Ottawa Citizen Special series on Criminalizing Dissent

How police deter dissent

Government critics decry intimidation

David Pugliese and Jim Bronskill

The Ottawa Citizen

It usually begins with a public comment criticizing government policy or the posting of a notice calling for a demonstration against a particular cause.

Then comes the phone call or knock on the door by RCMP officers or Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents. The appearance and tone of the callers are professional. But their questions, directed at people involved in organizing legitimate, peaceful protests, are seen as anything but benign. Those who have endured the process view such incidents as blatant attempts to quash free speech.

The tactic of police or spies arriving unannounced on the doorsteps of demonstration organizers or people just contemplating a public rally represents a hardening of the security establishment's dealings with those who openly voice their opinions.

The people receiving the CSIS and RCMP phone calls or visits are not extremists. They're ordinary Canadians -- union members, students, professors and social activists -- who disagree with government policy and want to exercise their rights to free speech and assembly.

"The whole thing is so insulting and to a certain degree very intimidating," says Allison North, a Newfoundland student organizer interviewed by police after she criticized Prime Minister Jean Chretien's record on education.

Ms. North had told a newspaper last May that Mr. Chretien didn't deserve an honorary degree from Memorial University because of his government's cuts to education funding. Shortly after, an RCMP officer questioned her on whether she planned to do anything to threaten Mr. Chretien or embarrass him when he picked up his degree.

At that point, according to Ms. North, her organization, the Canadian Federation of Students, didn't even have plans to hold a demonstration.

"To get a phone call suggesting I am a threat to the prime minister is absurd," says Ms. North, who has no criminal record.

When Mr. Chretien arrived to receive his degree, Ms. North and 19 other students demonstrated peacefully in the rain outside the convocation hall. As he appeared, they turned their backs on him in mute protest. The students were heavily outnumbered by police and security forces.

The RCMP sees nothing wrong with contacting potential demonstrators in advance and letting them know the force is aware of their intentions. Const. Guy Amyot, an RCMP spokesman, says it is standard policy to visit organizers of protests that may become violent or might give police some cause for concern. "We're meeting people who intend to demonstrate just to make sure it's done legally," he explained. "That's all."

Such meetings are voluntary, Const. Amyot said, and protest organizers can refuse to talk to officers if they want.

"If they feel intimidated they just have to tell us they don't want to meet us," he said. "They are not forced to do so."

He acknowledged most of the visits or phone calls have been associated with politically-oriented demonstrations, but added the RCMP respect the right of Canadians to hold legal protests.

Such assurances don't ease the minds of those who have been questioned.

It was a rally to protest government inaction on pay equity that prompted a call to a federal union from Canada's spy agency in October 1998.

When the Public Service Alliance of Canada planned a demonstration in Winnipeg outside a conference centre where Mr. Chretien was scheduled to speak, a Canadian Security Intelligence Service officer phoned union official Bert Beal to question him about the gathering. CSIS wanted to know whether the rally was going to be violent, as well as the number of people attending.

"We're employees of the government legitimately protesting against government decisions that affect our members," says Mr. Beal.

"That is our legal right."

PSAC held a peaceful rally, attended by about 150 people and closely monitored by police. Mr. Beal, involved in the labour movement for 30 years, says this was the first time a rally with which he had been involved elicited a call from the national spy service.

CSIS spokeswoman Chantal Lapalme declined to discuss specific instances when the agency has approached people. But she said CSIS does not investigate lawful advocacy or dissent.

"If we have information that there will be politically motivated, serious violence we might investigate and then we'd report the information we obtained to government and law enforcement."

The period leading up to April's Summit of the Americas in Quebec City saw a flurry of such visits. CSIS officials questioned young people in Montreal and Quebec City who had taken part in an October demonstration.

The agents wanted to know about the chance of violence at the April gathering. Around the same time the RCMP in Quebec visited Development and Peace, a social advocacy organization linked to the Catholic Church, and other anti-poverty groups to question people about their summit plans.

Also targeted before the Quebec City meeting was University of Lethbridge professor Tony Hall, an expert in aboriginal affairs and a vocal critic of the Mounties.

An officer with the RCMP's National Security Investigations Section questioned Mr. Hall about his writings critical of free trade agreements and their effects on indigenous peoples.

The officer also wanted details of Mr. Hall's involvement in an alternative summit being organized for aboriginal peoples in Quebec City, as well as names of others involved.

Mr. Hall's case was raised in the Commons by NDP leader Alexa McDonough, who accused the federal government of trampling on the democratic rights of Canadians.

Mr. Chretien responded that police were just doing their job -- an explanation that failed to satisfy the Canadian Association of University Teachers.

David Robinson, the group's associate executive director, is worried such police tactics threaten academic freedom and open debate on campuses.

Association officials are planning to meet RCMP leaders over what the university group views as a clear violation of the professor's civil liberties.