Those are just a few of the things that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party committed to in the lead-up to the 2015 election, offering up a fairly stark contrast to the decade of reign by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. And on Oct. 19, 2015, almost seven million Canadians voted for that Liberal platform. In his victory speech, Trudeau spoke of “real change” and “sunny ways” and “positive politics.”

Fast forward almost 500 days.

Many major promises have been broken, and sentiments seemingly abandoned. Frankly, it’s getting rather difficult to keep up with the amount of backtracking and shapeshifting happening in Ottawa.

Most recently, Trudeau formally abandoned his repeated commitment that “2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system” by issuing a mandate letter to the new minister of democratic reform that included the statement that “changing the electoral system will not be in your mandate."

What follows is a breakdown of some of the other stunning reversals made by Trudeau and the Liberals in recent months, with a specific focus on commitments made to climate change, environment and Indigenous rights.

Modernizing Environment Assessment Processes Prior to Approving New Pipelines

In 2012, Harper and the Conservatives overhauled the way that major resource projects are assessed in Canada, gutting the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Fisheries Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Among many other things, those changes resulted in the National Energy Board (NEB) being assigned exclusive responsibility to conduct federal environmental assessments for major pipeline projects.

It’s something that many voiced serious concern about: the NEB has been often accused of being a “captured regulator,” with a high concentration of staff members having worked in the oil and gas industry due to its head office being located in Calgary and legislation from the early 1990s requiring all permanent members to live in the area.

The Liberals pledged in its platform to “make environmental assessments credible again” and “ensure that decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence, and serve the public’s interest.”

And in August 2015, during a campaign stop in Esquimalt, Trudeau specifically stated the Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain project wouldn’t proceed under existing processes.

The list of criticisms of the NEB review of the Kinder Morgan project is long: there was an absence of oral cross-examination of evidence, many people were arbitrarily denied intervenor status and potential climate impacts of the project weren’t considered.

Dozens of municipalities and Indigenous communities voiced serious opposition to the project.

But the Liberals didn’t call the review off. Instead, it created an ad-hoc environmental review panel, which was explicitly intended “to ‘complement’ rather than review or redo the NEB process.” Despite allegations of serious conflict of interest in its members, the panel produced a report posing six major questions about the proposed project that should be answered before making a verdict.

But none of those questions were answered.

As a result, the cabinet decision made on Dec. 29 to approve Trans Mountain and Enbridge’s Line 3 was ultimately based on an NEB recommendation made under Harper-era processes (the B.C. government also oddly accepted the flawed environmental assessment as its own, despite having the opportunity to order its own).

The path forward was clear: modernize the NEB, and repair the trio of acts that were gutted by Harper in 2012 prior to proceeding with new projects that will have major impacts on climate and local environment. Maybe that would have been just too “positive.”

Phasing Out Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Between 2013 and 2015, oil and gas producers in Canada received an annual average of $3.31 billion in subsidies, with $1 billion via the Canadian Development Expense and $1.2 billion from Alberta's Crown Royalty Reductions. This arguably makes the impacts of climate policies less effective.

That’s possibly why the Liberals pledged: “We will fulfill our G20 commitment and phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the medium-term.”

No further details were given about what “medium-term” means in the context of a four-year mandate.

In November 2015, B.C. Premier Christy Clark announced that the Liberals had assured they would be maintaining Harper’s tax breaks of $50-million over five years to the province’s struggling liquified natural gas (LNG) sector. In March 2016, Carr said it’s “not the moment” to phase out subsidies.

An August 2016 report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development noted: “So far, the government has been quiet about the details of its plan. As part of its G20 commitment, Canada has said that it will eliminate “inefficient” subsidies. But that hasn’t been clarified—nobody knows which subsidies will or won’t be considered inefficient.”

That’s still the case.

Grant Indigenous Nations “Veto” Power Over Resource Projects

One of the most compelling elements of Trudeau’s pre-election rhetoric was his repeated emphasis on establishing a “nation-to-nation” relationship with Indigenous peoples, and working towards the lofty goal of “reconciliation.”

Specifically, the Liberals pledged to "enact the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, starting with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."

It was also a significant pledge, given that Article 32 of the UN Declaration (which is commonly referred to as UNDRIP) stated “Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources” and require states to obtain “free, prior and informed consent” from Indigenous peoples “prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories.”

Many people interpret that article as acknowledging the “veto” power of Indigenous nations, meaning they could refuse projects including pipelines, oil and gas extraction and mineral mining. And when asked on the campaign trail if “no means no” in reference to veto power, Trudeau said “absolutely.”

After winning the election, Trudeau emphasized in mandate letters to ministers that “no relationship is more important to me and to Canada than the one with Indigenous Peoples.” In May 2016, Canada formally removed its objector status to UNDRIP, with Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett stating: “We intend nothing less than to adopt and implement the declaration in accordance with the Canadian Constitution.”

That was about as clear as you could get. Or so you would think.

Less than two months later, Bennett said the Liberals “do not believe this is an outright veto.” Then Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould stated that implementing UNDRIP was “unworkable.” Trudeau rounded out the betrayals by stating in December 2016 that “no, they don’t have a veto” in reference to three Indigenous nations who vehemently oppose the Kinder Morgan project.

The Liberals have also been criticized for approving the Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal, Site C dam and the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline without the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples. In a recent video for CBC News, Mi'kmaq lawyer and professor Pam Palmater told Trudeau that "you betrayed us."

It would be difficult to draw much of a different conclusion.

Justin Trudeau participates in a town hall meeting in New Brunswick. Image: Prime Minister's Photo Gallery

Repeal ‘Problematic Elements’ of Surveillance Bill C-51

Remember Bill C-51? That controversial “anti-terrorism” legislation that resulted in massive protests, petitions and condemnation from academics?

Well, it’s still very much law.

That includes the powers to arrest people without a warrant if someone "may" commit a terrorist attack, increases data sharing among government departments, grants significant powers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and expands the definition of “security” to include anything that undermines “the economic or financial stability of Canada.”

The latter point led especially to fears among environmental activists and Indigenous defenders, given the potential arbitrary use of state power to suppress protesting.

The Liberals unanimously voted for C-51. During the election, they promised to “repeal the problematic elements of Bill C-51, and introduce new legislation that better balances our collective security with our rights and freedoms.” The new legislation would “guarantee that all Canadian Security Intelligence Service warrants respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms” and “ensure that Canadians are not limited from lawful protests and advocacy.”

Maybe you can guess what happened next.

Trudeau and the Liberals haven’t kept their promise.

The proposed bill to establish an all-party National Security and Intelligence Committee is still only in the report stage. CSIS is under serious fire for a decade-long storage of illegal metadata. Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr was recently slammed for implying that pipeline protesters would face the “rule of law,” which was interpreted by some as a veiled threat to use police and military against protesters in a similar way to the Oka Crisis.

Take Climate Targets Seriously

Credit where it’s due: the Liberals did manage to pull off the Pan-Canadian Framework.

That included national $50/tonne carbon pricing by 2022, regulations to cut methane and HFC emissions, a phase-out of coal-fired power by 2030, new building codes and the "intention to develop a zero emissions vehicle strategy and a Clean Fuels Standard."

But the federal approvals of the Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal, Enbridge Line 3 pipeline and Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline seriously undermine the already underwhelming federal commitments to cut emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and 80 per cent below 2005 levels by 2050.

Sure, commodity prices may never rebound thanks to President Donald Trump’s plan to massively expand domestic oil and gas development. But everything could also change if he decides to start dropping bombs on Iran and takes four million barrels of oil production off the table. Either way, it’s a big gamble.

But one thing is known for sure: if the newly approved projects are indeed constructed, they will result in “carbon lock-in” for decades to come that will make it extremely difficult for Canada to meet its climate targets due to increased political pressures on future governments to avoid introducing legislation that seriously impacts profit-making abilities.

There’s a quiet push by the federal government to use international emissions trading to help it reach its 2030 target. Solid economic arguments accompany this option. However, some fear the required capital outflow associated with the mechanism will make it more difficult for Canada to reach its 2050 target, to say nothing of the lofty goal of phasing out all fossil fuels by 2100 (both of which will require fairly radical transformations in transportation, industry, electricity, agriculture and buildings).

There’s also little evidence for the math behind the government’s plan to reduce a massive 44 megatonnes of emissions reductions (which represents more than half of all the emissions from oilsands extraction and refining in 2015) from “public transit, green infrastructure, technology and innovation and stored carbon.”

The Pembina Institute’s Erin Flanagan kindly put it that “additional policy work is required to close [that gap].”

Trudeau’s got his rhetoric down when it comes to this subject, often referencing the need to “balance” the economy and environment. Frankly, there’s little evidence that his government is taking 2030, 2050 and 2100 climate targets seriously.

Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop: 500 Days of Trudeau’s Broken Promises https://t.co/j4yt4xabv5 #cdnpoli #bcpoli @ClimateVoters @dogwoodbc @350Canada pic.twitter.com/o9wQXMrmBX

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) February 11, 2017

Big-League Investments in Public Transit and Green Infrastructure

It was supposed to be the “largest new infrastructure investment in Canadian history.”

Specifically, the Liberals pledged $125 billion in public transit, climate change mitigation and adaptation projects, social housing and water and wastewater infrastructure. The big problem?

That $125 billion would be invested over the course of a decade, well beyond the four-year mandate the Liberals won in 2015. Between 2016/17 and 2019/20 — you know, the party’s actual mandate — the Liberals only pledged a total of $17 billion. That was broken down into $5.65 billion for each of the three categories: 1) green infrastructure; 2) social infrastructure; and 3) public transit.

It might sound like a lot.

But the infrastructure deficit in Canada is staggeringly large — one estimate pegs it as high as $570 billion — which is the symptom of decades of serious underinvestment by the federal government in its cities. So how have the Liberals lived up to their measly platform pledge?

They didn’t even meet it.

The funding commitment to public transit is $1.1 billion less than what was promised ($3.4 billion over three years, instead of $4.5 billion). Meanwhile, the commitment to green infrastructure is short, with the budget allocating $5 billion over five years (instead of $5.65 billion over four years). It’s only in 2021/22 that investments are predicted to increase to levels promised in 2015/16.

There’s been no explanation for this.

Instead, the government pitched a private infrastructure bank, which will attempt to “leverage” four to five dollars from the private sector for every single dollar invested by the government. The $15 billion for the latter will be “sourced from the announced funding” for infrastructure, so subtract that amount from the original total.

Sure, the Liberal platform did outline the idea of a Canada Infrastructure Bank “to provide low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects.” But there was no mention of privatizing it.

This fact has resulted in serious concern voiced by some economists given the possibility of privatization doubling the cost of projects over 30 years than if built and operated by the government.

In addition, Finance Minister Bill Morneau has indicated that private investors won’t be interested in investing in smaller municipalities given their desire for high returns. All this led Laurentian University’s Louis-Philippe Rochon to recently dub Trudeau a “privatization czar” and note that he “has gone places even Mr. Harper never dared to go.”

Given the Liberal pledge to reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio to 27 per cent by 2019-20 — and the fact it’s currently predicted to hit almost 32 per cent by that time — it seems doubtful the Liberals will even pretend to meet this promise.

Sunny, sunny ways.

Image: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau enters a town hall meeting. Image: Prime Minister's Photo Gallery

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Famed Canadian author Margaret Atwood, former Canadian ambassador Stephen Lewis and former federal justice minister Irwin Colter are backing the demand, saying Canadians have faced an unacceptable erosion of their democratic rights in recent years.

“We have been witness to a fundamental shift in the tone and tactics of the federal government, moving to shut down debate and dissent,” Atwood said.

“We need to ensure that these actions — from defunding of women's organizations, to limits on free expression found in laws like Bill C-51 — do not become the new normal.”

Changes to Canadians’ right to know and rights to speak out are documented in Voices-Voix’s recent report Dismantling Democracy: Stifling Debate & Dissent in Canada.

The report “superbly captures these concerns, helping us remember what we have lost, and what must be undone by future governments,” Atwood added.

Stephen Lewis, former ambassador for Canada to the UN said “the evisceration of cherished Canadian values should be front and centre in this campaign,” adding the report is “a staggering compendium of political abuse.”

Documenting the abuse of political power and “arrogance” of Canada’s federal government “drives us all to recognize that unless the government of Canada changes course, the Canada we once knew is definitively doomed,” Lewis said.

Human rights advocate and former federal justice minister Irwin Colter said election debates focused primarily on jobs and the economy but didn’t focus enough on “issues relating to the promotion and protection of Canadian constitutionalism, the Charter of Rights, respect for Parliament, the independence of the judiciary, and in particular the protection of our democratic space and civic engagement.”

In a press release the Voices-Voix Coalition said that while the outcome of the election is still unclear, “what is certain…is that the MPs elected will have important, urgent and unanswered questions to address about the future of dissent, democracy and civil liberties in Canada.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

It’s often claimed that Harper’s vendetta against environmental groups springs from his unconditional support for the oil industry. While that is more or less evident, it’s also necessary to consider the dominant influences — from his evangelical Christianity and his neoliberal ideology — on his tactics.

It was in early January 2012 that the Harper government first attacked opponents of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver released an open letter accusing “radical” environmentalists and “jet-setting celebrities” of blocking efforts to open access to Asian markets for Canadian oil.

“These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda,” Oliver, a former investment banker who raised money for oil companies, wrote. “They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects.”

What’s God Got to Do With It?

A week earlier, to welcome in the 2012 American election year, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum gave a New Year’s Eve speech in Ottumwa, Iowa, in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses. By rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline, Santorum warned, President Obama was “pandering to radical environmentalists who don’t want energy production, who don’t want us to burn more carbon.”

It may have been coincidental that the Harper government and the Santorum candidacy raised the spectre of radical environmentalism at the same time, but there are interesting connections.

Santorum’s remarks went viral later in February when, at a campaign stop in Ohio, he accused Obama of believing in “some phony ideal, some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible.”

A theology based on the Bible, Santorum explained at his Ohio stop, would be “about the belief that man is — should be — in charge of the Earth and have dominion over it and be good stewards of it.” But the “radical environmentalist” believes that “man is here to serve the Earth, as opposed to husband its resources and be good stewards of the Earth. And I think that is a phony ideal.”

For evangelical Christians like Santorum, it’s a simple proposition: Resisting bitumen extraction and transport is a denial of God’s law. Santorum is up front with his conservative religious beliefs; Harper keeps his views to himself, although the influence of evangelicals and social conservatives in his government was detailed in Marci McDonald’s The Armageddon Factor.

Since 2003, Harper has been a member of Ottawa’s East Gate Alliance Church, which is affiliated with the Christian and Missionary Alliance. The statement of faith of this church declares that “The Old and New Testaments, inerrant as originally given, were verbally inspired by God and are a complete revelation of His will for the salvation of people. They constitute the divine and only rule of Christian faith and practice.”

That puts bitumen extraction and transport under the direct authority of God, even in Canada. It should be noted that several other Christian denominations believe their faith mandates them to care for the earth. Pope Francis is even holding his own climate change summit.

In the U.S., God is tacked on to just about every political speech; in Canada, politicians rarely conjure the divine. But in Canada Harper has remained notably taciturn about his beliefs.

As McDonald observed, Harper was aware of “the risks of mixing faith and politics: he had watched creationist sentiments sink the leadership career of his Canadian Alliance rival Stockwell Day.”

But there are also the numbers to consider.

In the U.S., more than 30 per cent of the population is evangelical; in Canada the figure is 10 to 12 per cent. Santorum has a lot to gain, but Harper risks alienating a large majority of Canadians if he uses Santorum’s messaging techniques.

Nonetheless, McDonald notes, Harper covertly courted the religious right to his political advantage, using social-conservative policies to broaden the appeal of his party.

Faith in the Free Market

Attacking environmentalists who defy God’s law is one useful approach. Attacking environmentalists who interfere with the market is another.

Here Harper follows the lead, not of the Bible, but of Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian economist who founded neoliberalism after the Second World War.

The neoliberal view of environmentalism is typified by former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus. In a 2008 speech Klaus said he considered “environmentalism and its current strongest version — climate alarmism — to be … the most effective and … dangerous vehicle for advocating, drafting and implementing large-scale government intervention and for an unprecedented suppression of human freedom.”

The dispute was “not about temperature or CO₂,” he insisted, but instead was “another variant of the old, well-known debate: freedom and free markets versus dirigisme [state control], political control and regulation…”

It was the same old logically twisted story: self- “anointed” alarmists are here to “restrict freedom and stop human prosperity” under the guise of protecting the planet.

Efforts to control global warming go to the heart of Hayek’s critique of central planning. In The Road to Serfdom, he wrote planning “would make the very men who are most anxious to plan society the most dangerous if they were allowed to do so … From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.” The planner and coordinator, Hayek opined, was little more than an “omniscient dictator.”

Stephen Harper, the Hayek-influenced economist, was certainly on board with this analysis. He was leader of the Canadian Alliance in October 2002, when the Chrétien government was preparing to ask Parliament to ratify the Kyoto Accord. Harper wrote a letter to Alliance members requesting funds to stop ratification.

“Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations,” Harper wrote. “I’m talking about the ‘battle of Kyoto’ — our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto Accord.”

The current use of the term “radical environmentalist,” with its appeal to both evangelicals and neoliberals, comes from a decade-old Frank Luntz briefing memo for the Republican Party, “The environment: A cleaner, safer, healthier America.”

“’Environmentalist’ can have the connotation of extremist to many Americans,” he wrote.

Luntz, a long-time Republican pollster and strategist, specializes is using language to evoke feeling. In a 2003 interview on PBS’s Frontline, he said: “My job is to look for the words that trigger the emotion. Words alone can be found in a dictionary or a telephone book, but words with emotion can change destiny, can change life as we know it.”

Luntz travelled to Ottawa in the spring of 2006 to help Preston Manning promote his new project, the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, which was intended to advance conservative ideas and politicians. His connection to Manning went back to the 1993 federal election, when Luntz was the Reform Party’s official election pollster and strategic adviser.

With Luntz’s help, the Progressive Conservatives under Kim Campbell were annihilated — Luntz watched the election results from Manning’s suite — and Reform emerged as the party of the right. Thirteen years later, along with helping Manning, Luntz met with Harper for a photo-op session and to provide advice for Harper’s new minority government.

Luntz was impressed with Harper, who he called “a genuine intellectual, brilliant in his understanding of issues.”

In 2006 at a conference of conservative politicians, academics, journalists and think tank functionaries, Luntz advised the audience to tap into national symbols like hockey. “If there is some way to link hockey to what you all do, I would try to do it.” Before long, Harper was writing a book about hockey.

And he was making good use of Luntz’s radical environmentalist frame.

As in his other framing exercises, Harper’s message came from multiple sources inside and outside government. In Parliament, Fort McMurray-Athabasca Conservative MP Brian Jean called for legislation that would block foreign funding of the “radical” Canadian environmental movement. In Washington, D.C., Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird told an interviewer “there’s a great deal of frustration … that the future prosperity of our country could lie in the hands of some radical environmentalists and special interests.”

Outside government, Marco Navarro-Genie, research director at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a regional neoliberal think tank, claimed that the “real aim [of] … radical environmentalists is eventually to stop production of all hydrocarbons.”

Did it work?

Later in the year, the Montreal Economic Institute, another regional neoliberal think tank, released a survey suggesting that a majority of Canadians — 52 per cent — think “several environmental lobbies are too radical,” compared with 27 per cent who disagree with this statement. The survey also found that 72 per cent of Canadians are in favour of developing the bitumen deposits, “while maintaining a continuous effort to limit the environmental impact.”

Send in the Auditors and the Spies

Harper must have been emboldened by the success of this campaign for him to take the next step. In 2012, Harper allocated $13.4 million to the CRA to undertake audits of the political activities and foreign funding of charities. At least 52 audits were done, almost all on organizations critical of Harper’s policies. 

Read DeSmog Canada’s in-depth series on Canada’s charitable sector: Charities and Non-Profits: A Force for a Better World

And that wasn’t the end of it, as surveillance moved up the food chain from CRA to CSIS and the RCMP. Even before the Harper government tabled Bill C-51, The Anti-Terrorism Act, in the House of Commons in January 2015, CSIS, Canada’s spy agency, was making recommendations to federal officials about how to deal with protests expected after the Harper government gave conditional approval to Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline in June 2014.

CSIS provided senior government officials with a federal risk forecast for the 2014 “spring/summer protest and demonstration season” compiled by the government operations centre, which tracks and analyzes such activity.

An RCMP intelligence assessment obtained by Greenpeace Canada and first published on DeSmog Canada highlighted a disturbing narrative about what the police force viewed as “violent anti-petroleum extremists.”

Vivian Krause, the North Vancouver researcher who created the conspiracy theory that U.S. foundations were funding Canadian environmental groups to prevent the expansion of oilsands production, was the single most important source for the RCMP report. Her work was given ten pages in the 44-page report, while global warming denier Patrick Moore was one of the most cited sources.

Some intelligence assessment.

But that didn’t seem to matter. What started out as a Frank Luntz talking point had become reality.

The radical environmentalist frame could count on a strong base of support from evangelicals and neoliberals. Constant repetition and government action by the CRA and then CSIS and the RCMP made it newsworthy. And what the media report must be real.

That’s how Stephen Harper makes his world.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

We think of threats as violence, things that could physically hurt us. But to a government that also includes anything that could reduce its power.

So currently the definition of threats in the CSIS Act includes ‘foreign influenced activities detrimental to the interests of Canada.’

That doesn’t sound violent. That could describe a Red Hot Chili Peppers cover band in Hamilton.

Watch me break it down in this video:

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Free speech is important. Once you allow speech you don’t like to be criminalized, you’re allowing the government to create a list of illegal ideas. That list will expand no matter which party is in power. Once a state outlaws a few kinds of speech, it gets all jacked up and has to keep that buzz going and before you know it they’ve snorted up a whole pile of them and have you cornered at a party talking your ear off about politics.

Civil disobedience is important. Some will say if you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear from bill C-51, but “wrong” and “illegal” are not the same thing. If they were, when someone guesses incorrectly on Jeopardy Alex Trebek would say “Ohhh, I’m sorry, that answer is illegal. We were looking for Topeka. You are under arrest.” The point is, sometimes things are illegal AND morally right. Most social advancement starts with some kind of civil disobedience.

Intelligence agencies are not your friend. I’m not against them in principle, but if we’re going to allow people to exercise power in secret, we need to give them a laser-like focus and keep them on a short leash. We’re on the cusp of giving them a fog-like focus, and instead of democratic oversight we’re installing an applause sign.

And a final reminder, keeping Canadians safe is not the most important function of government. And if you think it should be, then please lock yourself up in a nice, safe bomb shelter and stop ruining the country for the rest of us.

This video was originally produced for the Toronto Star.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

We also take a look at Kinder Morgan's secretive behaviour in the Trans Mountain pipeline review and how anti-terrorism laws meant to protect 'critical infrastructure' like pipelines may benefit oil, gas and pipeline companies unwilling to disclose information to the public.

DeSmogBlog contributor Farron Cousins hosts this episode and is joined by Greenpeace's Keith Stewart, DeSmog Canada's Emma Gilchrist, and yours truly.

See below for articles mentioned in this episode:

LEAKED: Internal RCMP Document Names “Violent Anti-Petroleum Extremists” Threat to Government and Industry

Leaked RCMP Report Fuels Fears Harper’s Anti-Terrorism Bill will Target Enviros, First Nations

More than 100 Legal Experts Urge Parliament to Amend or Kill Anti-Terrorism Bill C-51

National Energy Board Rules Kinder Morgan Can Keep Pipeline Emergency Plans Secret, Weakens Faith in Process

What Kinder Morgan is Keeping Secret About its Trans Mountain Spill Response Plans

Kinder Morgan, NEB Draw Ire for Oil Spill Response Plans Released in Washington State, But Not B.C.

Image Credit: Farhan Umedaly

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A scientist, or any knowledgeable person, will tell you climate change is a serious threat for Canada and the world. But the RCMP has a different take. A secret report by the national police force, obtained by Greenpeace, both minimizes the threat of global warming and conjures a spectre of threats posed by people who rightly call for sanity in dealing with problems caused by burning fossil fuels.

The RCMP report has come to light as federal politicians debate the “anti-terrorism” Bill C-51. Although the act wouldn’t apply to “lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression,” its language echoes the tone of the RCMP report. It would give massive new powers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to prevent any person or group from “undermining the security of Canada,” including “interference with critical infrastructure” and the “economic or financial stability of Canada.” And it would seriously infringe on freedom of speech and expression. The new CSIS powers would lack necessary public oversight.

The RCMP report specifically names Greenpeace, Tides Canada and the Sierra Club as part of “a growing, highly organized and well-financed anti-Canada petroleum movement that consists of peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels.” The report downplays climate change, calling it a “perceived environmental threat” and saying members of the “international anti-Canadian petroleum movement … claim that climate change is now the most serious global environmental threat and that climate change is a direct consequence of elevated anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions which, reportedly, are directly linked to the continued use of fossil fuels.” It also makes numerous references to anti-petroleum and indigenous “extremists”.

Language in the RCMP report and Bill C-51 leaves open the possibility that the act and increased police and CSIS powers could be used against First Nations and environmentalists engaging in non-violent protests against pipelines or other environmentally destructive projects.

As University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese points out, with its reference to “foreign-influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada,” the anti-terrorism law could be used in the case of a “foreign environmental foundation funding a Canadian environmental group’s secret efforts to plan a protest (done without proper permits) in opposition to the Keystone Pipeline Project.” Considering that government ministers have already characterized anti-pipeline protesters as “foreign-funded radicals”, that’s not a stretch. The RCMP could consider my strong support for greenhouse gas emissions reductions and renewable energy as “anti-petroleum”.

Combatting terrorism is important, but Canada is not at war, and we already have many laws — and enhanced police powers — to deal with terrorist threats. More importantly, the RCMP report fuels the legitimate fear that the new law could be used to curtail important civil liberties, affecting everyone from religious minorities to organized labour and First Nations to environmentalists.

If, for any reason, someone causes another person harm or damages infrastructure or property, that person should —and would, under current laws — face legal consequences. But the vast majority of people calling for rational discussion about fossil fuels and climate change — even those who engage in civil disobedience — aren’t “violent anti-petroleum extremists.” They’re people from all walks of life and ages who care about our country, our world, our families and friends and our future.

Canada is much more than a dirty energy “superpower”. Many people from different cultures and backgrounds and with varying political perspectives have built a nation that is the envy of the world. We have a spectacular natural environment, enlightened laws on issues ranging from equal rights to freedom of speech, robust social programs and a diverse, educated population. We mustn’t sacrifice all we have gained out of fear, or give up our hard-won civil liberties for a vague and overreaching law that, as Forcese and University of Toronto law professor Kent Roach point out, “undermines more promising avenues of addressing terrorism.”

Pollution and climate change caused by excessive burning of fossil fuels are real threats, not the people who warn that we must take these threats seriously. And while we must also respond to terrorism with the strong tools already in place, we have to remember that our rights and freedoms, not fear, are what keep us strong.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Image credit: Zack Embree

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The intelligence body doesn't have to disclose such information because it's exempt from Canada’s Access to Information legislation since it relates to “the detecting, preventing or suppressing subversive or hostile activities.”

Hmph. Some part of me was expecting them to simply say "no." While non-denial denial responses like this are pretty par for the course when dealing with intelligence services — the phrase was first conjured up during a clandestine CIA submarine operation in the 1970s — it's disconcerting in light of the federal government’s proposed anti-terrorism bill C-51, which would increase the powers of CSIS and its role in government-sponsored spying.

As others have pointed out, bill C-51 will allow dangerously strong measures to be taken against even perceived terror threats or individuals that pose a threat to Canada’s critical infrastructure, such as pipelines, or the nation’s financial security.

The language in bill C-51 has been roundly criticized for being so broad that it endangers the democratic rights of Canadian citizens and their ability to engage in legitimate dissent. Under the new legislation, CSIS could foreseeably monitor the activities of ordinary Canadians participating in community organizing, climate activism, blockades, strikes or pipeline protests.

As a recently leaked RCMP intelligence report highlights, environmental and First Nation groups are already targeted for surveillance in Canada and are being characterized (some say hyperbolically) as “violent anti-petroleum extremists.”

As an editor at a news outlet that routinely reports on energy and environment issues directly related to "critical infrastructure," I thought it sensible to submit two requests to CSIS through the Access to Information and Privacy Act to see if any records came back.

For the record, I have no particular reason to think CSIS is monitoring either me or DeSmog Canada. To be sure, they have no legitimate reason to. But I find the inability to know whether we've been swept up in the spy agency's wide net concerning, as many other Canadians likely would.

Unfortunately, when it comes to CSIS, Canadians can expect very little transparency, a cause for additional concern when you recall Harper eliminated the position of the CSIS watchdog in 2012. The only overview of CSIS is handled by the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), a body comprised of part-time appointees with limited resources that assess CSIS operations after-the-fact.

DeSmog Canada's CSIS Privacy Request for Editor Carol Linnitt by DeSmog Canada

DeSmog Canada's CSIS Access to Information Request by DeSmog Canada

I reached out to Vincent Gogolek, executive director of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA), to see what he makes of these responses from CSIS.

"It certainly looks like the way the law is being interpreted there really aren't any 'citizens above suspicion,’” Gogolek said. “Or at least CSIS apparently won't confirm or deny” if such citizens exist.

Gogolek said it’s fair CSIS wouldn’t want to release information relevant to an ongoing investigation through the Access to Information process, but added, “likewise they shouldn't use this as a blanket excuse to refuse to release information."

Access to Information Act Gutted Under Harper 

Reg Whitaker, distinguished research professor emeritus at York University and adjunct professor of political science at the University of Victoria, is a national security expert who has written several books on the topic including The End of Privacy: How Total Surveillance is Becoming a Reality.

Whitaker said when it comes to transparency, the Harper government has successfully gutted the Access to Information and Privacy Act over the last several years.

“Their idea is: you let out as little as possible, you make it as difficult and you make it as expensive as you can to make it difficult to use the Act in the first place,” Whitaker said.

“That’s not necessarily related to CSIS or the RCMP or surveillance of ongoing movements,” he conceded. “There’s just a general tendency that they are trying to stop up the flow of information about what they’re doing generally across the board.”

But when it comes to CSIS, Whitaker said, “there’s this extra sensitivity, obviously.”

As the Harper government looks to expand the power of CSIS under the name of “counter-terrorism,” Whitaker said, “we know they are focusing on activist groups and certainly anti-pipeline groups, or more generally groups focused on resource issues and mega projects that have the highest priority in this government.”

“They will always claim that they’re only focusing on the potential for violence, therefore it falls into the category of terrorism. But there’s no way they can carry on the surveillance of potential violent activity of these groups without spying on these groups.”

“They are doing it and they’re very sensitive about trying to make sure there is as little information getting out there as possible,” he said.

But information still has a way of getting to the public, Whitaker added, such as the leaked RCMP intelligence report first published on DeSmog Canada.

Whitaker acknowledges there is no way to know if myself or DeSmog Canada is being monitored by CSIS.

“I don’t know if in your case that what’s happened with your request signifies you’re a target,” he said. “It could well be that you’re not. But they’re going to give you the same answer whether you had been a target that sought their files, or someone who wasn’t but thought they might be.”

RCMP and CSIS Risk Losing Social Licence

And that’s a problem, Whitaker said, arguing the outcome of a surveillance campaign like this will be growing social mistrust.

“The implications are not going to be good for social licence,” he said. “It’s a pretty fuzzy concept, but it’s a phrase that is used a lot these days.”

Whitaker said it is clear pipeline proponents Enbridge and Kinder Morgan have lost their social licence with individuals worried about the environment, First Nations and “generally the population of British Columbia feeling they’re having these juggernauts rammed down their throats.”

In much the same way, the RCMP and CSIS risk the social licence they require to adequately address real security threats.

“With CSIS and the RCMP in fighting terrorism, it’s very important, I think, that they — and in their more lucid moments they’d agree, I’m sure — that they have social licence.”

But with the looming implications of Bill C-51 both CSIS and the RCMP put their social licence at risk.

“What they’re in danger of doing now as bill C-51 goes through and their powers get greatly expanded and the definition of what they’re looking at is being expanded so broadly, well beyond terrorism in fact…they are going to seriously lose that social licence with a much larger proportion of the Canadian population.”

The loss of public support is something “they ought to be very worried about,” Whitaker said, adding it’s unclear “how much they are being pushed by the present government to focus on the quote-unquote anti-petroleum movement, etc. and how much is coming from within CSIS and the RCMP.”

“But certainly pressure has been coming from government.”

Image Credit: Emory Allen via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The authors of the letter note the lack of debate is a “troubling undermining of our parliamentary democracy’s ability 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 non-existent democratic oversight or review.”

The full text of the open letter is reproduced below:

Dear Members of Parliament,

Please accept this collective open letter as an expression of the signatories’ deep concern that Bill C-51 (which the government is calling the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015) is a dangerous piece of legislation in terms of its potential impacts on the rule of law, on constitutionally and internationally protected rights, and on the health of Canada’s democracy.

Beyond that, we note with concern that knowledgeable analysts have made cogent arguments not only that Bill C-51 may turn out to be ineffective in countering terrorism by virtue of what is omitted from the bill, but also that Bill C-51 could actually be counter-productive in that it could easily get in the way of effective policing, intelligence-gathering and prosecutorial activity. In this respect, we wish it to be clear that we are neither “extremists” (as the Prime Minister has recently labelled the Official Opposition for its resistance to Bill C-51) nor dismissive of the real threats to Canadians’ security that government and Parliament have a duty to protect. Rather, we believe that terrorism must be countered in ways that are fully consistent with core values (that include liberty, non-discrimination, and the rule of law), that are evidence-based, and that are likely to be effective.

The scope and implications of Bill C-51 are so extensive that it cannot be, and is not, the purpose of this letter to itemize every problem with the bill. Rather, the discussion below is an effort to reflect a basic consensus over some (and only some) of the leading concerns, all the while noting that any given signatory’s degree of concern may vary item by item. Also, the absence of a given matter from this letter is not meant to suggest it is not also a concern.

We are grateful for the service to informed public debate and public education provided, since Bill C-51 was tabled, by two highly respected law professors — Craig Forcese of the University of Ottawa and Kent Roach of the University of Toronto — who, combined, have great expertise in national security law at the intersection of constitutional law, criminal law, international law and other sub-disciplines. What follows — and we limit ourselves to five points — owes much to the background papers they have penned, as well as to insights from editorials in the media and speeches in the House of Commons.

Accordingly, we urge all MPs to vote against Bill C-51 for the following reasons:

1. Bill C-51 enacts a new security-intelligence information-sharing statute of vast scope with no enhanced protections for privacy and from abuse. The law defines “activities that undermine the security of Canada” in such an exceptionally broad way that “terrorism” is simply one example of nine examples, and only “lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression” is excluded. Apart from all the civil-disobedience activities and illegal protests or strikes that will be covered (e.g. in relation to “interference with critical infrastructure”), this deep and broad intrusion into privacy is made worse by the fact there are no corresponding oversight or review mechanisms adequate to this expansion of the state’s new levels of information awareness. Concerns have already been expressed by the Privacy Commissioner, an Officer of Parliament, who has insufficient powers and resources to even begin to oversee, let alone correct abuses within, this expanded information-sharing system. And there is virtually nothing in the bill that recognizes any lessons learned from what can happen when information-sharing ends up in the wrong hands, as when the RCMP supplied poor information to US authorities that in turn led to the rendition of Maher Arar to Syria and his subsequent torture based on that – and further – information coming from Canada.
    
2. Bill C-51 enacts a new “terrorism” offence that makes it criminal to advocate or encourage “terrorism offences in general” where one does this being reckless as to whether the communication “may” contribute to someone else deciding to commit another terrorism offence. It is overbroad, unnecessary in view of current criminal law, and potentially counter-productive. Keep in mind how numerous and broad are the existing terrorism offences in the Criminal Code, some of which go beyond what the ordinary citizen imagines when they think of terrorism and all of which already include the general criminal-law prohibitions on counselling, aiding and abetting, conspiring, and so on: advocacy or encouragement of any of these “in general” could attract prosecution under the new C-51 offence. Note as well that gestures and physical symbols appear to be caught, and not just verbal or written exhortations. In media commentary and reports, there have been many examples of what could be caught, including in some contexts advocacy of armed revolution and rebellion in other countries (e.g. if C-51 had been the law when thousands of Canadians advocated support for Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress in its efforts to overthrow apartheid by force of arms, when that was still part of the ANC’s strategy). So, the chill for freedom of speech is real. In addition, in a context in which direct incitement to terrorist acts (versus of “terrorism offences in general”) is already a crime in Canada, this vague and sweeping extension of the criminal law seems unjustified in terms of necessity – and indeed, the Prime Minister during Question Period has been unable or unwilling to give examples of what conduct he would want to see criminalized now that is not already prohibited by the Criminal Code. But, perhaps most worrying is how counter-productive this new crime could be. De-radicalization outreach programs could be negatively affected. Much anti-radicalization work depends on frank engagement of authorities like the RCMP, alongside communities and parents, with youth who hold extreme views, including some views that, if expressed (including in private), would contravene this new prohibition. Such outreach may require “extreme dialogue” in order to work through the misconceptions, anger, hatred and other emotions that lead to radicalization. If C-51 is enacted, these efforts could find themselves stymied as local communities and parents receive advice that, if youth participating in these efforts say what they think, they could be charged with a crime. As a result, 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 programme. And the counter-productive impact could go further. The Prime Minister himself confirmed he would want the new law used against young people sitting in front of computers in their family basements, youth who can express extreme views on social-media platforms. Why is criminalization counter-productive here? As a National Post editorial pointed out, the result of Bill C-51 could easily be that one of the best sources of intelligence for possible future threats — public social-media platforms — could dry up; that is, extreme views will go silent because of fears of being charged. This undercuts the usefulness of these platforms for monitoring and intelligence that lead to knowing not only who warrants further investigative attention but also whether early intervention in the form of de-radicalization outreach efforts are called for.
    
3. Bill C-51 would allow CSIS to move from its central current function — information-gathering and associated surveillance with respect to a broad area of “national security” matters — to being a totally different kind of agency that now may actively intervene to disrupt activities by a potentially infinite range of unspecified measures, as long as a given measure falls shy of causing bodily harm, infringements on sexual integrity or obstructions of justice. CSIS agents can do this activity both inside and outside Canada, and they can call on any entity or person to assist them. There are a number of reasons to be apprehensive about this change of role. One only has to recall that the CSIS Act defines “threats to the security of Canada” so broadly that CSIS already considers various environmental and Aboriginal movements to be subject to their scrutiny; that is to say, this new disruption power goes well beyond anything that has any connection at all to “terrorism” precisely because CSIS’s mandate in the CSIS Act goes far beyond a concern only with terrorism. However, those general concerns expressed, we will now limit ourselves to the following serious problem: how Bill C-51 seems to display a complete misunderstanding of the role of judges in our legal system and constitutional order. Under C-51, judges may now be asked to give warrants to allow for disruption measures that contravene Canadian law or the Charter, a role that goes well beyond the current contexts in which judges now give warrants (e.g. surveillance warrants and search and seizure warrants) where a judge’s role is to ensure that these investigative measures are “reasonable” so as not to infringe section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights. What C-51 now does is turn judges into agents of the executive branch (here, CSIS) to pre-authorize violations of Canadian law and, even, to pre-authorize infringements of almost any Charter right as long as the limits in C-51 – bodily harm, sexual integrity and obstruction of justice – are respected. This completely subverts the normal role of judges, which is to assess whether measures prescribed by law or taken in accordance with discretion granted by statute infringed rights — and, if they did, whether the Charter has been violated because the infringement cannot be justified under the Charter’s section 1 limitation clause. Now, a judge can be asked (indeed, required) to say yes in advance to measures that could range from wiping a target’s computer clear of all information to fabricating materials (or playing agent-provocateur roles) that discredit a target in ways that cause others no longer to trust him, her or it: and these examples are possibly at the mild end of what CSIS may well judge as useful “disruption” measures to employ. It is also crucial to note that CSIS is authorized to engage in any measures it chooses if it concludes that the measure would not be “contrary” to any Canadian law or would not “contravene” the Charter. Thus, it is CSIS that decides whether to even go to a judge. There is reason to be worried about how unregulated (even by courts) this new CSIS disruption power would be, given the evidence that CSIS has in the past hidden information from its review body, SIRC, and given that a civil-servant whistleblower has revealed that, in a parallel context, Ministers of Justice in the Harper government have directed Department of Justice lawyers to conclude that the Minister can certify under the Department of Justice Act that a law is in compliance with the Charter if there is a mere 5% chance a court would uphold the law if it was challenged in court. Finally, it is crucial to add that these warrant proceedings will take place in secret, with only the government side represented, and no prospect of appeal. Warrants will not be disclosed to the target and, unlike police investigations, CSIS activities do not culminate in court proceedings where state conduct is then reviewed.
    
4. We now draw attention to effectiveness by noting a key omission from C-51. As the Official Opposition noted in its “reasoned amendment” when it moved that C-51 not be given Second Reading, Bill C-51 does not include “the type of concrete, effective measures that have been proven to work, such as working with communities ‎on measures to counter radicalization of youth – may even undermine outreach.” This speaks for itself, and we will not elaborate beyond saying that, within a common commitment to countering terrorism, effective measures of the sort referenced in the reasoned amendment not only are necessary but also must be vigorously pursued and well-funded. The government made no parallel announcements alongside Bill C-51 that would suggest that these sort of measures are anywhere near the priority they need to be.
    
5. Finally, the defects noted in points 1, 2 and 3 (information-sharing, criminalizing expression, and disruption) are magnified by the overarching lack of anything approaching adequate oversight and review functions, at the same time as existing accountability mechanisms have been weakened and in some cases eliminated in recent years. Quite simply, Bill C-51 continues the government’s resolute refusal to respond to 10 years of calls for adequate and integrated review of intelligence and related security-state activities, which was first (and perhaps best) articulated by Justice O’Connor in a dedicated volume in his report on what had happened to Maher Arar. Only last week, former prime ministers and premiers wrote an open letter saying that a bill like C-51 cannot be enacted absent the kind of accountability processes and mechanisms that will catch and hopefully prevent abuses of the wide new powers CSIS and a large number of partner agencies will now have (note that CSIS can enlist other agencies and any person in its disruption activities and the information-sharing law concerns over a dozen other government agencies besides CSIS). Even if one judged all the new CSIS powers in C-51 to be justified, they must not be enacted without proper accountability. Here, we must note that the government’s record has gone in the opposite direction from enhanced accountability. Taking CSIS alone, the present government weakened CSIS’s accountability by getting rid of an oversight actor, the Inspector General, whose job was to keep the Minister of Public Security on top of CSIS activity in real time. It transferred this function to CSIS’s review body, the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), which does not have anything close to the personnel or resources to carry this function out – given it does not have sufficient staff and resources to carry out its existing mandate to ensure CSIS acts within the law. Beyond staff, we note that SIRC is a body that has for some time not been at a full complement of members, even as the government continues to make no apology for having once appointed as SIRC’s Chair someone with no qualifications (and it turns out, no character) to be on SIRC let alone to be its chair (Arthur Porter). And, as revealed in a recent CBC investigation, the government has simply not been straight with Canadians when it constantly says SIRC is a robust and well-resourced body: its budget is a mere $3 million, which has flat-lined since 2005 when the budget was $2.9 million, even as its staff has been cut from 20 in 2005 to 17 now. Without an integrated security-intelligence review mechanism, which should also include some form of Parliamentary oversight and/or review, and with especially SIRC (with jurisdiction only over CSIS) not a fully effective body, we are of the view that no MP should in good conscience be voting for Bill C-51.

Above, we have limited ourselves to five central concerns, but it is important to reiterate that some or all of the signatories have serious concerns about a good number of other aspects of C-51 – and/or about detailed aspects of some of the concerns that were generally expressed in the above five points. The following are some (but only some) of those concerns, in point form. They are included by way of saying that signatories believe these all need to be looked at closely and rigorously during House of Commons committee study of C-51, now that it has passed Second Reading:

• C-51 radically lowers the threshold for preventive detention and imposition of recognizance with conditions on individuals. Only three years ago, Parliament enacted a law saying this detention/conditions regime can operate if there is a reasonable basis for believing a person “will” commit a terrorist offence. Now, that threshold has been lowered to “may.” There has been a failure of the government to explain why exactly the existing power has not been adequate. In light of the huge potential for abuse of such a low threshold, including through wide-scale use (recalling the mass arrests at the time of the War Measures Act in Quebec), Canadians and parliamentarians need to know why extraordinary new powers are needed, especially when the current ones were enacted in the context of ongoing threats by Al-Qaeda to carry out attacks in Canada that seem no less serious than the ones currently being threatened by entities like ISIS and Al-Shabab.
   
• C-51 expands the no-fly list regime. It seems to have simply replicated the US no-fly list rules, the operation of which has been widely criticized in terms of its breadth and impacts on innocent people. Is this the right regime for Canada?
   
• C-51’s new disruption warrants now allows CSIS to impinge on the RCMP’s law enforcement role, bringing back turf wars that were eliminated when intelligence and law enforcement were separated in the wake of the RCMP’s abusive disruption activities of the late 1960s and early 1970s. But, even more important than turf wars is the potential for CSIS behaviour in the form of disruptive measures to undermine both the investigation and the prosecution of criminal cases by interfering with evidentiary trail, contaminating evidence, and so on.
   
• C-51, in tandem with C-44, permits CSIS to engage not just in surveillance and information-gathering abroad, but also in disruption. There are many questions about how this will work. The danger of lawlessness seems to be significantly greater for CSIS activities abroad, in that CSIS only needs to seek approval for disruption under C-51 where Canadian, not foreign, law could be breached or where the Charter could be contravened (with Canadian law on the application of the Charter outside Canada being quite unclear at the moment). And there is no duty for CSIS to coordinate with or seek approval from the Department of Foreign Affairs, such that the chances of interference with the conduct of Canada’s foreign affairs cannot be discounted. Nor can we ignore the likely tendency for disruption measures abroad to be more threatening to individuals’ rights than in Canada: for example, Parliament needs to know whether CSIS agents abroad can engage in detention and rendition to agencies of other countries under the new C-51 regime.

We end by observing that this letter is dated Feb. 23, 2015, which is also the day when the government has chosen to cut off Second Reading debate on Bill C-51 after having allocated a mere three days (in reality, only portions of each of those days) to debate. 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 before a Second Reading vote, 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.

In conclusion, we urge all Parliamentarians to ensure that C-51 not be enacted in anything resembling its present form.

Yours sincerely,

Jennie Abell, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Amir Attaran, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law , University of Ottawa

Natasha Bakht, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Clayton Bangsund, Assistant Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan

Margaret Beare, Professor of Law and Sociology, York University

Faisal Bhabha, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Jennifer Bond, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Suzanne Bouclin, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law – Civil Law, University of Ottawa

Susan Boyd, Professor, Peter A. Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia

Sarah Buhler, Assistant Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan

Karen Busby, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, and Director, Centre for Human Rights Research

Michael Byers, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia

Angela Cameron, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Pascale Chapdelaine, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Larry Chartrand, Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Allison Christians, H. Heward Stikeman Chair in Tax Law, Faculty of Law, McGill University

Brenda Cossman, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Stephen Coughlan, Professor, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University

François Crépeau, Hans & Tamar Openheimer Professor in Public International Law, Faculty of Law, McGill University

Hugo Cyr, Professor of Law, University of Quebec in Montreal

Jennifer E. Dalton, Assistant Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, York University

Maneesha Deckha, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria

Julie Desrosiers, Professor, Faculty of Law, University Laval

Peter Dietsch, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Montreal

Stacy Douglas, Assistant Professor, Department of Law & Legal Studies, Carleton University

Susan Drummond, Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Isabelle Duplessis, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Montreal

Stuart Farson, Adjunct Professor, Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Gerry Ferguson, Distinguished Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria

Leonard, Findlay, Professor, College of Arts and Science, University of Saskatchewan, and Director, Humanities Research Unit

Colleen Flood, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa; Research Chair in Health Law & Policy

Fabien Gélinas, Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University

Daphne Gilbert, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Jassmine Girgis, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary

Isabel Grant, Professor, Peter A. Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia

Marie Annik Grégoire, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Montreal

Sakej Henderson, Professor, University of Saskatchewan, Research Director, Native Law Centre of Canada

Gleider I. Hernández, Senior Lecturer in Public International Law, Durham Law School

Steve Hewitt, Senior Lecturer, Department of History, University of Birmingham

Louis-Philippe Hodgson, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, York University

Felix Hoehn, Assistant Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan

Jula Hughes, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick

Allan Hutchinson, Distinguished Research Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Shin Imai, Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Martha Jackman, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Juliet Johnson, Associate Professor, Political Science, McGill University

Rebecca Johnson, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria

Jasminka Kalajdzic, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Charis Kamphuis, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Thompson Rivers University

John Keyes, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Muharem Kianieff, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Jeff King, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Laws, University College London

Jennifer Koshan, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary

François J. Larocque, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Fannie Lafontaine, Associate Professor, Canada Research Chair on International Criminal Justice and Human Rights, University Laval

Louis-Philippe Lampron, Professor, Faculty of Law, Laval University

Nicole LaViolette, Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Jean Leclair, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Montreal

Ed Levy, Retired Professor of Philosophy, University of British Columbia

Brian Lewis, Professor of History, McGill University

Jamie Liew, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Catherine Lu, Associate Professor, Political Science, McGill University

Audrey Macklin, Professor of Law and Chair in Human Rights Law, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Alice MacLachlan, Associate Professor, Philosophy, York University

Warren Magnusson, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Victoria

Kathleen Mahoney, Professor of Law, University of Calgary; Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada

Marie Manikis, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University

John Manwaring, Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Michael Marin, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Graham Mayeda, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Sheila McIntyre, Professor Emerita, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Michael M’Gonigle, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria

Cynthia Milton, Associate Professor, Department of History, University of Montreal

Richard Moon, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Mary Jane Mossman, Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Claire Mummé, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Roxanne Mykitiuk, Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Pierre Noreau, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Montreal

Darren O’Toole, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Charles-Maxime Panaccio, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Steven Penney, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta

Denise Reaume, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Philip Resnick, Professor Emeritus, Political Science, University of British Columbia

Darryl Robinson, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University

David Robitaille, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Ottawa and trustee at the Quebec Centre for Environmental Law

Sanda Rodgers, Professor Emerita, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Bruce Ryder, Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, and Academic Director, Anti-Discrimination Intensive Program

Hengameh Saberi, Assistant Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Calvin Sandborn, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria, Legal Director, UVic Environmental Law Centre

Steven Savit, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia

Jennifer Schulz, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba

Dayna Scott. Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, and Graduate Program Director

Noel Semple, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Martha Shaffer, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Elizabeth Sheehy, Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

James Sheptycki, Professor of Criminology, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies, York University

James Stewart, Assistant Professor, Peter A. Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia

Donald Stuart, Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University

Marie-Eve Sylvestre, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law – Civil Law, University of Ottawa, and Vice-Dean, Research and Communications

François Tanguay-Renaud, Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, and Director, Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security

David Tanovich, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Christine Tappolet, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Montreal

Saul Templeton, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary

Kimberley N. Trapp, Senior Lecturer in International Law, Faculty of Laws, University College London

Gus Van Harten, Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Lucinda Vandervort, Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan

Wilfrid Waluchow, Professor, Senator William McMaster Chair in Constitutional Studies, Department of Philosophy, McMaster University

Christopher Waters, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Wesley Pue, Professor, Peter A. Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia

Reg Whitaker, Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus, York University, and Adjunct Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria

David Wiseman, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law, University of Ottawa

Stepan Wood, Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

NDP environment critic Megan Leslie argued the leaked RCMP document, which labeled Canada’s environment movement as “a growing and violent threat to Canada’s security,” displays precisely how bill C-51 could be used to deploy anti-terrorism legislation against environmental activism deemed to be “unlawful.”

Because protests carried out without proper municipal permits can be deemed “unlawful” the proposed bill has serious implications for environmental and aboriginal groups, Leslie said.

“A lot hinges on that word ‘unlawful,’ ” she said during a recent question period in parliament.

“This is dangerous legislation, because if there is a wildcat strike or an occupy movement – an occupation of town property, such as the camps that we saw set up – that activity, under the eyes of CSIS or the current government, could potentially undermine the security of Canada without the right municipal permit, and it could all of a sudden be scooped up into this anti-terrorism legislation.”

“Every single word here matters,” Leslie said.

"Unlawful" Protest Potentially Deemed Terrorism in Bill C-51

In her argument, Leslie pointed to a recent analysis of the bill performed by Craig Forcese, national security expert and associate professor of law at the University of Ottawa.

In a recent piece Forcese agreed that even though the bill does not target democratic protest, there is room in the bill to pull participants of protest into the gambit of "security concerns."

“Under C-51,” he writes, ”the government will be able to share internally (and potentially externally) a lot more information about things that ‘undermine the security of Canada.’ That concept is defined extremely broadly – more broadly than any other national security concept in Canadian law. Yes, it can reach the subject matter of many democratic protest movements.”

Forcese also pointed to the fact that previous governments have avoided the dangers of limiting legitimate civil dissent to only "lawful" protest.

In fact, he writes, the very concerns raised in parliament now were on the table back in 2001 when the government first introduced a definition of “terrorist activity” in the original Antiterrorism Act.

The Act excluded “lawful” protest from the definition of terrorism but the term was eventually removed because of the undemocratic danger it posed to strikes and unpermitted protests.

“Given the experience in 2001 and the legal views expressed by the government of the day, we have to conclude that if the government continues to include the qualifier ‘lawful’ in its exceptions, it does so with its eyes wide open,” he writes.

Forcese warns that where protests deemed ‘unlawful’ overlap with other security concerns, such as critical infrastructure including pipelines, “democratic protest movements with tactics that do no square in every way with even municipal law may properly be the subject of CSIS investigation and possibly even disruption.”

He adds, “my point is this: when we craft national security law, we craft it to deter bad judgment. We do not craft it to be so sweeping and ambiguous that it must depend for its proper exercise in a democracy on perfect government judgment. Very few governments are perfect. And even if you think this one is, what about the next one?"

Anti-Terrorism Bill Targets More Than Just Terrorists

An editorial in the Globe and Mail also pointed to the danger of bill C-51, arguing the legislation does “much more than fight terrorism.”

The bill targets “activity that undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada,” that includes “terrorism,” “interference with critical infrastructure” and “interference with the capability of the Government in relation to…the economic or financial stability of Canada.”

The authors of the editorial argue the new legislation creates another “class of security-underminer” that has implications for “environmental activists denounced as radicals.”

“If Bill C-51 passes, CSIS will be able to disrupt anything its political masters believe might be a threat,” they write.

Criminalizing Indigenous Dissent

NDP MP Niki Ashton said the bill is a clear attempt to “criminalize dissent.”

“As we know, indigenous peoples – First Nations, Métis, Inuit, or indigenous peoples in general – have often been at the forefront in fighting for what is important to them and, in many ways, what is important to all of us,” she said during question period.

“These activists, these leaders, these members of their communities are not terrorists and do not pose a danger to the lives of anyone.”

The problem with the legislation is clear, Ashton said, “it lumps legitimate dissent together with terrorism. Indigenous peoples have a right to seek environmental and social justice through protest, communication and activism. This bill would call that criminal. It would call that work terrorism.”

Ashton quoted Pam Palmater, a Mi’kmaq lawyer and activist with the Idle No More movement.

Palmater said Canadians and First Nations “as treaty and territorial allies” face a “threat to our collective future” with the breakdown in democracy and radical changes to Canada’s legislative landscape that have eliminated many of the nation’s environmental laws.

“Hundreds of thousands of people across Canada rose up against Bill C-45 – the large, unconstitutional omnibus bill pushed through Parliament without debate which threatened our lakes and rivers,” Palmater said.

“This time, the threat is personal – any one of us could go to jail for thinking or voicing our opinions. All of the rights, freedoms and liberties upon which Canadian democracy rests will be suspended with Bill C-51. This bill creates what has been described as Harper’s ‘Secret Police force’ with terrifying expanded powers.”

Ashton said she is “uncomfortable in principle and in practice with any one government body having this kind of unchecked control.” Ashton said under Bill C-51 CSIS will have the power to “surveil and target anyone they want.”

“Indigenous and environmental activists are afraid about what that could mean when they organize to protest a pipelines, when they communicate among themselves to reclaim territory that is theirs, and when they speak out in defence against the government in any way, which is their right to do.”

Indigenous rights and climate activist Clayton Thomas-Muller said the bill “is an abuse of democracy.”

“Our movements are about justice. To criminalize Indigenous dissent, then, is to repress Indigenous rights in Canada, and our responsibilities to protect the land.”

“We are transparent, open, base-driven movements that take a non-violent, peaceful direct action approach…The state is criminalizing Indigenous peoples who are acting within their right to exercise jurisdiction over their lands.”

“It is clearly about providing a right-of-way for the mining and energy sector,” he said.

Image Credit: Mark Klotz via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Yet representatives from Canada’s broad environmental movement say the document is another example of the Harper government’s efforts to criminalize legitimate civil dissent such as peaceful climate activism and pipeline opposition.

The document, a Critical Infrastructure Intelligence Assessment report from early 2014 originally obtained by Greenpeace, provides “intelligence and/or information” that “may be used to assist in the protection of Canada’s [critical infrastructure],” such as pipelines and other oil and gas infrastructure. In recent years, discussion of Canada’s critical infrastructure (CI) has shifted from a focus on digital and electricity networks to energy-related infrastructure.

The RCMP intelligence report suggests growing opposition movements against pipelines should be seen and treated as criminal security threats although groups mentioned in the report are quick to point out the document fits into a much larger strategy, led by the Harper government, to beat back pipeline or oilsands opponents.

“This is absolutely the criminalization of peaceful protest,” Keith Stewart from Greenpeace Canada, one of the groups named in the document, said.

“The striking thing is that the U.S. has identified climate change as one of the greatest threats to national security, yet here in Stephen Harper's Canada it is the people trying to stop climate change that are identified as the threat.”

Stewart pointed out that in 2012, the Harper government called people concerned about climate change 'radicals' and 'money-launderers.’

“And now we are being called 'anti-petroleum extremists,’” Stewart lamented.

Screen caps from the RCMP report.

Stewart also pointed out the troubling “ideological” nature of the document. Its authors reference climate change as a “perceived environmental threat from the continued use of fossil fuels” that groups such as Greenpeace, Tides Canada and Sierra Club Canada have “an interest in drawing public attention to.”

The report also paints industry opponents with a broad and extreme brush, calling them “anti-petroleum extremists” and relies on the industry-friendly research of conservative commentator Vivian Krause to echo the foreign-funded radicals line first used by former natural resources minister Joe Oliver in 2012.

The report relies largely on publicly available newspaper articles for source material.

Caitlyn Vernon, campaigns director with Sierra Club B.C., said the leaked documents "show that our government considers climate change a hoax perpetuated by environmentalists."

"What is truly ‘extreme’ is to radically change our climate, impacting the health and security of generations of Canadians to come. What is ‘extreme’ is to ignore the warnings of climate scientists and governments from around the world, to continue extracting and burning tar sands and other fossil fuels, to leave a legacy of extreme weather and food shortages," Vernon said. "Our government is leading us down a path with extreme unpredictable consequences for all Canadians."

Among the RCMP report’s ‘key findings’ are concerns that “there is a growing, highly organized and well-financed, anti-Canadian petroleum movement, that consists of peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists, who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels.”

“Governments and petroleum companies are being encouraged, and increasingly threatened, by violent extremists to cease all actions which the extremists believe, contributes to greenhouse gas emissions,” the document states.

“Violent anti-petroleum extremists will continue to engage in criminal activity to promote their anti-petroleum ideology.”

The report is meant to provide critical infrastructure stakeholders, such as pipeline operators, with a “law enforcement assessment of current [critical infrastructure] protection issues.”

The existence of the RCMP report lends credence to concerns that the Harper government’s new anti-terrorism legislation will be used to label pipeline opponents and First Nations as ‘terrorists.’

Bill C-51 would give the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) extended powers to conduct surveillance, something they call ‘disruption,’ or make arrests if the individuals in question are seen as a potential threat.

The RCMP, CSIS as well as Public Safety Canada are all ‘Critical Infrastructure Partners’ in Canada. A Public Safety Canada Plan for Critical Infrastructure for 2014–2017 recommends increased collaboration between critical infrastructure partners and industry. The plan includes granting security clearance to oil and gas industry representatives so they can be brought in on sensitive information and secret intelligence.

Pipeline proponent Kinder Morgan recently cited ‘critical infrastructure security’ as a reason for withholding crucial spill response information from the province of B.C. in the ongoing National Energy Board review of the company’s proposal to nearly triple the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline that carries oilsands bitumen to the west coast.

Vernon from the Sierra Club said she is worried about the implications of the RCMP report in light of Bill C-51. 

"Will the proposed new anti-terrorism legislation be applied to anyone speaking up about the threat of climate change?" she asked. "Will we be labelled extremists and terrorists for participating in a rally to oppose the Enbridge or Kinder Morgan pipeline and promote more sustainable energy alternatives?"

The proposed legislation could have "frightening consequences for our democracy and for our climate," she added, saying the bill raises the "spectre of surveillance and interference and potential arrest for anyone who brings attention to the very real threat of climate change."

The RCMP report says the Alberta oilsands “are receiving singular international attention” because of growing climate concerns. Environmentalists using social media to attract attention to the issue “exaggerate the oilsands’ environmental footprint…[reference] reports that challenge the safety and integrity of the petroleum industry, and the hydraulic fracturing process,” the report states.

The report cites six separate incidents of criminal activity connected to the “anti-petroleum movement,” including the 2006 firebombing of a vehicle belonging to a vice president of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and explosive devices used to damage facilities belonging to Encana, the natural gas company at the centre of a massive legal battle involving the contamination of drinking water. No detailed documentation of these events is provided within the report.

Also referenced is the highly publicized Mi’kmaq First Nations blockade in New Brunswick in 2013 to protest the presence of fracking companies on unceded territory. The RCMP response to the blockade was met with severe criticism after the arrival of RCMP snipers, dogs and tasers turned a weeks-long peaceful protest into a battle ground.

“I think that attempted criminalization of indigenous dissent in this country is nothing new,” Clayton Thomas-Muller, member of the Mathais Colomb Cree Nation in Northern Manitoba and indigenous extreme energy campaigner with 350.org, said.* “It is however new for the Harper government to use the country’s security apparatus to weave a narrative of terrorism in general into indigenous dissent.”

“All of this is rooted in an agenda that really is about removing any kind of barrier to the Harper government’s economic action plan,” Thomas-Muller said. “Aboriginal priority rights are one barrier this government has not been able to remove through omnibus bills. The Harper government is trying to use the security apparatus to criminalize First Nations and spread propaganda."  

He added that aboriginal rights are not the result of mere extremism.

“The aboriginal legal regime has been built up not just through dissent on the streets and out in the land, but through the power of the courts and through sophisticated education strategies that are reaching out to Canadians, like Idle No More.” He added that aboriginal rights are enshrined in the Constitution, through treaties one through 11 and by way of 170 Supreme Court rulings.

"The federal government couldn’t be farther off when it comes to on the ground concerns about the energy industry in this country and they’re using the country’s security apparatus to remove barriers. They are worried about the tremendous amount of solidarity in Canada."  

A spokesperson with the RCMP, Sergeant Greg Cox, told the Globe and Mail the police force has a mandate to investigate potential criminal threats, "including those to critical infrastructure and at public events."

But, Cox said, “There is no focus on environmental groups, but rather on the broader criminal threats to Canada’s critical infrastructure. The RCMP does not monitor any environmental protest group. Its mandate is to investigate individuals involved in criminality.”

RCMP – Criminal Threats to Canadian Petroleum Industry by DeSmog Canada

*Updated February 23, 2015: An earlier version of this article stated Clayton Thomas-Muller works with the Polaris Institute. It was updated to reflect his current position with 350.org.

Image Credit: Burnaby Mountain protest by Zack Embree.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.