Bill C-59 and the Former Bill C-22: Compromised Oversight and Continuing Threats to Non-Derogable Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article assesses the context and content of Bill C-59's proposed revisions to the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015 (the former Bill C-51), which created a controversial warrant-based regime for authorizing CSIS activity that would otherwise violate the Charter. These amendments have been introduced in Parliament and are currently being debated in the House of Commons. Bill C-59, the product of a fatally-flawed public consultation process, addresses the possibility that this warrant regime might lead to serious abuses in two ways. First, it creates an oversight body (the National Security Intelligence Review Agency), which will supervise these warrant applications and other activities undertaken by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (“CSIS” or “the Service”) and advise the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (created by the former Bill C-22). Second, it specifies in further detail what the warrants can and cannot authorize. This article demonstrates that these revisions are not sufficient; they respond to an inadequate assessment of the problems with Bill C-51. Its ambition to balance expanded powers with increased accountability is the product of a consultation process that was overborne by political concerns. The new oversight bodies to be created lack sufficient powers to be effective, and they are as likely to be influenced by executive interference as those which they replace. The powers retained by CSIS, although trimmed, still give the Service the power to violate non-derogable rights in a future major public order emergency. In particular, the new restrictions on this warrant regime leave open the possibility of the authorization of incommunicado detention. This would constitute enforced or involuntary disappearance, a practice of arbitrary detention that places a suspect outside of the protections of the law that are safeguarded by access to counsel. As this violates rights that are inviolable in any emergency, however serious, this cannot be justified by reference to the balancing of rights or by means of enhanced accountability, even if the oversight regime created by Bill C-22 was not seriously deficient.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".