years: the anti-terrorism act, 2015, which Prime Minister Harper has brought forward in a Draconian context, given that it has been provoked by only two ugly incidents, one in Ottawa, one in Quebec, both tragic but neither related to the international issue of ISIS, which is the deep concern of the major European countries, Britain, France, Germany, Italy. None have taken the drastic steps the Harper government has taken. For example: the Prime Minister’s language, as he introduced the anti-terrorism Act of 2015: “A great evil,” he said at a political rally near Toronto, “has been descending over our world.” (A truly democratic leader would announce such a major matter in The House of Commons not a sectarian party gathering with virtually no senior press gallery journalists present.) As for ISIS it is a deep, indeed profound evil. But dealing with it calls for firm well founded reason and technique not whipped up partisan hysteria. “When the action’s hot,” an old politico once said, “keep the rhetoric cool.” True, even when an election is in sight.

      It needs to be said, in the face of all this, that Canadians at least until now, have believed in civil liberties. Every professional poll done in the last ten years has, to one degree or another, revealed this to be so. One example is a window on this fact. In 2010, a poll under the credible sponsorship of the Association for Canadian Studies, made it clear that even terrorism, is not enough to make the majority of us surrender or diminish civil liberties. For example, the poll asked 2,200 citizens if, in light of possible terrorism, they were prepared to give up civil liberties to curb it. Sixty percent said they were not. (It’s no surprise that those under twenty were even more unwilling to set aside or even diminish their personal civil rights.) Other recent polls, including an online survey, show a majority against the Harper proposal.

      For one thing, while Mr. Harper has never been and probably never will be an advocate for the civil liberties most Canadians respect — no telephone taps without  legal approval from a senior judge, no temporary detentions without judicial approval. Now, under the Harper vision, those policies are to be slyly watered down, in favor of the police who will be often able, on their own suspicion, to detain anyone they suspect of being a terrorist or inclined on police evidence to be thinking of becoming a terrorist. They can be held longer than in the past and in some cases without trial, be required to surrender their passport for varying periods of time. (All of this, is bound to be critiqued by civil rights advocates and, we trust, opposition MPs.) 

     As for CSIS, (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) it means what a formerly senior official, Ray Boisvert calls “a seismic shift” in role and responsibility. Since it was created in 1984 it hasn’t had (so far as the public knows) any investigatory aspect to its operations. Hence if the bill does happen to pass, CSIS will be largely if not entirely in new terrain, which calls for an enhanced policing mentality, which would require new high level staff with  senior policing experience.  In addition, CSIS, — in a strategy illustrating  Boisvert’s vision of “seismic shift,”– are scores of details that appear at first to be modest but when taken collectively are disconcerting. Just two instances will suffice: one is the probability of a law allowing the government to jail anyone the new CSIS simply feels is promoting terrorism. Obviously “promoting terrorism” is a wide descriptive which can be easily perceived by the public as threatening, thereby making vigorous civil rights advocates, persistent opposition critics, or even lowly journalists, vulnerable and thereby hesitant. Secondly, there is, in the bill’s provisions, the relaxing of existing policy that discourages careless quixotic arrest. Some policies, protecting against casual detention, will be relaxed so that a citizen who is outspoken and provocative can under the proposed bill, readily be detained without proof for up to seven days. There’s more but that gives a sense of the Harper bill’s vision.

         It’s now clear that the so-called Anti-Terror Bill is in for a very critical review. Newspapers across the country, commentators on most networks, not to mention the House of Commons, have not just grave concerns but growing ones. If you’re among those who are cautious and critical before taking a stand, here’s a sober expert and careful opinion of Canada’s Privacy Commissioner.  He’s Daniel Therrien, a rather cautious man who, was thereby prudent the day the bill was made public because he wanted to “fully analyze the bill.” (He had practiced correctional law and immigration law in the federal government, before his appointment as Privacy Commissioner.)  Naturally and helpfully, his opinion reflects, as we can expect, sober thought and balanced analysis. Here it is:

       “At this early stage I can say I am concerned with the breadth of the new authorities to be conferred by the new Security of Canada Information Sharing Act. This Act would seemingly allow departments and agencies to share the personal information of all individuals, including ordinary Canadians who may not be suspected of terrorist activities, for the purpose of detecting and identifying new security threats. It is not clear that this would be a proportional measure that respects the privacy rights of Canadians. In the public discussion on Bill C—51, it will be important to be clear about whose information would be shared with national security agencies, for which specific purpose and under what conditions, including any applicable safeguards.”  In another statement he wisely made reference to where — given his access and point of view — the citizens of the country stand on the matter. “Canadians,” he wrote, “deeply value privacy but fear they are losing the control they have over their personal information. It’s imperative we find ways to enhance that sense of control so that people feel their privacy rights are being respected.” That last sentence, to me, is the cornerstone of the issue.   

           ********************************

All my past blogs are archived on my website: your comments are welcome there: www.kennethbagnell.com.