Individual’s Submission

to the House of Commons Committee on Public Safety and National Security on

Bill C-51.

 

 

by:    Jeremy Arney        Interim leader of the Canadian Action Party

 

Preamble:

 

 

Canada has a security force known as the RCMP which along with help from local police departments have protected Canada from perceived threat of terrorists.

 

In October 2014 a lone man shot and killed an unarmed soldier, and instead of killing more of those around him made his way to Parliament Hill and entered the Halls of The House of Commons at a time when almost all MPs were conveniently sequestered safely away in their caucus rooms.  After a barrage of shots we were informed that the gunman was equally conveniently dead from multiple bullets strikes.  Was that an act of terrorism or the act of a suicidal drug maniac tired of asking for help and getting none?

We were told immediately this was a terrorist attack, and just like in the events in New York on 9-11, no one questioned why so little carnage for a terrorist act.  In New York 3,000 died not the potential 50,000; in Ottawa two died instead of ?

 

Bill C-44 was already in the works and is passing with indecent haste, even though nothing in it would have prevented the October ‘attack’ on the Hill because the thrust of Bill C-44 was to give CSIS the right to contravene any laws in any other country with basically the signature of  a JP on an e-warrant.

 

Submission:

 

Now we have Bill C-51 which enhances that overseas right for CSIS, but also expands their right to investigate and detain within Canada on that same JP e-warrant anyone who could be ‘thought’ to be a threat to National Security heedless of the rights and freedoms to which Canadians are entitled through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The right to dissent, to protest, to gather peacefully, to protect their environment and habitat are all clearly threatened by this Bill C-51.   Also threatened is the right to protection against property seizure such as computer, phone or writings on mere suspicion.

 

The Minister of Public Safety and the Attorney General have both claimed that there is ample oversight.  Judicial before and SIRC review afterwards – although they both claim that SIRC, an understaffed and underfunded body, is oversight not review.

 

The Judicial oversight is in reality a joke. The definition of Court and Judge is that used in the criminal Code: 320(8).  The reality is that the Judges of the provincial  Supreme Courts (not federal courts) listed are way too busy to deal with warrant applications if required immediately, and so lower court judges will be found who do have the time and that could include a JP who has the authority to issue an e-warrant.

 

Under definitions in the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act there is this little paragraph often quoted by the Minister of Safety:

 

For greater certainty, it does not include lawful

advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.

 

I have emboldened  the lawful because in the case of the protest on Burnaby Mountain BC, an injunction was granted to Kinder Morgan against the protestors, when they, KM, were carrying out work that was not yet approved nor was the project pipe line.  Therefore this concept of lawful is highly suspect because the court in this case was mistaken and granted an injunction in error of law.

 

And by this definition:

“activity that undermines the security of Canada”

means any activity, including any of the

following activities, if it undermines the sovereignty,

security or territorial integrity of Canada

or the lives or the security of the people of

Canada:

 

Then Kinder Morgan was performing an act that falls under a), b), c) sabotage of a mountain, f), and h) of this definition.   OOOPs and the court supported this and we are supposed to rely on those courts as oversight on warrants for overseas laws being broken by CSIS?

 

This paragraph is not mentioned anywhere else in the proposed acts  or amendments so I am assuming it only applies to that act in which it is stated, ie information sharing.

 

This particular Act in Bill C-51 appears to make sense provided the guidelines are there for the protection of Canadians’ liberty and privacy rather than to curtail them. As it is those protections are not there and private information could be bandied about like lies in today’s  HOC..  I would however prefer to see these sections removed because of serious potential for misuse either intentional or in error.  You are playing here with peoples’ lives, and you should care about that as they are your employers.

 

6. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act

prevents a head, or their delegate, who receives

information under subsection 5(1) from, in

accordance with the law, using that information,

or further disclosing it to any person, for any

purpose.

 

8. Nothing in this Act limits or affects any

authority to disclose information under another

Act of Parliament or a provincial Act, at

common law or under the royal prerogative.

 

PROTECTION FROM CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

9. No civil proceedings lie against any

person for their disclosure in good faith of

information under this Act.

 

In other words a Canadian can lie as much as their MP may do in the House and nothing can be done to prevent them or to obtain compensation from them for the damage caused by their actions.   Do you all support that? I do not.

 

With respect to the Main thrust of this Bill – Part 3  the amendments to the Criminal Code.

 

 I have grave misgivings about much of it from the assumption that a recognizance or peace bond will be of any use in stopping a terrorist - that is imply naïve; to the constant changing of federal to provincial jurisdiction in the way of Attorney Generals, courts, and presumably police and where is the monetary compensation for this coming from? How are the RCMP involved when provinces have their own police departments acting in concert with their courts? Is this simply an example of this monetary part not being thought through or are the provinces now expected to pick up the tab for this administration’s terrible foreign policy spawning a hatred of Canada in other countries?

 

(7) No proceeding under this section shall be

instituted without the Attorney General’s consent.

(9) No proceeding under this section shall be

instituted without the Attorney General’s consent.

Which Attorney General is this as the courts involved are in fact provincial courts as defined in section 320(8) of the criminal code, and the federal Minister of Justice has no standing there so do we ASSUME that this means provincial Attorney Generals? If so why is this not stated clearly?

 

24. (1) Subsection 810.01(1) of the Act is

replaced by the following:

810.01 (1) A person who fears on reasonable

grounds that another person will commit an

offence under section 423.1 or a criminal

organization offence may, with the Attorney

General’s consent, lay an information before a

provincial court judge.

 

25. (1) The Act is amended by adding the

following after section 810.01:

810.011 (1) A person who fears on reasonable

grounds that another person may commit a

terrorism offence may, with the Attorney

General’s consent, lay an information before a

provincial court judge.

 

These sections 24(1) and 25(1) are an incitement to the days of Joseph McCarthy’s communist hunt era in the USA  and pre ww2 Germany and have no place in Canada at any time never mind now.  There are those in Canada whose political beliefs will encourage them to turn in political opponents in their neighborhood whether or not on serious grounds and thereby cause immense harm to the falsely accused. Once again which Attorney General is being referred to here.

 

We see this behavour of false accusations every day in our House of Commons, so why would any of you expect other Canadians to act any differently than the example you set at our expense, particularly when given the misguided excuse of terrorism and immunity from retribution just as you now are in the House?

 

 

 

I could go on and on but you are all busy people and I will simply ask one more question about this obviously ill-conceived omnibus bill:

 

Income Tax Act

 

(2) The definition “designated taxpayer

information” in subsection 241(10) of the

Act is repealed.

 

What on earth has this got to do with terrorism in any way shape or form?  It is to do with charitable organisations and therefore highly suspect under this administration, which hates charities, and what is it doing hidden in an omnibus terrorism bill when we are expecting a budget sometime this year? Is this not itself an act of terrorism, as defined in this act, against the charities of this country?

 

Conclusion:

 

This clearly is a bill which is designed to undermine Canadians Rights and Freedoms, to give unnecessary powers to a spy agency both at home and overseas;  to undermine the RCMP and local police forces, confuse the issue of “lawful” assembly or peaceful protest; and yet does nothing to curb the “violence” instigators in such events as Montebello in 2007 or the June 2010 Toronto’s G20 followed by violent police aggression against peaceful protestors after the instigators have conveniently left the scene.

 

I am not hopeful that even one amendment will be made to this atrocious anti Canadian people bill simply because history from 2011 shows they will not be accepted, never mind my desire to see it withdrawn completely as unnecessary and extremely provocative.

 

As Canadians we need more protection from Bills such as this than we do against potential terrorists.

 

 

Jeremy Arney

Interim leader of the Canadian Action Party

 

    Some questions for the Minister of unsafety: re Bill C-51    

 

  From Jeremy Arney - Leader of the Canadian Action Party 

 

Under definitions there is this little para often quoted by the Min of Safety:

 

For greater certainty, it does not include lawful

advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.

 

I  have underlined the lawful because in the case of the protest on Burnaby Mountain BC an injunction was granted to Kinder Morgan against the protestors, when they, KM, were  carrying out work that was not  yet approved.  Therefore this concept of lawful is highly suspect because the court in this case was mistaken or purchased, who knows and granted an injunction in error.

 

And by this definition:

“activity that undermines the security of Canada”

means any activity, including any of the

following activities, if it undermines the sovereignty,

security or territorial integrity of Canada

or the lives or the security of the people of

Canada:

Then Kinder Morgan was performing an act that falls under a), b), c) sabotage of a mountain, f), and h) of this definition.   OOOPs and the court supported this!

 

 

PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES

 

 

PROTECTION FROM CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

 

 

 

8. Nothing in this Act limits or affects any

authority to disclose information under another

Act of Parliament or a provincial Act, at

common law or under the royal prerogative.

 

Does this include the current administration?   Will they start finally to disclose what they are doing supposedly for Canadians but actually for the betterment of corporations?

 

 

9. No civil proceedings lie against any

person for their disclosure in good faith of

information under this Act.

 

There is no definition of good faith here and as we saw on the case of Mr. Brad Butt his statements of what he “saw” happening to Identification cards were accepted in good faith (not once but twice) by the House of Commons and their good faith was totally misplaced.  Point here is that if  MP can stand and lie like that what is to stop Joe Blow from doing the same and being granted the same immunity as that which was given to Butt?  It is the same as declaring open season on anyone whom one may dislike or who has a different religion, particularly Muslim.

 

POWERS OF GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL

10. (1) The Governor in Council may, on the

recommendation of the Minister of Public

Safety and Emergency Preparedness, make

regulations for carrying out the purposes and

provisions of this Act, including regulations

 

Yet again we are asked to accept regulations that have almost certainly not been created and could in fact completely undermine this law.  The presumption is that rule by regulation will supersede rule by law as has been the practice of this administration since passing of the Safe Products for consumer act.

 

 

Income Tax Act

 

(2) The definition “designated taxpayer

information” in subsection 241(10) of the

Act is repealed.

 

What on earth has this got to do with terrorism in any way shape or form?  It is a subject that could well have a committee hearing all by itself  but here it is a throw away in a terrorist ACT?   What is the purpose…no lets not go there, we know it is subversive and will probably have some significance if and when we get a budget this year.

 

PART 2

SECURE AIR TRAVEL ACT

 

Here we go again…what are those regulations?

 

 

COLLECTION AND DISCLOSURE OF

INFORMATION

10. The following persons or entities may

assist the Minister in the administration and

enforcement of this Act, including by collecting

information from, and disclosing information to,

the Minister and each other:

 

(f) any other person or entity prescribed by

regulation.

 

Just who might those people be according to the regulations?

 

11. Subject to section 12, the Minister may

disclose information obtained in the exercise or

performance of the Minister’s powers, duties or

functions under this Act for the purposes of

transportation security or the prevention of the

travel referred to in paragraph 8(1)(b).

 

Do we have assurances that the PM will agree to that?

 

ADMINISTRATIVE RECOURSE

 

This entire section is assuming that a person who is put on the list either with cause or in error can obtain a hearing with the Minister….Good luck   eventually a judge can hear on this matter when it has been determined that a minister is DEEMED to have made a decision,  and the criteria by which the judge can hold a hearing is farcical.

 

 

REGULATIONS

32. The Governor in Council may make

regulations for the purpose of the administration

and enforcement of this Act, including regulations

(a) respecting the verification of air passenger

identity;

 

Here we go again with these regulations…Are we expected to believe they have been made or are they still vague and anti people.

 

 

ART 3

CRIMINAL CODE

 

83.222

(8) The following definitions apply in this

section.

“court” has the same meaning as in subsection

320(8).

“judge” has the same meaning as in subsection

 

•  

• 320(8)

• Of the criminal Code:

• In this section,

“court”

« tribunal »

“court” means

• (a) in the Province of Quebec, the Court of Quebec,

• (a.1) in the Province of Ontario, the Superior Court of Justice,

• (b) in the Provinces of New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Court of Queen’s Bench,

• (c) in the Provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, the Supreme Court, Trial Division,

• (c.1) [Repealed, 1992, c. 51, s. 36]

• (d) in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and British Columbia, in Yukon and in the Northwest Territories, the Supreme Court, and

• (e) in Nunavut, the Nunavut Court of Justice;

•  

• “judge”

« juge »

“judge” means a judge of a court.

 

There is no differentiation between  federal court, provincial court or that of a JP, or in the case of BC an ICBC traffic court.  So really the definition of a judge (or a court) is soo loose as to be almost meaningless and could even include a peace officer with a fax machine if it came down to that because they too can get warrants from a JP.

 

(2) Subsection 83.3(4) of the Act is

replaced by the following:

(4) Despite subsections (2) and (3), a peace

officer may arrest a person without a warrant

and cause the person to be detained in custody,

in order to bring them before a provincial court

judge in accordance with subsection (6), if

(a) either

(i) the grounds for laying an information

referred to in paragraphs (2)(a) and (b)

exist but, by reason of exigent circumstances,

it would be impracticable to lay an

information under subsection (2), or

(ii) an information has been laid under

subsection (2) and a summons has been

issued; and

 

(b) the peace officer suspects on reasonable

grounds that the detention of the person in

custody is likely to prevent a terrorist activity.

 

This is replacing:

From the criminal code 83.3(4)

• (4) Despite subsections (2) and (3), a peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant and cause the person to be detained in custody, in order to bring them before a provincial court judge in accordance with subsection (6), if

  • (a) either

    • (i) the grounds for laying an information referred to in paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) exist but, by reason of exigent circumstances, it would be impracticable to lay an information under subsection (2), or

    • (ii) an information has been laid under subsection (2) and a summons has been issued; and

  • (b) the peace officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the detention of the person in custody is necessary in order to prevent a terrorist activity.

Being just a simple man the subtle difference here escapes me.  If it is likely to prevent a terrorist activity, then the action by a peace officer would be to prevent such a thing.  What is the difference, except to allow more freedom in the ability to arrest by the peace officer because his/her perception of the occasion is there in either case?

 

We already know that a peace officer :

Definition of peace officer from Criminal Code:

•  

 “peace officer”

« agent de la paix »

“peace officer” includes

·         (a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,

·         (b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

·         (c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

·         (c.1) a designated officer as defined in section 2 of the Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement Operations Act, when

• (i) participating in an integrated cross-border operation, as defined in section 2 of that Act, or

• (ii) engaging in an activity incidental to such an operation, including travel for the purpose of participating in the operation and appearances in court arising from the operation,

·         (d) an officer within the meaning of the Customs Act, the Excise Act or the Excise Act, 2001, or a person having the powers of such an officer, when performing any duty in the administration of any of those Acts,

·         (d.1) an officer authorized under subsection 138(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,

·         (e) a person designated as a fishery guardian under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act and a person designated as a fishery officer under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act,

·         (f) the pilot in command of an aircraft

• (i) registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act, or

• (ii) leased without crew and operated by a person who is qualified under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act to be registered as owner of an aircraft registered in Canada under those regulations,

while the aircraft is in flight, and

·         (g) officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces who are

• (i) appointed for the purposes of section 156 of the National Defence Act, or

• (ii) employed on duties that the Governor in Council, in regulations made under the National Defence Act for the purposes of this paragraph, has prescribed to be of such a kind as to necessitate that the officers and non-commissioned members performing them have the powers of peace officers;

 

 

 

 

can act on the receipt of a faxed warrant from a JP so why do we need expensive SCIS agents to do the same work?   (In Langford BC a peace officer also includes the dog catcher and by-law enforcement officers.)

 

 

Sections 3 and 4 are all about judges and recognizance, which to a real terrorist is the same as saying ‘you are free to do what you had planned to do, just make sure we don’t get you before you do it’…what absolute nonsense and BS.  If this act was to be taken seriously do you think this should happen?   Yes in the past the law in Canada has assumed innocence until guilt is proved, it seems that here the slant is the other way,

 

Section 21 suggests that the law enforcement agencies have so lost control that anyone testifying in open court could be in danger and needs protection from those who stand to gain from terrorism…we have therefore lost the rule of law in Canada.

 

24. (1) Subsection 810.01(1) of the Act is

replaced by the following:

810.01 (1) A person who fears on reasonable

grounds that another person will commit an

offence under section 423.1 or a criminal

organization offence may, with the Attorney

General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge..

 

My My, now we are down to anyone laying charges and yet we need the expensive  and underfunded CSIS empowered to do this?  I suppose again it is because you and I need to get either Attorney General’s (fed or prov) approval, and good luck with getting to meet with them.

 

 

 

(2) Subsection 810.011(6) of the Act is

amended by striking out “or” at the end of

paragraph (c) and by adding the following

after paragraph (d):

 

Why was this not in the original act instead of an add in?

 

Section 34 of this act: I am having trouble in finding any of the sections of the criminal code to be amended past this point so I have trouble in  understanding the validity of this part, or is it in fact another extraneous act altogether?..

 

So that’s as far as I can go because the criminal code quoted in this act doesn’t seem to apply to the criminal code in affect today…at least according to the website of the Justice Department of Canada.   Maybe they do not have enough workers to keep it current due to cut back !

 

Good luck

 

Jeremy Arney

26th February 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRIMINAL CODE

 

83.222

(8) The following definitions apply in this

section.

“court” has the same meaning as in subsection

320(8).

“judge” has the same meaning as in subsection

 

•  

• 320(8)

• Of the criminal Code:

• In this section,

“court”

 

 

Jeremy Arney