Download Greenpeace Canada Presentation to the Standing Committee on

Greenpeace Canada Presentation to the Standing Committee on Public
Safety and National Security on Bill C-51
March 12, 2015
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak to you today on Bill C-51, a
critical piece of legislation.
I am Joanna Kerr, Executive Director of Greenpeace Canada. I am joined today by
Keith Stewart, head of Greenpeace’s climate and energy campaign.
In my global roles as CEO of Action Aid International and Policy Director with
Oxfam Canada, and now with Greenpeace, I have seen first-hand the power of
protest and dissent in effecting real, transformative change for the betterment of
people and the planet.
I’d like to start with a few simple questions:




Would women have the vote today if the suffragettes had not engaged in
widespread non-violent protest?
Would racial de-segregation in the United States have occurred without sit-ins,
marches, public protests and peaceful sustained resistance to unfair laws?
Would despotic governments have been overthrown around the world without
people merging into the streets and holding ground?
Would de-colonization have happened without non-violent direct action?
All of these movements, and those against slavery and apartheid to name a few,
employed peaceful but “unlawful” means to confront unjust laws and practices and
challenge society’s views of right and wrong. They expedited change which was
urgently needed.
That is the kind of change which is required today if we are to address the
formidable threat posed by climate change.
Greenpeace’s mission was forged in non-violent direct action, and we have used it
to great effect over 40 years. We were instrumental in ending nuclear tests in the
waters of the South Pacific, in ending scientific and commercial whaling, in ending
toxic dumping in the world’s oceans, in getting a treaty to curb acid rain, and in the
protections now afforded Canada’s Great Bear Rainforest.
1
None of these critical environmental protections would exist without peaceful
confrontation, what we refer to as non-violent direct action.
Do we really believe the interests of national security will be served by restricting
these fundamental options for civil protest – be it against injustice, corruption,
racism or pollution?
Because that is what Bill C-51 proposes in the name of national security.
Professors Craig Forcese and Ken Roach have shown that the bill could be used
to target democratic protest movements engaged in such struggles.1 And based
on evidence from public statements by cabinet ministers, as well as leaked RCMP
and government documents, there is strong reason to suspect these powers could
and would be used against those advocating for clean water, precious ecosystems
and an end to catastrophic climate change.
We are very concerned that this draft legislation appears to target environmental
and First Nation climate advocates as a threat to security. To borrow a line from
David Suzuki:
“Pollution and climate change caused by excessive burning of fossil fuels
are [the] 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.”2
Greenpeace joins many others in having serious concerns with this legislation.
More than 100 legal experts wrote an open letter to Parliament calling on you to
amend or kill this bill, on the grounds that it is a danger to the rule of law, to
protected rights and to the health of Canada’s democracy. They argue that it may
not only be ineffective in countering terrorism, but could actually frustrate antiterrorism efforts.3
1
See the backgrounders and analysis at National Security Law Blog. URL:
http://craigforcese.squarespace.com/national-security-law-blog/. On this issue in particular, see “Bill
C-51: Does It Reach Protest And Civil Disobedience?”. URL:
http://craigforcese.squarespace.com/national-security-law-blog/2015/2/19/bill-c-51-does-it-reachprotest-and-civil-disobedience.html
2
David Suzuki. ““The Government Can't Intimidate Activists By Calling Us ‘Extremists’". Huffington
Post. March 4, 2015. URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/harper-environmentalextremism_b_6796028.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
3
“Open letter to Parliament: Amend C-51 or kill it” signed by over 100 professors of law and related
disciplines. National Post. February 27, 2015. URL: http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/27/openletter-to-parliament-amend-c-51-or-kill-it/
2
We share their concerns. And today I would like to focus on what this bill could
mean for democratic debate in this country.
The government says the sweeping new powers being granted to CSIS would not
be used to target its political opponents. If that is so, then as legislators you have
an obligation to write the legislation so that it cannot be used that way.
This was a key finding of a 2009 United Kingdom parliamentary review of the
relationship between policing and protest movements. It stated:
“[T]he better approach is to draft legislation itself in sufficiently precise terms
so as to constrain and guide police discretion, rather than to rely on decision
makers to exercise a broad discretion compatibly with human rights.”4
Your British colleagues went on to note that: “We are concerned by the reports we
have received of police using counter-terrorism powers on peaceful protestors” and
to urge that amendments be made “to make clear that counter-terrorism powers
should not be used against peaceful protestors.”5
As University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese has pointed out, the antiterrorism law, 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.” 6
We have already seen evidence of this. Government ministers have already
characterized anti-pipeline protesters as foreign-funded radicals7 and even moneylaunderers.8 A copy of the federal government’s Oil Sands Advocacy Strategy
4
UK House of Lords / House of Commons Human Rights Joint Committee. Demonstrating respect
for rights? A human rights approach to policing protest. March 3, 2009. URL:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/47/4707.htm#a24
5
Ibid.
6
“Bill C-51: Does It Reach Protest And Civil Disobedience?”. URL:
http://craigforcese.squarespace.com/national-security-law-blog/2015/2/19/bill-c-51-does-it-reachprotest-and-civil-disobedience.html
7
CBC News. “Radicals working against oilsands, Ottawa says”. January 9, 2012. URL:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/radicals-working-against-oilsands-ottawa-says-1.1148310. See also
Joe Oliver. “An open letter from the Honourable Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources, on
Canada’s commitment to diversify our energy markets and the need to further streamline the
regulatory process in order to advance Canada’s national economic interest.” January 9, 2012.
URL: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/media-room/news-release/2012/1/1909
8
CBC News. “Charities urge Peter Kent to retract 'laundering' accusation“. May 4, 2012. URL:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/charities-urge-peter-kent-to-retract-laundering-accusation1.1213026
3
obtained by Greenpeace under Access to Information legislation identified
environmental and aboriginal groups as “adversaries”, while oil companies were
listed as “allies”.
It’s more detrimental than just name-calling. The 2012 omnibus budget bill not only
re-wrote Canada’s environmental legislation to reduce public involvement in
decision-making, but also gave the Canada Revenue Agency millions of new
dollars to conduct audits of charitable organizations that disagree with government
policy. The Voices-Voix coalition has documented more than 100 cases of recent
attacks against those that have raised their voices to criticize government policy.9
Last month, the newspaper LaPresse obtained a copy of a secret RCMP “Critical
Infrastructure Intelligence Assessment” that names Greenpeace, Tides Canada
and the Sierra Club as part of “a growing, highly organized and well-financed antiCanada petroleum movement that consists of peaceful activists, militants and
violent extremists who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels.”
Remarkably, this RCMP report downplays climate change. It says that these
groups “assert climate change is now the most serious global threat, and that
climate change is a direct consequence of elevated anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions which, they believe, are directly linked to the continued use of fossil
fuels” and that by highlighting “the perceived environmental threat from the
continued use of fossil fuels” we are fuelling a “broadly based anti-petroleum
opposition” 10 (emphasis added).
While the RCMP questions the legitimacy of the threat of climate change, the
Pentagon has called climate change a “threat multiplier.”11 The most recent U.S.
National Security Strategy identified climate change as a threat on par with
terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and disease.12 The World Bank says that it
“…is a fundamental threat to sustainable development and the fight against
poverty.”13 An article published last week in the Proceedings of the National
9
See detailed case studies at http://voices-voix.ca/en
RCMP. Critical Infrastructure Intelligence Assessment: Criminal Threats to the Canadian
Petroleum Industry. January 24, 2014. URL:
http://www.desmog.ca/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/RCMP%20%20Criminal%20Threats%20to%20Canadian%20Petroleum%20Industry.pdf
11
U.S. Department of Defense. Quadrennial Defense Review. 2014. URL:
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf
12
National Security Strategy. February 2015. URL:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy.pdf
13
From http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange
10
4
Academy of Sciences, found that “human influences on the climate system are
implicated in the current Syrian conflict.”14
Perhaps more worrying, in light of Bill C-51, the RCMP document categorizes civil
disobedience and unlawful protest as being “beyond peaceful actions,” conflating
peaceful activists with those who engage in violence in the category of “antipetroleum” extremists.
To be clear: we believe that the threat of climate change must be addressed
through peaceful, democratic means. 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.
The vast majority of people calling for a debate on fossil fuels and climate change
— including those who engage in civil disobedience — aren’t “violent antipetroleum extremists.” They are school children and grandmothers, ranchers and
parents. They are people from all walks of life who care about their families, their
community, their country, and the future our world.
Indeed, the right to peaceful protest has been recognized around the world as
integral to a healthy democracy. We have provided the Committee with a copy of
Greenpeace’s submission to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights on this topic, which lays out the legal framework and relevant international
case law.15
Bill C-51 does have an exemption for lawful protest and dissent. But there are
many forms of protest that aren't strictly lawful such as a rally that doesn’t get the
proper permits, a wildcat strike, sit-ins, or Idle No More blockades set up by First
Nations to defend their treaty rights. These are all crucial tools which should be
available to democratic protest movements.
We already have laws to address these types of actions, so undertaking or
supporting such actions should never be conflated with terrorism, nor should it
enable the kind of surveillance and interference contained in Bill C-51.
14
Colin P. Kelley, Shahrzad Mohtadi, Mark A. Cane, Richard Seager, and Yochanan Kushnir.
“Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought”. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences. January 30, 2015. URL:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/02/23/1421533112
15
“Greenpeace International response to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights invitation for information on best practices in the field of peaceful protests”. November 2012.
5
Indeed, the word “lawful” was struck from the current anti-terrorism law following
expert testimony in 2001, so that unlawful activities such as trespass or minor
property damage not be conflated with terrorism.16
So I want to ask you again in closing: do you believe that the interests of national
security will be served by restricting these fundamental, often vital, options for
citizen expression and civil protest?
We absolutely do not.
We ask you to think through the risks this draft bill holds for Canadians’ freedom of
democratic expression and assembly.
We ask you to kill this bill and demand the government start again, with a clear set
of principles that protect the health of our democracy and the right of citizens to
protest peacefully and effectively.
16
Hansard. Standing Committee on Human Rights and Justice. November 20, 2001.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1041152
6