Bill C-36

The Terror in Anti Terrorism Legislation

  • Liberal Bill C-36 – Invasion of the Terrorist Body Snatchers (Nov.15.2001)
  • .Anti Terrorism Bill C-36 – A Formula for Trouble at Home By Gary Morton
  • What does the anti-terrorism bill propose to do? from the CBC
  • LIBERTY V.S.  SECURITY By Connie Fogal
  • War on Terrorism Targets Green Party USA -  Sat, 3 Nov 2001 
  • LIBERTY V.S. SECURITY Web Page- Nov.2001 - articles on Canada's anti terrorism legislation Bills C35 and C36 and the War in Afghanistan  written by Connie Fogal, Director, Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee.
  • CJFE demands substantial revisions to Anti-Terrorism Act
  • Liberal Bill C-36 – Invasion of the Terrorist Body Snatchers (Nov.15.2001)

       In all of my emails, contacts and association with non governmental organizations, protest groups and other organs of Canadian civil society I've not met anyone that supports terrorism, Osama bin Laden or the Taliban. I've also not met anyone or any group that is in support of Liberal Bill C-36 anti terrorism legislation or the bombing of Afghanistan.

       To try to prevent terrorism through legislation, you have to develop a proper definition of terrorism. C-36 works to define nearly every form of dissent as terrorism. Protests, strikes, boycotts, even public meetings and collections can be branded as terrorist activity. It makes us all eggs in a new basket of law that overrides our Charter rights.

       The government and police agencies gain the power to pick and choose who they think is a terrorist. They can place a pod by any of our beds and like magic we wake up terrorists in the morning. Except that in this version of the body snatchers, we won't have changed at all – it is our status in society that changes. Suddenly we can be jailed without access to a lawyer or release, forced to talk, tried in secret hearings and denied the right to see the evidence against us.

       Terrorism is not dissent or normal political activity or action so I have to wonder why our government doesn't come up with a correct definition of terrorism. Terrorists or terrorist organizations are people or groups that intend to injure or kill themselves or others in pursuit of a political or economic goal. Our government should know how terrorists think, because they think in the same way when they make decisions to bomb other nations on the basis that innocent people will die but the future political situation will be improved.

       The sweeping nature of C-36 has convinced many people that the liberals really want to stamp out dissent and not terrorism. Most feel the liberal cabinet has abandoned the ideals of classic liberalism and is mainly a neo liberal group that believes in Free Trade or trade liberalization as an end in itself. A sort of weird fundamentalism of the West or ideology that sees individual rights as something to sacrifice for the greater good of multinational corporations. Liberals want to conclude trade deals that guarantee that Canadians won't strike or cause boycotts and trouble for bad corporate citizens.

        It sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, but the bill also reads like a crazy conspiracy. Can any government really be that sloppy? What is behind Bill C-36, and why are the opposition parties not attacking it as the dangerous bill it is?

        Under C-36 I wouldn't be able to write this article. To get information I attended a public meeting where the bill came under scrutiny, and a lawyer who in the past worked on terrorist cases and secret trials spoke. It was noted that any meeting discussing such topics would be highly illegal under C-36. That sort of political freedom of speech will be gone.

        … and when you look out the window the trucks full of (sweatshop manufactured GMO) pods will be there.

    Gary Morton

    EDITORIAL - Anti Terrorism Bill C-36 – A Formula for Trouble at Home
    Gary Morton
    November 3rd 2001

       In the West war used to be justified as a defense of human rights, freedom, culture and institutions from a less civilized aggressor. The fight was for the sophisticated spiritualist and humanist values passed on from the enlightened times of civilization.

       Today we are waging a form of war that has the goal of preserving our security. It is taking shape as a blunt form of killing, and as I write this it manifests itself as a Plan Afghanistan or the bombing and tormenting of the poorest people on Earth.

       It is a simple minded brand of vengeful action, sort of like - "What are we fightin' for? Don't ask me I don't give damn. Let's bomb Afghanistan…." And next week the September 11th inspired stop may be in Iraq or some other unlucky nation.

       If Osama Bin Laden's terrorist network blew up the World Trade Center, it was George Bush who really leveled Americans when he murdered the spirit of liberty with draconian anti terrorist legislation.

       A statue with a betrayed meaning remains near the smoldering rubble in New York, and in Canada our government, intelligence agencies and media use the terrorist threat and the carrot of security daily to convince us of the need to sacrifice our rights.

       Our war coalition's cluster bombs fall on Afghanistan, and the unexploded bomblets on the ground are yellow like the food aid packets we drop. In Ottawa the liberals cluster bomb the Charter of Rights with Bill C-36. Not seeming to know that their yellow package of security will blow up in our faces.

       Yesterday a local radio station interviewed people on the street as to how much they would give up to help fight terrorism. One panicked man said," Everything! I'll surrender everything!" His voice is the one our leaders hear in Bill C-36. Unleashing intelligence agencies and police with unlimited and unchecked powers of surveillance, arbitrary arrest and justice through secret evidence definitely indicates that our government has decided to surrender everything we value.

       Security will not come through granting dangerous powers to police. We will be abused as we discover that the white magic of C-36 is really racist magic. Our social order, humanity and society based on equal rights and respect is the only infrastructure that keeps us secure. Buildings, bridges and corporations can decay and fall to rubble as long as we retain a foundation of dignity and social justice.

       A friend recounts taking a shortcut through a Toronto alley at night after Sept 11th. "I encountered a Moslem man," he recounts," and we both suddenly stopped. His eyes were full of fear and so were mine. I thought that maybe he was a terrorist and he thought that maybe I was a racist. But the fear vanished and we both continued on our way." Illusions vanish and we live in reality again, remembering that this is Canada, and living in fear of everyone with darker skin should be the last thing on our minds.

       The real front line troops of terrorism are men of despair. Most of them born witnessing war, oppression, racism and inequality in foreign nations. Any real war against terrorism is being waged by forces of social justice from all races as an effort to eliminate world wide conditions of suffering and misery.

       With the mean-spirited articles of Bill C-36 being focused on people of color, we will have created a state of injustice, persecution and growing apartheid in Canada. As years go by we won't have to check the border for terrorists, because our new face of state sponsored oppression will insure that homegrown terrorists rise from a victimized public.

        Bill C-36 is the sunset clause of our open society. To consider it at all shows that the sun is setting on freedom and democracy.

        Instead of security we'll get insecurity, and with the social rules being written by police what we call racial equality, freedom of speech, protest and dissent today will be labeled as terrorism tomorrow.


    written by Connie Fogal, Director, Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee, 
    November 2, 

    “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor 
    security”....Benjamin Franklin
    “And neither will he receive either”...Rocco Galati

    Canada’s proposed antiterrorism law, Bill C 36, is an exploitive disguise to deliver us over to undemocratic globalization. It is a sword joining the USA, Australia and England slashing freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and the right to protest in order to eliminate the increasingly effective international democratic opposition to global corporatization. It targets and batters racial and religious groups as “whipping boys” (and girls) to justify the destruction of the civil liberties of all Canadians. Once enacted, it will be unlikely that any Charter of Rights Challenges will succeed because the Anti- Terrorism Act gives a discretion to the Court to make decisions based on national security. The Courts will not likely wish to step outside this escape mechanism. 

    Bill C 36, the Anti- Terrorism Act, is an act which amends many other acts and incorporates into it one new act as well, (Bill C16). The new one, (Bill C16), is the Registration of Charities (Security Information) Act. Bill C 36 amends the Criminal Code of Canada, the Official Secrets Act, The Canada Evidence Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Immigration Act, the proceeds of Crime Act, Access to Information Act, Canada Post Corporation Act, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, Access to Information Act, Privacy Act, Seized Property Management Act, Canadian Security Intelligence Act, United Nations Act, Identification of Criminals Act and others. The amendments remove the civil liberties previously guaranteed in those acts. Ethical, religious, and environmental arguments are not available as defences to any alleged breach of this new law. Prior to Bill C 36, these acts being amended provided sufficient mechanism for citizen and state protections. Bill C 36 has an ulterior agenda. It is on par with the laws of Mussolini and Hitler. 

    Rocco Galati, lawyer for the Canadian Islamic Congress, says, “19 terrorists in 6 weeks have been able to command 300 million North Americans to do away with the entirety of their civil liberties that took 700 years to advance from the Magna Carta onward. The terrorists have already won the political and ideological war with one terrorist act. It is mindboggling that we are that weak as a society.” 

    In October, 2001 only 8 Canadian Members of Parliament voted against Bill C36 at Second Reading. The Bill has been before the Senate and is now in the study stage by Parliamentary committee. Our Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, says he wants it passed into final law by Christmas 2001. What a great legacy for all the Parliamentarians sitting from the Year 2000 election and for this Prime Minister: Reigning over the death of democracy in Canada! Terminating civil liberties! 

    The 8 MP’s who voted for civil liberties were from the NDP. I am told the other 7 NDP members were not present. I am told the NDP caucus agreed they would all oppose the second reading of the anti terrorist bill. No constituency work elsewhere could be more important than to be present to be seen voting to preserve the liberty of Canadians. They should have been required by the party leader or whip to be present to vote for liberty. By the end of October, three Liberal Members of Parliament from the governing party of Liberals, and one Liberal Senator spoke out publicly against Bill C36. Interestingly they are all from the ethnic community: Herb Dhaliwal, Indo-Canadian, Vancouver South; Heidi Fry, Caribbean community, Vancouver Center; Sophie Leung, Chinese, Vancouver Kingsway; and Senator Mobina Jaffer, Indo Canadian. It is obvious the Canadian ethnic community understands the attack in process. Many of them have experienced and escaped this law in other countries. The ethnic communities know this law is aimed first at them to reach the rest of Canadians. They know classic racism and religious discrimination when they see it. 

    These three MP’s are responding to the pressure coming from their own ethnic communities. They did not have the courage, or understanding, or will on their own in Parliament to vote for liberty. Now they have no choice because their own community is taking them to task. They risk being struck from Cabinet and special committees in punishment by the Prime Minister for disobeying his order for no public dissent from Caucus. Obviously their constituency pressure is high. As it should be. Where is the rest of the Canadian community? 

    “First They Came For”....... by Reverend Martin Niemoeller 

    “In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then the came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn’t speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me.” 

    Reverend Niemoeller, a German Lutheran pastor, was arrested by the Gestapo and sent to Dachau in 1938. He was freed by the allied forces in 1945. 

    KILL BILL C36 Write your MP at: House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, K1AO86 (no stamp need to mail MP). Parliamentary Information Number: To obtain constituency address, telephone, and fax details about any Member of Parliament and to find out who is your MP call: 1-800-667-3355. Senators’ tel nos.& addresses: 1-800-267-7362; House of Commons, information: 613-992-4793 To e-mail any MP: “Surname”.“First initial” 

    In July 2001, on behalf of the Canadian Islamic Congress, *Rocco Galati made legal representation before a Parliamentary committee to stop Bill C16, the Registration of Charities (Security Information) Act . They succeeded, but once 9/11 happened, Bill C16 was reactivated and included in Bill C36. I include the summary of his opinion of Bill C 16. Full text of that legal argument will be on the Defence of Canadian Liberty website at shortly and is available by fax or e mail from me now. Phone 604 872 2128 and leave message. E mail: Fax 604 688 0550. I will broadcast Rocco Galati’s legal opinion written on behalf of the Canadian Islamic Congress re Bill C 36, the Anti-terrorist Act, soon. It too will be posted on our website. 

    (*Rocco Galati is reknowned for his legal work on behalf of the Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee challenging globalization and the criminalization of dissent.) 

    SUBMISSIONS OF CANADIAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS (“CIC”) TO PROPOSED BILL-16, “The Charities Registration (Security Information) Act” 

    Submitted Thursday, May 17th, 2001 ___________________ 

    Please accept the following submissions on behalf of the Canadian Islamic Congress. 


    The Canadian Islamic Congress is a moderate, umbrella, national organization representing the Muslim community in Canada. 

    The CIC condemns all acts of any violence, in Canada and abroad, by an armed person or group against a civilian population, group, or persons, for political, economic, racial, or social reasons, which is what the CIC understands to be “terrorism”, including state terrorism. 

    The CIC fully supports the refusal to register, and the de-registration, under the Income Tax Act, of charities who “fundraise” or forward their resources to terrorist groups or their supporters. However, the CIC is distressed at the fact that draconian, star-chamber process and laws would be invoked to refuse to register, or de-register, without any knowledge, or intent on the part of the charity and without ever seeing the evidence, nor being able to appeal the determination. 

    Interposed into this “judicial” process, is a “political loop” whereby two Ministers, who are not divorced of political consideration, make secret decisions which inescapably come down to race, religion, and ethnic origin. 

    This process and unjust law and procedure is guaranteed to inflame racial and religious stereotypes against certain targeted groups as well as fester and inflame hatred and racial, religious, and ethnic strife between different groups within Canadian society. 

    The CIC strongly urges substantial amendment to Bill C-16. 

    Summary of Submissions 

    The summary of the unacceptable state of Bill-16, set out in detail below, is that Bill C-16, in its present form is: 

    1. “overlybroad” in its application in lacking: (a) clear and direct link (as opposed to endless degrees of separation); (b) knowledge or intent; (c) gross negligence, lack of due diligence no acquiescence; 

    on the part of the charity in having “any of its resources” ending up in the hands of any “terrorist” organization, person, or “supporter”, directly or “indirectly”; 

    2. “vague” in its references to: (a) “any of its resources”; (b) “indirectly”; (c) “supporters”; (d) “terrorism”; 

    3. procedurally unacceptable in holding a secret, CSIS proceeding, dittoed from a s.40.1 Immigration Act hearing, (a) without seeing the evidence; (b) before a Federal Court judge who must be pre-approved by CSIS; (c) with no right of appeal; (d) without any administrative ability to sit down with either Minister, in cases of no clear and direct link, and attempt to resolve the problem before the certificate is signed; 

    4. the proceeding itself is a star-chamber process not in accordance with our Canadian judicial system and with our Charter of Freedoms and Rights, ensured to instill racial divide and disharmony in Canada; 

    5. the process and law inflicts an “absolute” liability on the charity without any moral blameworthiness, knowledge, intent, or even any lack of due diligence on its part; 

    6. the name of the charity should not be concealed only upon Court application by the charity, as there is lag time between the signing of the certificate and the appearance of the application in the Court, which necessarily requires naming and is of public record, but the identity should be anonymous on the face of the certificate and anonymity should commence upon signing the certificate; 

    7. there should be full compensation for legal costs in cases where the charity is successful in quashing or resisting the de-registration; 

    8. in light of the history and classifications of charities, dating back to the Statute of Elizabeth, 1601, still used by the courts for classification, Bill-16 ought to be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, on a reference, to determine its constitutionality. 

    Rocco Galati, B.A., LL.B, LL.M. GALATI, RODRIGUES, AZEVEDO & Associates Barristers & Solicitors, 637 College Street, Suite 203, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1B5 Tel: (416) 536-7811 Fax: (416) 536-6801 Cell: (416) 471-0455 

    On behalf of the Canadian Islamic Congress 

    "Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power"...Benito Mussolini 

    DEFENCE of CANADIAN LIBERTY COMMITTEE/LE COMITÉ de la LIBERTÉ CANADIENNE C/0 #401- 207 West Hastings St Vancouver BC Canada V6B1H7 Tel: (604)872 2128; fax: (604) 872 -1504 or (604) 688-0550;cellular(604) 202 7334; E-MAIL; 

    “The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled” Supreme Court of Canada A.G. of Nova Scotia and A.G. of Canada, S.C.R. 1951 pp 32 

    War on Terrorism Targets Green Party USA -  Sat, 3 Nov 2001 
    From: "Paul" <>

    * The Green Party USA statement on the war against Afghanistan is at

       Armed government agents grabbed Nancy Oden, Green Party USA coordinating committee member, Thursday at Bangor International Airport in Bangor Maine, as she attempted to board an American Airlines flight to Chicago.
       "An official told me that my name had been flagged in the computer," a shaken Oden said. "I was targeted because the Green Party USA opposes the bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan."
       Oden, a long-time organic farmer and peace activist in northern Maine, was ordered away from the plane. Military personnel with automatic weapons surrounded Oden and instructed all airlines to deny her passage on ANY flight. "I was told that the airport was closed to me until further notice and that my ticket would not be refunded," Oden said.
       Oden is scheduled to speak in Chicago Friday night on a panel concerning pesticides as weapons of war. She had helped to coordinate the Green Party USA's antiwar efforts these past few months, and was to report on these to The Greens national committee. "Not only did they stop me at the airport but some mysterious party had called the hotel and cancelled my reservation," Oden said.
       The Greens National Committee -- the governing body of the Green Party USA -- is meeting in Chicago Nov. 2-4 to hammer out the details of national campaigns against bio-chemical warfare, the spraying of toxic pesticides, genetic engineering, and the Party's involvement in the burgeoning peace movement.
       "I am shocked that US military prevented one of our prominent Green Party members from attending the meeting in Chicago," said Elizabeth Fattah, a GPUSA representative from Pennsylvania who drove to Chicago. "I am outraged at the way the Bill of Rights is being trampled upon."
       Chicago Green activist Lionel Trepanier concluded, "The attack on the right of association of an opposition political party is chilling. The harassment of peace activists is reprehensible."

    What does the anti-terrorism bill propose to do?
    Sabrina Saccoccio, CBC News Online | November 2001

    For the first time in Canadian history, charging someone with terrorism will be possible if the federal government’s proposed legislation passes through the House of Commons. That’s because the bill aims to specifically define terrorism and enact it as a punishable offence within Canada’s Criminal Code. This language, combined with more freedom for police officers to use wiretaps and make arrests, means it will be a whole lot easier to crack down on terrorists and the people who fundraise for them.

    How does Bill C-36 define "terrorism?"
    "We all know that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist," read a memo by the new agency’s head Stephen Jukes after the attacks on Sept. 11. In the past, the Canadian justice system has also avoided using the term terrorist, relying on hijacking and murder offences to prosecute terrorists. The current anti-terrorism bill proposes to change this by adding a definition of "terrorist activity" to the code. The official definition would incorporate the following:

        * it is an offence under one of 10 United Nations anti-terrorism conventions and protocols; or
        * it is taken or threatened for political, religious or ideological purposes and threatens the public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering a person, causing substantial property damage that is likely to seriously harm people, or by interfering with or disrupting an essential service, facility or system.
        * The definition is carefully circumscribed to make it clear that disrupting an essential service is not a terrorist activity if it occurs during a lawful protest or a work strike and is not intended to cause serious harm to persons.

    In the wake of objections to the definition, Justice Minister Anne McLellan has suggested removing the word "lawful" to protect participants of illegal protests, strikes or demonstrations.

    What are some of the powers of the proposed law?
    Bill C-36 tabled by McLellan in the House of Commons makes it easier to arrest people suspected of terrorism. In fact, police wouldn’t even need a warrant to make an arrest as long as they believe they are preventing a terrorist attack. The bill would also make it easier for officers to use electronic surveillance. For instance, the use of wiretaps to seek out terrorists could be extended to one year from the usual two months and the requirement of telling the suspect about electronic surveillance after it has taken place could be delayed for up to three years.

    In addition to the Criminal Code, the bill would add to the scope of other legislation. Under the Income Tax Act, organizations supporting terrorist groups that claim to be charities could be stripped of their charitable status. The Official Secrets Act — under the new name Security of Information Act — would be changed to address the threat of foreign powers and terrorists spying on Canada. The Canada Evidence Act would offer more protection to the country’s intelligence information. The National Defence Act would enable the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) to gather intelligence on terrorist groups.

    The bill would also allow the government to store the DNA of terrorists, to compile lists of terrorists and their organizations and to freeze and take away the assets of terrorists and their supporters.

    What would the punishment for terrorism be?
    Punishment under the new bill depends on just how involved the terrorist activity is. Someone who knowingly takes in a terrorist or commits a hate crime in relation to religious property would face up to 10 years in jail. Someone who takes part in terrorism or is an accomplice to a terrorist activity could also get 10 years.

    Facilitating a terrorist activity carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. The heaviest sentence goes to the leader — a person who instructs an activity of terrorism could get life. Offenders would be eligible for parole only at the halfway point of the sentence and would have to serve any other terrorism-related sentences consecutively.

    When will the bill become law?
    Now that McLellan has tabled the anti-terrorism bill in the House of Commons, she will have to get the opposition’s approval. However, it appears as if this will be a straightforward process. Since opposition parties have generally supported the government’s policies on the attacks, the bill will likely make its way through the House in as little as a month.

    When would the law expire?
    Bill C-36 does not have an expiry date. Rather, it would be subject to a "parliamentary review" three years after it became a law. At that time, it would be up to parliament to determine whether the anti-terrorism law was still a necessity. This is different than a "sunset clause," which sets a date for the automatic expiry of a law.

    McLellan did propose amending the bill so two of its provisions have a sunset date. She suggested giving police power to arrest without a warrant and compelling testimony in investigative hearings should expire in five years unless renewed by a parliamentary vote. It is hopeful this will ease concerns that Bill C-36 infringes upon civil liberties.

    McLellan also proposed a 15-year expiry date for the Attorney General's power to issue certificates preventing information from being released under privacy and access to information laws.

    How does it compare to other countries’ anti-terrorist legislation?
    Although England’s legislation is much more thorough with 131 clauses, it defines terrorism in almost the exact way Canada’s proposed legislation does. The British Terrorism Act 2000 says terrorism is intimidation with use of violence, damage to property, endangerment to life and public safety for the purpose of advancing politics, religion or ideology.

    Canada’s proposed bill also resembles the one overwhelmingly passed by the U.S. Congress and enacted by President George Bush Oct. 26. Like BillC-36, the American act sets out to reduce restrictions on wiretaps, to prosecute those who assist terrorists, to seize terrorist funds and to punish terrorism with life in prison. As well, an amendment suggested by the U.S. House of Representatives for certain provisions to expire in five years was enacted.