After the 9/11 attacks, the Canadian government came to the start realization that Canada was wholly unprepared to respond effectively to the now undeniable threat of international terrorism and its domestic manifestations. By the end of that year, Canada's legislative response, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), was on the books. Since then, Canadians have been passing judgemen ton how well it met the most fundamental challenge facing any democracy: how to provide for the safety and security of its citizens while minimally impairing the basic civil liberties that underpin their society.
The Parliament of the day "sunsetted" two of the most contentious measures, mandating their expiration in five years in the absence of votes to renew by both the House of Commons and the Senate. These two provisions - recognizance with conditions (placing express constraints on the activities of suspects or permitting their preventive arrest for up to 72 hours as sanctioned by a judge to prevent an imminent terror attack) and investigative hearings (compelling individuals to testify and provide documents about a terror attack that has occurred or will take place) - seemed to epitomize the difficult balance of protection of security versus protection of human rights. Five-and-a-half years later, after heated, acrimonious debates, the measures died on the floor of the House of Commons.
We believe that these two powers were critical elements to be used judiciously to head off future attacks, or successfully investigate ones that had already occurred.
The fact that neither provision had actually been implemented since the fall of 2001 proved grist for both mills: "They are totally irrelevant," said some. "See they have not led to widespread abuse," countered others. From the perspective of Canadian Jewish Congress, though, it is most unfortunate that a compromise could not be struck to extend the two measures with additional safeguards put in place.
We would argue that one need not approach the debate from the "either/or" perspective of security versus rights. If terrorism is rightly regarded as an assault on human rights, it stands to reason that the implementation of counter-terrorism measures necessarily protects the highest priority right of life, liberty and the security of the person, the foundation of all other rights and freedoms.
These actions themselves must always be rooted in the rule of law. A properly framed and implemented counter-terrorism policy enhances civil liberties and core Charter of Rights values and protects them as part of our way of life whose essence is threatened by terrorism.
As a package deal, the ATA met this challenge, but the failure to renew the two sunsetted provisions has eroded Canada's safety and security from both international and domestic attacks. As such, it is incumbent upon the government and all parties to work co-operatively toward crafting new legistlation to replace the two ATA measures on which the sun has now set.
These powers may be gone, but Canadians should not be lulled into a false sense of security - the threats that these provisions were intended to combat is most assuredly still with us. It would be the ultimate irony if, in striving to maintain civil liberties, we strip authorities of the necessary powers to stop terrorists from destroying our open and free society.
Mark Weintraub is chair of Canadian Jewish Congress, Pacific Region.
http://www.jewishindependent.ca/Archives/Mar07/archives07Mar16-12.html
