168 MPs (virtually all Liberal) voted on Monday to approve a bill in principle which would largely weaken Canada’s anti-terror capabilities.
Regardless of which side of the political aisle you stand on the Federal government’s recent decision to force through this poorly written terror legislation should be viewed as carelessly dangerous.
What Does The Bill Do?
The bill “would limit — but not eliminate — powers that allow the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to disrupt terror plots actively, while also requiring CSIS to seek a warrant for any threat reduction measure that would limit a right or freedom protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
It also opens the door to new paths for security services in data-crunching and cyberwarfare, and bolsters accountability and review through the creation of a super-watchdog.
The previous Conservative government gave CSIS explicit authority to derail terrorist threats, expanding on the service’s traditional intelligence-collection mandate.
The Liberal legislation requires CSIS to seek a warrant for any threat reduction measure that would limit a right or freedom protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The bill amends other elements of the Conservative legislation, tightening provisions on information-sharing among federal agencies, redefining terrorist propaganda and narrowing a general prohibition against promoting terrorism offences to the crime of counselling someone to commit a terrorist offence.
In an effort to stop Canada’s anti-terror laws from being dismantled, the Conservatives offered multiple amendments to the legislation.
The Trudeau government rejected all of those amendments.
Additionally, the Federal government is attempting to make it more challenging to charge people for spreading terrorist propaganda.
What Is The Problem?
While this hotbed of potential danger grows, Canada’s security services have shown repeatedly that they are currently unable to act.
Heck, even the New York Times seems to be better at catching terrorists than our security services who have their hands tied behind their backs.
Given this much danger, can we really risk further actions like this?