Bill C-51: Federal Anti-Terror Legislation polling results

Keepitsimple · February 19, 2015

I realize there might be a similar thread out there but this is the first significant poll produced to gauge Canadians' attitudes on the legislation and terrorism in general - especially now that there has been enough news reports and discussion for them to have informed opinions:

Theres rarely been a bill before Parliament that was more popular. The public Conservatives new anti-terror legislation is filling a public demand for tough new measures aimed at a terrorism threat that Canadians believe is serious, and close to home, according to a new poll.

More than four in five Canadians 82 per cent back the new legislation to expand the powers of intelligence agencies and police, according to the survey of 1,509 Canadians conducted by the Angus Reid Institute. Far from seeing it as too sweeping, they tend to want more: 36 per cent say it does not go far enough.

...............................................

But the Angus Reid poll indicates just what a political juggernaut the security bill is widely popular in every province, every age group, and across party lines.

................................................

Most said they had heard at least something about the new anti-terrorism legislation and less than one in five (19 per cent) worried that it goes too far, compromising freedoms and privacy. Nearly half (45 per cent) said the bill strikes the right balance, while 36 per cent said it does not go far enough.

And some of the individual measures in the new legislation have the kind of near-unanimous approval governments almost never see for anything.

The proposal to make it illegal to promote terrorism, for example, is favoured by 90 per cent. Experts in national-security law insist it is already illegal to urge people to commit terrorist acts, but with those kinds of poll numbers, its easy to see why the Conservatives dont care about redundancy.

Several other measures garnered widespread approval: blocking websites that promote terrorism (88 per cent in favour), making it easier to add a suspects name to a no-fly list (85 per cent), allowing suspects to be detained without charge for seven days instead of three (79 per cent), and giving government departments the right to share info with law enforcement agencies (81 per cent.)

All that said, the poll also touched on this:

There is one note of caution for the Conservative government as it presses ahead: a large majority, 69 per cent, believe there should be additional oversight so police agencies do not go overboard with these new powers.

...............................................

The poll indicates a sizable majority, 64 per cent of respondents, believe there is a serious threat of terrorism in Canada. The Internet survey was conducted with a randomly selected sample of 1,509 Canadians drawn from an Angus Reid panel, and carries a margin of error of 2.5 per cent. Details of the poll can be found at the Angus Reid Institute website.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-poll-finds-harpers-anti-terror-bill-is-a-political-juggernaut/article23067983/

Edited February 19, 2015 by Keepitsimple

Black Dog · February 19, 2015

The poll indicates a sizable majority, 64 per cent of respondents, believe there is a serious threat of terrorism in Canada.

God people are dumb.

eyeball · February 19, 2015

I certainly can't disagree about the threat of terrorism in Canada now. I'm just as certain the threat will only get worse too.

Black Dog · February 19, 2015

I certainly can't disagree about the threat of terrorism in Canada now. I'm just as certain the threat will only get worse too.

You'l get hit by lightning before you get killed in a terror attack.

PIK · February 19, 2015

Governments job is to protect citizens not just hold their hands.

Michael Hardner · February 19, 2015

You'l get hit by lightning before you get killed in a terror attack.

Since lightning strikes are a threat, and we take measures to minimize the risk of those happening it follows that we should do it for terror too.

Big Guy · February 19, 2015

I remember the reaction to Trudeau SR. invoking the War Measures Act. There was lots of support after a federal minister was abducted and found dead in a car trunk. There was lots of opposition too.

During the time the act was in effect there were a number of abuses by the RCMP who did not feel that there were any restraints and targeted the independence movement in Quebec at the time.

The Act was rescinded, it was later taken off the books.

Any power given to any group requires oversight - public oversight. Personally, I think this act is overkill (but that is only my opinion). I have no real problems with it but I very much disagree with the public section oversight that is not part of the bill. I have no idea why Harper would not want to include creating an all party oversight committee, sworn to secrecy, made up of elected members of parliament and with a sunset clause limiting it to 4 years at which time it dies unless reintroduced by the government of the time.

This is not supposed to be a political issue but one of safety of the homeland and monitored by representatives of the public.

On Guard for Thee · February 19, 2015

69% of Canadians polled also believe there needs to be stronger oversight combined with this bill.

Keepitsimple · February 19, 2015

I remember the reaction to Trudeau SR. invoking the War Measures Act. There was lots of support after a federal minister was abducted and found dead in a car trunk. There was lots of opposition too.

During the time the act was in effect there were a number of abuses by the RCMP who did not feel that there were any restraints and targeted the independence movement in Quebec at the time.

The Act was rescinded, it was later taken off the books.

Any power given to any group requires oversight - public oversight. Personally, I think this act is overkill (but that is only my opinion). I have no real problems with it but I very much disagree with the public section oversight that is not part of the bill. I have no idea why Harper would not want to include creating an all party oversight committee, sworn to secrecy, made up of elected members of parliament and with a sunset clause limiting it to 4 years at which time it dies unless reintroduced by the government of the time.

This is not supposed to be a political issue but one of safety of the homeland and monitored by representatives of the public.

That was almost 50 years ago - we've learned a lot since then. I'm on record that I agree that we should evaluate our oversight to ensure we have it right. As I've heard before, oversight should proceed on the basis of "Trust - but Verify". Oversight cannot get involved deeply in ongoing operations - but they should be able to adequately review and question the operations at the appropriate time.....and that's always going to be the sticking point - how much do they know - and when do they know it. It's the same for any country's security oversight. So it's easy to say "we need more oversight" - but in practice, it will always be a struggle to strike the right balance.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Keepitsimple

eyeball · February 19, 2015

Isn't oversight of the government just another form of terror? It certainly doesn't seem very fair.

On Guard for Thee · February 19, 2015

It would be interesting to see how the stats in this report may have changed with the rolling out of this bill.

https://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2015/nr-c_150128_e.asp

jacee · February 19, 2015

That was almost 50 years ago - we've learned a lot since then. I'm on record that I agree that we should evaluate our oversight to ensure we have it right. As I've heard before, oversight should proceed on the basis of "Trust - but Verify". Oversight cannot get involved deeply in ongoing operations - but they should be able to adequately review and question the operations at the appropriate time.....and that's always going to be the sticking point - how much do they know - and when do they know it. It's the same for any country's security oversight. So it's easy to say "we need more oversight" - but in practice, it will always be a struggle to strike the right balance.

I'm glad to see that there seems to be broad agreement on that, because the bill as it stands is very weak on oversight.

It would give rise to a lot of time and expense in Constitutional challenges.

.

Edited February 19, 2015 by jacee

cybercoma · February 19, 2015

Since lightning strikes are a threat, and we take measures to minimize the risk of those happening it follows that we should do it for terror too.

Great. Perhaps the government can ban us from leaving our houses during thunderstorms. Then the measures to prevent lightning strikes to people will be comparable to those taken to "prevent" terror attacks.

Black Dog · February 19, 2015

Since lightning strikes are a threat, and we take measures to minimize the risk of those happening it follows that we should do it for terror too.

No one said we should not, but responses to threats should be proportional to the threat they present. Would terrorism even rank in the top 50 threats to people and property in this country?

On Guard for Thee · February 19, 2015

No one said we should not, but responses to threats should be proportional to the threat they present. Would terrorism even rank in the top 50 threats to people and property in this country?

Id rather take my chances with the fridge falling over on me or a toddler wielding a Glock

Shady · February 19, 2015

No one said we should not, but responses to threats should be proportional to the threat they present. Would terrorism even rank in the top 50 threats to people and property in this country?

What does proporational mean legislation wise? Isn't that subjective?

Michael Hardner · February 19, 2015

Great. Perhaps the government can ban us from leaving our houses during thunderstorms.

That's too much of a restriction for peoples' liking. The government does have legislation around lightning safety though. Just food for thought is all.

Keepitsimple · February 19, 2015

No one said we should not, but responses to threats should be proportional to the threat they present. Would terrorism even rank in the top 50 threats to people and property in this country?

Acts of terrorism have been growing for over two decades. The sheer violence and associated atrocities are increasing - seemingly by an order of magitude thanks to Al Quaeda and ISIS. There is ample evidence that the situation will get much worse before it gets better - if it gets better at all. Our legislation is not so much for today - as it is for the next decade or so as we watch a very real increase in the threat to Canada and Canadians.

eyeball · February 19, 2015

.

Edited February 19, 2015 by eyeball

Topaz · February 19, 2015

Of course, Canadians want to be protected by its government by laws put into effect but how many Canadians actually know 100% what is in THIS terrorism bill only the Tory party, CISIS and maybe the RCMP.

jacee · February 19, 2015

Where are the preventive strategies in Canada?

Efforts to halt radicalization key focus of Washington gathering

"It puts communities with civic leaders, with religious authorities, with community power brokers, teachers, health providers, etc., in the driver's seat," he said.

Hudson Jones · February 19, 2015

Harper in 2006: “you won’t recognize canada when i’m through with it”

His latest work: Using the fear of terrorism to give our spy agency crazy new powers, like letting them get secret warrants to break into our houses, copy or take documents, and even install monitoring devices.

No thanks. That does not sound like protection to me.

On Guard for Thee · February 19, 2015

Harper in 2006: “you won’t recognize canada when i’m through with it”

His latest work: Using the fear of terrorism to give our spy agency crazy new powers, like letting them get secret warrants to break into our houses, copy or take documents, and even install monitoring devices.

No thanks. That does not sound like protection to me.

I especially like the section which guides CSIS that while doing such things they are not supposed to kill you or sexually assault you. Should we be a tad scared maybe if they reckon they need to tell them that.

Derek 2.0 · February 19, 2015

I especially like the section which guides CSIS that while doing such things they are not supposed to kill you or sexually assault you. Should we be a tad scared maybe if they reckon they need to tell them that.

You are concerned that the new law clearly outlines what methods of interrogation and treatment are illegal? Seems rather prudent from an advocacy point of view, as it clearly disallows legal grey areas in other Western countries that allow methods like water-boarding and rectal feeding of those detained…

CommunityOrganizer · February 19, 2015

BD ... I suppose it depends who you ask. For example, the 200 plus MPs and senators in the Conservative and NDP caucus rooms on that Wednesday last fall who came within a few meters and one brave and skilled sergeant at arms of being slaughtered might answer in the affirmative.