Parliament pokes itself in the eye (Canada's anti-WOT left

Parliament pokes itself in the eye
Senseless politicking is about to deprive Canada of two potentially very valuable weapons

Wesley Wark, Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, February 16, 2007

OTTAWA - Parliament is in a quandary. It is about to poke itself in the eye with an ill-considered abandonment of some provisions of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act.

The original act contained two elements that caused anxiety about their impact on civil liberties and judicial norms, then as now. They were clauses regarding preventive detention and investigative hearings.

Both sounded Orwellian. In reality they were emergency provisions designed for rare cases of terrorist threats where the need and opportunity might arise to take preventive action by holding suspects for brief periods before charges were laid and by compelling testimony from (unwilling) individuals who might have knowledge of terrorist plots. Both were sufficiently startling departures from past Canadian practice that Parliament decided to make them subject to a five-year "sunset" provision.

Unless Parliament decides to renew these powers, they automatically lapse. The clock is running, and they will expire March 1.

Until last Friday, the assumption was that these emergency clauses would be renewed, although kept on a tight "sunset" leash. The all-party House subcommittee studying the anti-terrorism act had recommended such a course of action as recently as last October.

The real drama began last week when the Conservatives introduced a motion to extend these provisions for three years. A well-briefed Rob Moore, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, introduced the motion. Then the hue and cry began.

The Conservatives found themselves in the midst of an opposition gang-up, with Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and NDP members indicating they would oppose the motion. It wasn't Parliament's finest hour -- heavy on rhetoric and partisanship, short on logic and reflection.

It's not the case, after all, that any of our political parties don't value civil liberties or don't believe in the reality of threats from terrorism. Anti-terror laws are not a good ground for the exercise of pre-election sloganeering.

One Liberal MP, Sue Barnes, tripped over herself in arguing in favour of allowing the emergency powers to lapse now and yet to wait for Parliament's comprehensive review of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Liberal Omar Alghabra beat his political chest proclaiming his pride in finding a "clear contrast" between the Liberals and Conservatives. Stockwell Day, the minister of public safety, struck back at the Liberals by suggesting that they were "bailing" on previous commitments, not just anti-terrorism legislation, but also Afghanistan.

NDP member Wayne Marston proclaimed the Anti-Terrorism Act a victory for terrorists. Enough.

Now there are signs that the Liberal party is having second thoughts and is split on the issue.

This is not surprising given that the Anti-Terrorism Act was a piece of Liberal legislation and that some of the key critics on the opposition benches, especially former justice minister Irwin Cotler, continue to believe in the need for the preventive detention and investigative hearings powers.

Second thoughts are good. There is a strong case to be made for the retention of these powers. That case is simply that we may find ourselves needing these powers in the face of a future emergency and that until we do, we can live at peace with them.

They have posed no problems for us to date, have passed Supreme Court muster, and are carefully embedded in judicial safeguards.

Preventive detention can operate for a maximum 72 hours, far shorter than is the case in the legal systems of many of our allies. Investigative hearings can compel testimony, but such cases cannot be used for self-incrimination.

Parliament needs to get its act together, admittedly difficult to do in a minority-government setting with an election looming somewhere over the horizon. Let's remove the stick from the proximity of the eye by insisting that nothing drastic be done one way or another with the emergency powers until Parliament has had a chance to receive and decide on the long-delayed review by both houses of the entirety of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

The review was launched as long ago as December 2004, and the House subcommittee has been sitting on a draft of its review since last November. It's important to get these things right, but the time has come to produce a bipartisan report. Only then can we have the necessary informed Parliamentary debate and the opportunity for citizens to reflect on what it all means.

If in the interest of doing things properly we have to temporarily extend the powers of preventive detention and investigative hearings for a few months, then so be it. What Parliament will find is that it has bigger and more important problems on its hands with the Anti-Terrorism Act than these two clauses.

It's work time on the Hill.

Wesley Wark is a professor at the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto, specializing in security issues.

There is a law on the books here, that while running contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has NEVER been exercised. If it is ever used, there will be lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. Scrap the darn thing. It has been proven to be unnecessary and could also prove to be dangerous and expensive.

If it could be amended somehow to lie within the specific rights guaranteed to Canadians by the Charter, then there could be an argument made, but since it is unnecessary, why bother? We already have way too much useless legislation on the books.

In the short term, for Conservatives, I do not think that it is a winner, politically. Especially now, with a minority government - there just doesn't seem to be a lot of positive political "hay" to be made here...

However, if the case can be made for "sunsetting" this legislation in favour of something less restrictive or in the context of a comprehensive security policy (something which has not really been done as yet), I believe it could be a winning proposal for Stephen Harper and the CPC in the next election. It could have a "calming effect" on the "least-left" lefty (kind of like red Tories/blue Libs) opponents in Ontario and the Maritimes, yet still acheive a comprehensive anti-terror security strategy to keep Canada secure...

Hopefully that fleshes my opinion out, somewhat. Apologies for the obscurity - I tend to be a little hasty and off-the-cuff, at times.

If our police & security people believe they need the powers enabled under this law, I'm all for letting them keep them. Lord knows they need every edge they can get to protect society with all of the bleeding-hearted, unaccountable, unelected legalist hacks now sitting with lifetime appointments on our Judicial Benches thanks to the Liberals.

Plus, aside from it having been the hypocritical Liberals who put it on the books, Canadians can't be reminded enough that we had two dozen of our citizens murdered in the WTC on 9/11, that this wholly justified the (then Liberal) government's decision to go after the terrorists' bases in Afghanistan and, given any opportunity, they'll certainly attack us again.

Trudeau's national equivalent of a corporate 'poison pill' - the Charter, plainly isn't worth the paper it's printed on:
One merely needs read Sections 15 (A - not B) & 28 & then visit any 'family' Court' to see how little respect the matriarchal-socialist vermin themselves have for its supposed 'black letter law'.
Plus, if every word within it is as 'sacred' as the Court Party would have us believe, wouldn't that also include its 'not withstanding clause'?
Finally, if they had any prior worries about the law in question so offending their vaunted Charter, why didn't they have their Judge buddies look it over as they did with same-sex marriage? Could it be because Judges aren't as inclinded to be for things before they're against them since - already wallowing in near absolute power - they needn't shamelessly say & do virtually any desperate thing attempting to reclaim it?

Harper's apparent willingness to let the 'red' & 'blue' Liberal factions engage in public in-fighting which only further undermine public confidence in their fitness to govern works well with his overall strategy of letting them paint themselves as the arrogant, any-prospect-of-power-mad, band of slimy opportunists we well know them to be.

With - according to the latest SES poll - his personal popularity & overall image now light years ahead of Dion's & into majority territory, this 'Prime Ministerial' perception, by definition, gives him the center ground.
Standing 'firm but reasonable' on almost any principle only further consolidates this accurate view of him while dismissing & refusing to pander to the left effectively paints them as non-mainstream.
Positively "Reaganesque" our boy Stephen!

I understand your point of view, but if our police & security people believe they need the powers enabled under this law, how come they haven't actually needed them?

Apart from that, I don't hold the CRF as sacrosanct, but it is really ALL WE HAVE. Not just against the gubmint, but against leftist lawyers, corporate criminals (and by this I mean insurance CEOs) and those self-same power-drunk Liberal jurists (and you didn't even need to mention the Senate to get THAT point across).

I can't properly discuss the "notwitstanding clause." I'm not nearly competent enough to do so. I sometimes wonder if our leaders are competent enough to do so.

I like firm and reasonable. It's something I can wholly support in a Prime Minister - it's been a while since I've seen anything like that in Ottawa...since ANYONE has seen anything like that in Ottawa...

The CPC, while not exactly sitting pretty, are certainly in the driver's seat. The prospect of another minority government seems too great right now, however. The thought of another Liberal government makes my head hurt and stomach churn (not to mention my wallet lighter). Dion just plain gives me the heebie-jeebies.

"The CPC, while not exactly sitting pretty, are certainly in the driver's seat."

Dunno if you saw the full SES 'Leadership Report card' but it was initially mentioned in this article:
Election more likely as Harper's poll numbers jump ~ Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun, Tuesday, February, 13, 2007
(as it was only available on the Pollster's site in PDF format, the Report is posted as image below the article)
Followed-up the next day with additional analysis by:
Dion's sinking fortunes ~ John Turley-Ewart, National Post, Wednesday, February 14, 2007

While well knowing that even a few weeks can amount to a political lifetime, as things now stand it's not unreasonable to conclude: (1) were an election held now, the Party's numbers would follow Harper's into majority territory, (2) thanks to increased public scrutiny, Dion is well on the way to becoming another unelectable Joe Clark or, to a somewhat lesser extent, another Stockwell Day, (3) a panic-driven Caucus revolt against his non-leadership may well have already begun, (4) Dion's apparent disdain for the job-killing economic ramifications of his Enviro policies coupled with similar disinterest in the real world impact of his soft on crime & terrorism views surely must be having a chilling effect on his most security-minded likely core supporters - e.g. "soccer moms", (5) not unlike most recently John Turner in 1988, Dion's attempts to emotionally polarize the electorate are working - but evidently again not in his favor, (6) until the Writs are dropped & both public money again flows to the Parties & spending limitations come into play, the Conservatives can drive all of this home by easily outspending the cash-strapped Liberals on a $5-10 to $1 basis.

Then add-in Quebec where a Charest win, as is becoming increasingly likely, in its soon-to-be-called provincial election will send the separatists reeling with the CPC the logical beneficiary in all but Montreal & the few Anglo enclaves primarily in the Eastern Townships which the Liberals pretty much already have. Bet the farm, in French Quebec, Liberals = Librano$.

BTW, if you'd like to be added to the 'mostly Canada-related' Ping list Fanfan & I maintain, just FReep mail either of us indicating as much.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.