Article content continued

All these provisions have been criticized, usually by lawyers, by political opponents of the government, or by lawyers who are political opponents of the government. Sometimes one wonders if critics have even read the text.

One distinguished law professor at the University of Toronto, for instance, claimed that C-51 would comprehend “anything ‘undermining’ (whatever that means)” the security of Canada. In fact C-51 provides a nine-point definition of what “undermining the security of Canada” means.

Most critics combine two questionable arguments. The first ignores the current international political context. C-51 is simply denounced on the grounds of abstract principles detached from political reality. The chief anxiety is that CSIS, which is often mistakenly called a “spy agency” rather than a counter-spy (or security intelligence) outfit, is the thin edge of the wedge leading to a police state, not to say totalitarian domination.

To the commonsensical request for evidence of the nefarious purposes contemplated for a future CSIS, reference is usually made by critics to the secrecy that envelops many of the activities of this organization. This ignores what is almost self-evident: You can’t run a security intelligence operation without secrecy.

Commonsensical reflection indicates we are not looking at Canada’s 1984. Students objecting to tuition increases, artists expressing their various alienations, or columnists writing in support of the government of Ukraine are not in the crosshairs of CSIS. All such examples, however, have been suggested as possibilities by fevered commentators. In fact, C-51 explicitly says that it is not concerned with “lawful advocacy, protest, dissent, and artistic expression.”