
Bill C-51 passes in House of Commons - alfredxing
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c-51-passes-in-house-of-commons-1.3064235
======
Canada
> The new disruption powers could permit CSIS to thwart travel plans, cancel
> bank transactions and covertly interfere with radical websites. The bill
> says CSIS needs "reasonable grounds to believe" a security threat exists
> before taking measures to disrupt it. It requires CSIS to get a court order
> whenever its proposed disruption violates the charter of rights or breaches
> Canadian law in any way.

CSIS can now cancel our flights, freeze our bank accounts, and take down our
web sites without any due process whatsoever, but don't worry, they need to
get a secret court order against us in order to WAIVE our charter rights!

Encouraging someone to commit a terrorist act is now a crime. I expect this
will be a very popular law for authorities use their new powers to exempt
themselves from.

I'll be surprised if we make it a whole year before this is abused for some
completely unrelated purpose such as harassing the administrations critics.

This will have real consequences for freedom of speech online. CSIS has been
operating a huge mass surveillance system for a very long time, and today it
just grew legal teeth.

~~~
Everlag
'The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and
freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by
law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.' \-
Section 1, Charter of Rights and Freedoms

I like how a single crooked judge can now covertly determine what is a free
and democratic society. I mean, this was the case before but it had to happen
in the public which had some sense of accountability.

~~~
dblohm7
Not exactly. The criteria for what constitutes a reasonable limit was
established by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1986.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Oakes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Oakes)

~~~
MCRed
I don't know about Canada, but in the USA precedent is only applicable if it's
brought up and the judge decides its relevant.

In non-contested situations (eg: only the government is before the court,
there is no opposition attorney) there would be no reason to bring up
precedents that don't support the governments position.

This is part of the reason secret courts are so fundamentally wrong.

------
nickysielicki
The silver lining of all these entirely misguided and ineffective laws is that
it's going to push the non-"terrorist"[0], law abiding, good people towards
Tor and other secure communications, inherently strengthening them.

The terrorists and pedophiles are already on there anyway. And the powers that
be can't do anything about it.

We seriously need more computer scientists in politics, or even better, we
need computer sciences and technical literacy to be requirements for anyone
getting a college degree, no matter what they're studying.

[0]: terrorist in quotes because I don't believe in the word. Terrorism is
doublespeak, and it always has been.

~~~
Canada
I'm in complete agreement with you that this will provide much needed
motivation for adoption of technical security.

I have to wonder though, does technical literacy or computer science training
really cause a person to respect basic civil liberties?

The people who built the mass surveillance apparatus must be just as much a
part of the technical community as anyone here.

~~~
coldpie
It would help avoid the stupid nonsense calls for "backdoors to encryption,"
because people with such an education would realize that "backdoors to
encryption" is identical to "no encryption whatsoever."

------
fmela
France has also just passed measures giving the government broad powers of
surveillance. Of course, they are also trying to provide reassurance that
these new powers won't be abused. Haven't we heard this story before?

In the cold war days, everyone was racing to get the bomb. Nowadays, it seems
everyone is racing to get the powers of mass surveillance.

------
DigitalSea
Looks like democracy has well and truly failed in Canada. Just wow. Look at
that oversight. I think it is just a matter of time until this bill is used to
target people for acts other than terrorism. With this kind of power comes
misuse. If you're Canadian, be careful what you say online because it might be
used to stop you flying or worse, imprisoned.

~~~
higherpurpose
The problem is as usual the culture. If most of the people _truly don 't want
this_ then it's just a matter of time until they do mass protests/revolt, etc.

However, if the government manages to control everything quickly - Putin-style
- and then through the brain-washing mass-media manages to _change the
culture_ and make people believe that what they are doing is good and right,
then yeah, you're screwed. Look at China - most people there seem to actually
believe that "censorship works" in "keeping the society united" or whatever
bullshit the government is feeding them.

 _That 's_ the real danger. Not some random dictator coming to power. But a
change of culture and beliefs in the population.

~~~
totony
Protesting is illegal in Canada. Just look at the recent protests and what
hapened in Quebec w/r to education protests.

------
alfredxing
I'm actually wondering why the politicians voted for the bill today. Federal
elections are only a few months away, and surely with such a large show of
backlash from the public and the media, they would be more mindful of the
effect of this on their chances of getting re-elected? What's the use in
passing a bill if it means you potentially won't get to take advantage and/or
abuse it for more than a couple of months?

------
jbernab
Most governments around the world have secretly declared war to the people
long ago... but just now they are declaring it openly, trying to hide the
intent saying those are for terrorists, but redefining how a terrorist looks
like. Now is pretty late.

------
dorfsmay
That's unbelievable, considering how much push back there has been...

Can anything be done to influence the senate?

~~~
alfredxing
It's really quite rare that the Senate will reject a bill that has passed in
the House, seeing as members of the Senate are appointed by the elected
parties.

~~~
dorfsmay
There is now a petition to try to influence the senate:

[https://stopc51.ca/](https://stopc51.ca/)

------
smuser90
"It also increases the exchange of federal security information, broadens no-
fly list powers and creates a new criminal offence of encouraging someone to
carry out a terrorist attack"... Unless you're an agent of the state, in which
case its terrorism hunting

------
dmix
> covertly interfere with radical websites

What are the grounds to be considered a "radical website"?

I helped volunteer to build the Toronto Cryptoparty website, so this concerns
me as a Canadian citizen. Especially as encryption becomes further villianized
by the government and media.

------
Spooks
Here is a list of who voted yea or nay.

[http://www.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberVoteDetail...](http://www.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberVoteDetail.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&FltrParl=41&FltrSes=2&Vote=392)

I love how the liberals were saying they are for the bill but it requires some
modification, and yet they all vote for it anyways.

------
floor__
Just an awful day for Canada. Whats the point of the government if they don't
listen to the people. I can't see more than 1% of the population wanting this.
Should elect a government that listens to the people.

~~~
rayiner
Try 35-38% overall, and 72% of conservatives:
[http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04/10/bill-c-51-poll-
anti-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04/10/bill-c-51-poll-anti-terror-
legislation_n_7042460.html). The government is listening to the people that
elected them.

~~~
higherpurpose
I don't think most people would agree with such bills if they _truly_
understood them and the potential for abuse.

What they usually hear is "this bill will stop terrorism - well, that's good
enough for me!" and don't research the issue any further.

Most people would especially be furious to learn that such bills _don 't in
fact stop terrorism_ and they are just lied to so the governments gets more
power. But because they don't have a good understanding of the issue
themselves they just think that's just some "liberal propaganda trying to
remove our _small government_ (ironically) guys from power", or whatever.

~~~
rayiner
Or, they reasonably calculate that the risk/reward is in their favor? Even if
the law is used 100% to suppress political dissent, it's not like the
government is going to target people expressing mainstream conservative
viewpoints.

~~~
yarrel
It may not target them but the funny thing about this kind of law is - hang
on, you're discussing government policy on a critical site? That's a watch-
listin'!

------
rgawdzik
So this is how liberty dies....with thunderous applause.

~~~
Intermernet
_This is the way the world ends_

 _Not with a bang but a whimper._

 _T. S. Eliot_

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hollow_Men](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hollow_Men)

------
robertfw
This Bill has brought the grassroots out of the soil, myself included - lots
of the people I've been working with were not politically active until C51 was
tabled. The NDP win in Alberta is making people realize that change is
possible. The NDP stand a real chance of winning a majority government this
fall.

------
walterbell
Orphan Black (set in Toronto) could incorporate this bill into a storyline, to
raise awareness of possible futures.

------
fsloth
I have not followed canadian politics. Could someone give a tiny synopsis -
Has there been some major political shift there recently or what?

~~~
alfredxing
This (quite recent) HN post:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9416549](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9416549)
and the top comment on it explain C-51 quite well.

Current Canadian politics summary: Stephen Harper.

~~~
jdc
What surprised me was the the Liberal party helped pass it.

~~~
ojbyrne
Politics I believe. The liberals knew it was going to get passed one way or
another, and if they voted against it, the Conservatives would use the
"supporting terrorism and pedophilia" attack on them in the coming election.

~~~
badloginagain
But it's push left leaning voters to NDP. This cuts into the Liberals base
something fierce, so unless Trudeau is trying to split the conservative vote
(which seems insane) then they've severely stumbled.

They said they'd back it with modifications, no modifications were made, and
they voted Yes anyways. What message he was trying to send to voters backing
down so easily?

------
lo_fye
Be careful of what you say here... it could get you put on a no fly list, or
result in your website evapourating.

------
12bits
[http://www.canadassecretbigbrother.com/](http://www.canadassecretbigbrother.com/)

------
nether
Excellent.

------
curiously
some mentally ill guy goes crazy, President of Canada hides in closet, patriot
act cloned.

~~~
Naga
Canada doesn't have a President. Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister and Head
of Government. Elizabeth II is the Head of State.

~~~
dorfsmay
In theory...

When was the last time that the monarch of the Governor General dissolved the
assembly?

~~~
guiomie
She actually did it in 2008.

~~~
dorfsmay
The GG did not stepped in, did not dissolve the assembly.

She was asked to make a decision, and sided with the government agaisnt the
will of the majority of elected representative.

We will never know if she tried to do the right thing to save us from an
election (saving money), or just tried not to make waves. We will never know
what what would have been the result of an election had it happened in this
particular condition.

