The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50841
A 2007 ruling in the case of Montrealer Adil Charkaoui called for security-cleared 'special advocates' to be permitted to attend closed-door court hearings in which a judge assesses the validity of federal evidence without the presence of the suspects or their lawyers. repeatedly decried as toothless because it depends on the force's voluntary co- operation. Moreover, it has no authority to probe whether the force is overstepping its authority on issues involving nation- al security, leaving a sizeable amount of federal policing that is unchecked. The Conservative government promised last year to create a new independent, civilian RCMP commission, giving it new investi- gative power to subpoena documents and compel witnesses to surrender informa- tion for investigations and hearings. The initiative died when the spring election was called. O'Connor also recommended that the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the CSIS watchdog, be given new, expanded power to monitor national security activities involving govern- ment departments, such as Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. His report noted that the Sept. 11 terror attacks thrust the RCMP and CSIS into expansive new roles in investigating and gathering intelligence without strength- ened oversight. Many intelligence gaffes and con- troversial practices have come to light in the last 10 years, mainly through the court rulings and inquiry findings. They include revelations that CSIS has used shady informants, has shared informa- tion that contributed to the detention and mistreatment of Canadian terror suspects abroad, and that it would use information obtained abroad through torture to derail a terrorist plot. Also, intelligence sharing has put Canadian residents on domestic or international watch lists or no-fly lists without explanation or means of being exonerated. "I have clients who can't leave Canada because they are on a list and they don't know why," laments Waldman, of Lorne Waldman & Associates. "Or they are afraid to leave because they think they might not get back." Roach notes that authorities continue to share information with the United States and other countries based on association with suspected terrorists, and once the information is in foreign hands, Canadian authorities have no control over it. "The point is not that Canada should not share information," he says. "Such a splendid iso- lationist approach is unrealistic given the reality of international terrorism. Rather, as the Arar commission recommended, independent review must be expanded to ensure appropriate screening of the infor- mation that must be shared." It is not lost on anyone that terror sus- pects and their associates are not the only ones for whom life has changed in the last decade. Governments worldwide, in the name of national security, have embraced surveillance measures such as body scan- ners and heightened screening at airports and border points, closed-circuit television cameras in public places, data mining, as well as restricted access and more policing at organized events. "Intensification," says David Lyon, director of the Surveillance Studies Centre at Queen's University. "I tend to think that one word is rather good to describe what happened." Lyon, however, believes that the world was heading in the direction of increased surveillance anyway, and that the Sept. 11 terrorist bombings created a perfect storm of sorts. Governments, led by the U.S. as it sought a new mission to replace the failed war on drugs, embraced technology that was offered up by a high-tech industry that was looking for new business after the dot-com bust. "All the types of techni- cal devices and software were in place. It was just not at the stage of being used for national security," says Lyon, author of the book Surveillance after September 11. Critics of unaudited spending on national security say it's time to do a cost- benefit analysis, given that the chances of a terrorist attack have proven to be low, with not even one occurring in Canada or the U.S. in the last decade. "Certainly the costs are enormous," says Des Rosiers. "You can never have enough security for some people. There will always be a new gadget on the market to minimize the risks . . . and the sky's the limit. There's a feeling that if you don't do it, you are failing the war on terror and failing your citizens and there is very little way to chal- lenge this." www.CANADIAN Lawyermag.com SEPTEMBER 2011 31 REuTERS/STR NEW