By Thia James

MP dismisses Bill C-51 privacy concerns as ‘hogwash’

Apr 8, 2015 | 4:48 PM

After wrapping up a roundtable discussion in Prince Albert to discuss measures included the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act, MP Randy Hoback dismissed concerns about privacy implications of the act.

“You know what, it’s a bunch of hogwash it really is, when you listen to these groups protesting their rights,” Hoback said on Wednesday morning after the discussion that included representatives from the City of Prince Albert, Prince Albert Fire Department, and Prince Albert Police Service.

The bill has garnered criticism for its inclusion of broad plans to enhance the powers of law enforcement to detain suspected terrorism suspects, as well as the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). It was also the subject of a recent nationwide protest in multiple cities, including Prince Albert.

Concerns that such powers could promote profiling are unfounded, in Hoback’s opinion.

“Ninety-nine point nine per cent of the population here in Canada will not have zero impact on C-51. Other than knowing that the police services and security services are actually out there keeping them safe,” he said.

Event Centre funding

City may hire lobbyist for event centre money

6h ago

International honours

Raiders' Kubiesa to represent Czechia at IIHF U18 Men's World Championship

9h ago

Learn the signs

How often should you change your brakes?

13h ago

The roundtable, co-hosted by Minister of Agriculture Gerry Ritz, was an opportunity for the city’s emergency responders to learn more about the measures included in the proposed act. It was also a chance for them to meet with representatives from different levels of government to discuss potential responses to a terrorist act, as well as what responders need to prevent terrorism in Prince Albert.

When asked what the likelihood is that a terrorist act could happen in Prince Albert, Hoback said Canada is on the list of places threatened when Jihadists send out messages, and they want to see harm done to Canadians.

“When you looked in Quebec, nobody said in that community that would have ever have a terrorist activity, and then they did,” he said, referring to the targeted hit and run that killed Canadian Armed Forces Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent last October. The driver, Martin Couture-Rouleau was known to authorities.

“So we have to be vigilant and we have to recognize that this is a new world that we live in and you know it’s important that we’re prepared and do whatever we can to intercept these people that would do harm to us before they would actually do the harm,” Hoback said.

As for the breadth of the kinds of attacks that could happen in local communities, he said there have been all sorts of varieties of terrorist activities around the world. He said the attitude in Ottawa at Parliament Hill was that no one would ever hurt them in Ottawa.

“One person created a lot of harm,” he said, referring to the shooting on Parliament Hill that killed Cpl. Nathan Cirillo last October. The shooter, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau then stormed Parliament’s Centre Block before he was shot dead by Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers.

Hoback said a passport officer right now couldn’t do anything with information gained about a traveller who has plans to participate in a Jihadist movement in Syria. Additionally, there isn’t information sharing between police services and Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).

Hoback said Bill C-51, the proposed anti-terrorism bill, breaks down these “silos” so information can be shared. He said it gives authorities the tools to assess and intercede threats.

“Canadians think we’re already doing that. The reality is, we’re not until we pass C-51.”

But federal NDP candidate for the Prince Albert riding, Lon Borgerson, has misgivings about the process by which the bill is being moved forward.

“This has been the end of a very bad process,” Borgerson said of Wednesday’s roundtable. “This is the kind of bill that affects our freedoms and our privacy as our safety and security. So it should have been introduced in a very non-partisan way in the House of Commons.”

He said the government should have invited discussion and debate because of the seriousness of the bill, but instead it has been “fast-tracked.”

Instead of returning to the riding to hear what constituents have to say, Borgerson said Hoback came back to tell them what the bill is about. Additionally, Borgerson described the meeting as “closed door” and as “invitation only.”

To Hoback’s assertion that the privacy concerns are “hogwash,” Borgerson said this is an example of the “partisan” nature of the bill.

“That’s not a very thoughtful response at all. In fact, Canada’s 12 privacy commissioners have all written letters to the government indicating their concerns that it doesn’t have enough privacy safeguards in it.”

In fact, the nation’s privacy commissioner, Daniel Therrien, stated his concerns about the privacy implications of the bill.

Therrien has been blocked from presenting his concerns in front of the public safety committee.

Borgerson feels this bill will be an issue in the upcoming federal election. His party is concerned about oversight of CSIS, as it is expected to get expanded powers.

He said we can have freedoms and security at the same time.

“We don’t have to choose one or the other. And that’s what I would like to see in bills like this.”

tjames@panow.com

On Twitter: @thiajames