Mobilization of Police Powers Cannot <br> But Deepen Crisis of Legitimacy

With the opening of Parliament on January 28, the campaigning for the 2019 federal election has taken centre stage. The Trudeau government and the parties which form a cartel party system in the Parliament, as well as media in their service, have usurped the role of electors in determining "the issues." Each party and party leader claims to champion "the real issues" which are allegedly on the minds of Canadians. It constitutes diversion so that electors do not work things out for themselves and remain vulnerable to factional fighting as the factions of the ruling class, which call themselves political parties, vie for power.

Along with this, in the name of protecting democracy, the government has been busy putting police forces and intelligence agencies in charge of the electoral process. The specific claim is that these police powers are to prevent foreign interference in an election and oppose "fake news." The fact that this agenda is all driven from abroad, specifically by those in charge of the U.S. war machine and its NATO political wing, the Atlantic Council, does not stop the government from claiming that it is to safeguard the Canadian democracy from foreign interference. Far from defending against "fake news," it is precisely based on repeating whatever justifications those forces see fit to provide, irrespective of the objective need to renovate the democracy in a manner which empowers the people.

The latest announcement in this regard was made on Wednesday, January 30 when the Liberal government unveiled its "anti-foreign influence "and "anti-fake news" operations for the 2019 Federal Election. The announcement was made at a "technical press briefing" in Ottawa, with Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould, Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Ralph Goodale speaking. In a classic scene of "the lady doth protest too much," Gould made emphatic comments about how the measures being put in place have nothing to do with violating the right to freedom of speech and expression. "In no way whatsoever does this announcement limit Canadians' freedom of expression or free speech," she said at one point. At another she said, "Let me be clear, this is not about refereeing the election."

One of the measures announced by the government is the creation of an elections police task force called the "Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections (SITE) Task Force." It brings together the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS); the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP); the Communications Security Establishment (CSE); and Global Affairs Canada (GAC). A government backgrounder states the Task Force will "prevent covert, clandestine, or criminal activities from influencing or interfering with the electoral process in Canada by: building awareness of foreign threats to Canada's electoral process; and preparing the government to assess and respond to those threats."

The government also delineates the tasks of various intelligence and police agencies in relation to elections as follows:

"- CSE will continue to protect government systems and networks, as well as offering cyber advice and guidance to Elections Canada and political parties;

"- CSIS will continue to actively monitor and report threats to the government and provide classified briefings to political parties on potential threats; and,

"- A dedicated RCMP investigative team will continue to detect and disrupt attempted foreign interference activity and investigate criminal activity related to interfering with or attempting to influence Canada's electoral processes."

The Liberals have also announced a "Critical Election Incident Public Protocol," described as a "simple, clear and non-partisan process for informing Canadians if serious incidents threaten the integrity of the 2019 General Election." The government claims its use would be to address "egregious incidents that do not fall within Elections Canada's areas of responsibility for the effective administration of the election."

This raises more questions than it answers. Elections Canada administers all aspects of the election law, while the Commissioner of Canada Elections is responsible for investigating non-compliance with the law and pursuing prosecutions in cases of violation of the law. Each area of the law has particular prosecutorial bodies responsible. What then are the "egregious incidents" that are not covered by the election law or another body of law already in existence? What will these "egregious incidents" be violating?

Though undefined, Canadians are told that these "egregious incidents" will be dealt with by a five-member panel of senior public servants: the Clerk of the Privy Council; the National Security and Intelligence Advisor; the Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General; the Deputy Minister of Public Safety; and the Deputy Minister of Global Affairs Canada. The individuals, all appointed by the government, are described as "a group of experienced senior Canadian public servants who [...] bring together unique national security, foreign affairs, democratic governance, and legal perspectives." They will be responsible for "jointly determining whether the threshold for informing Canadians has been met, whether through a single incident or an accumulation of incidents."

In other words, because the positions on the panel are to be filled by civil servants, the panel is to be perceived as non-partisan. It will, however, be guided by a protocol established by the Liberals and whatever agencies are directing them. The protocol provides provisions for: "informing candidates, organizations or election officials if they have been the known target of an attack; briefing the group of senior public servants at the heart of the Protocol; informing the Prime Minister and other party leaders (or their designates) that a public announcement is planned; and notifying the public." To keep the appearance that the panel is an impartial, non-government related body to administer the election, the Liberals state that "the Prime Minister cannot veto the decision to notify Canadians of a critical incident." Again, we think they protest their innocence too much.

Further elaborating this conception of an impartial body, the Liberals say that the protocol and the group administering it will have a "limited scope." It will operate only during the writ period, and only for incidents not within Elections Canada's areas of responsibility. Should there be an "incident" outside of the writ period, it will be handled by "regular Government of Canada operations."

The Liberals say that this Protocol Panel, as it calls the five public servants, is in keeping with the Caretaker Convention, according to which the government is expected to restrict its activities during an election, "in matters of policy, spending and appointments ... except where absolutely in the national interest."

The Protocol Panel is said to have a "very high threshold" for intervening in the election. "It will be limited to addressing exceptional circumstances that could impair Canada's ability to have a free and fair election. As such, potential considerations could include: the potential impact of the incident on the national interest; the degree to which the incident undermines Canadians' democratic rights; the potential of the incident to undermine the credibility of the election; and the degree of confidence officials have in the intelligence." These are presumably mysteries of state about which Canadians cannot be informed because to do so would endanger national security.

According to information made available to the public, where the Protocol Panel determines that this threshold for intervention has been met, "the Clerk would direct the relevant national security agency head(s) to hold a press conference to notify Canadians of the incident(s)."

The "protocol" sets out what would be contained in the announcement. It would focus "solely on: notification of the attack; what is known about the attack (as deemed appropriate); and/or steps Canadians should take to protect themselves (e.g., ensure that they are well informed; cyber hygiene), if required."

Finally, the "protocol" stipulates that "the announcement will not address attribution (i.e. the source of the attack) and will not include classified information," and states that "while the announcement might affirm that steps are being taken to address the situation, it would not necessarily provide details of those actions."

Putting the police and the bureaucracy linked to the Privy Council in charge of dealing with the perceived threats to the elections is made to sound normal and responsible, in the public interest. However, even as police powers take charge, the Liberal government continues to present itself as the champion of an informed public. It states: "Canada's best defence is an engaged and informed public." It does not in fact provide any conditions the people require to be either engaged or informed. Their only role is to sanction others who do not represent them to rule in their name. The central point of governance is to control the decisions which affect our lives. How to achieve this is nowhere raised as a problem which requires solutions.

Within the Liberal conception of what constitutes "an engaged and informed public," the government outlines its plans to "foster a more informed public." It says: "By being aware of the tactics used online to deceive, Canadians are better equipped to think critically about what they read and share online. This is the best defence against efforts by foreign actors to manipulate opinions on social media and online platforms." What constitutes a foreign actor is another matter of concern which the government does not address seriously. The measures it takes show that their intent is to advance the striving for hegemony of dominant players and eliminate competition. It has nothing to do with protecting Canadian sovereignty and decision-making.

The government announced $7 million towards "digital, news and civic literacy programming," which will allegedly help "reduce the impact of efforts by malicious actors," as "helping Canadians better understand online deceptive practices can reduce the impact of efforts by malicious actors." The funds will be used for "skills development, awareness sessions, workshops and learning material for Canadians." Through these activities, citizens would learn to:

The government will use the Department of Public Security's "Get Cyber Safe" website to address the issue of "fake news." This means matters such as how to avoid bank fraud scams will now have posted alongside them the state-defined markers for what kind of information should not be trusted.

Finally, the government says its main foreign spy agency will issue a report to update its 2017 Report on Cyber Threats to Canada's Democratic Process. It states the "report will help sensitize Canadians to cyber threats ahead of the 2019 General Election."

It is all very murky indeed and is to serve the main aim, which is to keep Canadians disinformed and thereby disempowered. Today, the idea that elections are "fair and free" is ludicrous. To add insult to injury, even though police powers are arbitrary powers, the government brazenly presents the entire scheme as a matter of rule of law. It is preposterous and sure to deepen the crisis of credibility and legitimacy in which the political process, said to be democratic, is mired. This system is said to be representative and, more and more those interests it represents are revealed for all to see. It is certainly not those of the people. This system needs renewal so that the right of the citizens to select and elect their own representatives is facilitated, equal resources are provided to inform the public about those who are presenting themselves for election and what vision they advocate for society, and that the process is funded and not the parties, which should only be permitted to spend what their members provide them with. Short of taking such measures, to repeat that elections in Canada are fair and free and that police powers form part of a civil rule of law is a hopeless cause.

Mobilization of Police Powers Cannot But Deepen Crisis of Legitimacy

Mobilization of Police Powers Cannot
But Deepen Crisis of Legitimacy