80 per cent would back national ID cards
By Daniel Leblanc,
Canadians willing to be fingerprinted,
say terrorist threats outweigh freedoms
Globe And Mail, Toronto
October 6th, 2001.OTTAWA -- Four out of five Canadians are willing to provide their fingerprints for a new permanent security card that would be carried at all times and shown to police on request, a Globe and Mail/CTV/Ipsos-Reid poll indicates.
The poll suggests that most Canadians are willing to surrender some crucial individual rights in exchange for strengthened police powers in the fight against terrorism. Contrary to many continental European countries, Canada has long resisted a universal identity card -- especially one containing such personal information as its owner's fingerprints.
Britain, which abandoned ID cards after the Second World War, is already thinking of reintroducing them in a bid to toughen up security after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.
Even though Canada is known for limiting police powers, 59 per cent of respondents to the poll said they would give police the extraordinary power to "randomly stop and search" either themselves or their vehicle.
A small majority of respondents (53 per cent) also said that law-enforcement officials should be given the power to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely without specific charges.
Over all, 58 per cent of Canadians said that terrorism threats outweigh the protection of their individual rights and freedoms and the due process of law.
Canadians, however, rejected measures that would directly affect their privacy. A clear majority of respondents said they do not want the police to tap their phones at will or to snoop through their mail and their credit-card bills without a warrant.
The poll comes as the federal government is putting the finishing touches on an antiterrorism bill that will eat away at some of the country's individual freedoms.
For example, federal sources say the government is thinking of allowing longer detention periods for suspected terrorists before charges are laid. The current limit is 24 hours, but many of Canada's allies allow more time in the fight against terrorism.
The federal government is also likely to introduce a permanent list of outlawed terrorist groups. Civil libertarians have said the list would bring back memories of McCarthyism and raise fears that legitimate groups could be unjustly named as terrorist fronts by spy agencies.
In addition, the government is moving a bill through Parliament that will give customs authorities the right to open, without a warrant, any large piece of mail leaving the country.
Some members of the Chrétien government now say they believe that the Supreme Court will change the way it interprets a key section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
They believe the Supreme Court will broaden the "reasonable limits" that can be imposed on individual freedoms.
Justice Minister Anne McLellan has recently said that the "balance" between individual rights and collective security shifted after the attacks.
The poll, which is based on a random sample of 1,000 respondents, has a margin of error of 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.
John Wright of Ipsos-Reid said it highlights the fact that Canadians cherish their privacy, but that they are also willing to offer better resources and tools to police.
"It's signalling not necessarily intrusion, but necessarily security," he said.
David Paciocco, a professor of law at the University of Ottawa, was upset at the willingness of Canadians to allow random police searches and indefinite detention for suspected terrorists.
"Once these powers are given to authorities, they cannot be controlled," he said. "The public tends not to understand the importance of civil liberties until they need them."
One of the biggest regional differences in the poll came when respondents were asked whether it would be necessary to give up some civil liberties to wage the fight on terrorism.
In Quebec, 62 per cent said their liberties would not be sacrificed willingly; but everywhere else, a majority of respondents said they would give up some of their liberties.
Both Mr. Wright and Prof. Paciocco said Canadians tend to believe that increased police powers will only have an effect on the bad guys.
"This is about 'the Them' and not 'the Me,' " Mr. Wright said. "Yah, suspend the rights and haul those people off who are 'the Them,' but when it comes to 'the Me,' not a chance."
Prof. Paciocco added: "We're quite happy to impose these measures on others, but I think Canadians would be howling if the police were stopping all of us on the street, asking us for our fingerprinted identity card." Our true north strong and free?
1,000 Canadians were asked for their input regarding the following statements:
I would now like to read you a list of initiatives which could be applied to all Canadians - not just newly-arrived immigrants or those awaiting citizenship -and I would like you to tell me whether you would support or oppose being personally subjected to these actions.
LINK: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?tf=tgam/common/FullStory.html&cf=tgam/common/FullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&vg=BigAdVariableGenerator&date=20011006&dateOffset=&hub=frontpage&title=Front&cache_key=frontpage¤t_row=3&start_row=3&num_rows=1
- Government and law enforcement officials get power to detain individuals who may be suspected of being involved in terrorist/suspicious activities and detain them indefinitely.
Support - 53%
Oppose - 46%
- Allowing intelligence and law enforcement agents to monitor your personal private telephone conversations and e-mail without your knowledge.
Support - 29%
Oppose - 71%
- Allowing police and intelligence officials to intercept your mail and read it without first gaining your permission.
Support - 26%
Oppose - 74%
- You would submit yourself to providing fingerprints for a national identity card that would be carried on your person at all times to show police or security officials on request.
Support - 80%
Oppose - 19%
- Allowing officials to monitor your personal credit card purchases and other financial transactions without you being told.
Support - 39%
Oppose - 61%
- Suspend current provisions that police must have a reasonable suspicion that you may have committed an offence so that they can randomly stop and search either you or your vehicle.
Support - 59%
Oppose - 40%
- Which of the following statements is closer to your personal point of view?
Charter and due process of law should be respected/Do not give police the security tools they want - 38%
Terrorism threats outweigh protection of individuals' rights and due process of law/Give police the security tools they need - 58%
- In order to curb terrorism in this country, do you think it will be necessary for you to give up some of your civil liberties, that are currently protected in law, or not?
Yes, necessary - 52%
No, not necessary - 46%
Source: Ipsos-Reid
Globe And Mail, Toronto
October 6th, 2001Editorial: Which liberties would you be willing to surrender?
The true test of a country's commitment to civil liberties comes when the chips are down.
The attacks on Sept. 11 have concentrated attention in the United States, Canada and elsewhere on ways to address the terrorist menace. Authorities have looked for flaws in defences. There have been calls for more funding, more hiring and, not incidentally, the overhauling of laws and regulations to provide more protection against future assaults.That will mean greater intrusion into the way we lead our lives. U.S. President George W. Bush was quick off the mark with a proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, which would have given his government extraordinary powers of surveillance, investigation, arrest and detention, including the authority to declare immigrants to be terrorists and detain them indefinitely without criminal charges or trial. The aim was self-defence, but the means were so oppressive that even many conservatives spoke against the bill.
Canada, too, is weighing individual rights against collective security. Justice Minister Anne McLellan said on Sept. 19 that "there has to be a discussion" about whether "the balance that we are always attempting to strike has shifted a little bit as of last Tuesday."
In this climate, it is instructive to read the results of a Globe and Mail/CTV/Ipsos-Reid poll of 1,000 Canadian adults conducted between Oct. 2 and 4, a poll that asked how much freedom the people surveyed were willing to surrender in exchange for tighter security.
The answer was, they were willing to give up quite a lot. Eighty per cent -- an astonishingly high percentage -- would support submitting themselves to providing fingerprints for a national identity card that they would be required to carry at all times and show on request to police or security officials. Your papers, please? There are political systems where such checks on daily life are an accepted practice, but Canada has long resisted becoming one of them. Is even the threat of Osama bin Laden and his network sufficient to undo the hard work of generations in building institutional respect for civil liberties, respect that culminated in John Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights and Pierre Trudeau's Charter of Rights?
Fewer of those polled, but still a majority of 59 per cent, would support letting police stop them at random, and search them or their vehicle, without a reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence. Curiously, the respondents valued their money more than their mobility; only 39 per cent supported letting officials monitor their credit-card purchases and other financial transactions without telling them. A smaller minority still were prepared to let agents monitor their phone conversations or read their mail without their permission.
The new age of security will inevitably circumscribe freedoms Canadians have been used to. We have been complacent about security, underestimating the dangers; more care will mean more delay and more frustration. But we should protect our freedoms jealously in the absence of compelling reasons to surrender them, explicitly made by governments and others who seek to remove them for our own good. If the enemy who blocked out the New York sky on Sept. 11 is a difficult one to fight -- insidious, unpredictable, preying on our society's openness -- it is important not to let him score a new victory by undermining much of what Canadians -- and Americans, and others wedded to an open democracy -- hold dear.
And it is worth remembering that we have always paid a price for the free society we live in. Much crime would have been prevented and probably solved if police had enjoyed greater freedom to wiretap phones and search premises without warrants. It's a balancing act, setting the ideals of liberty against the benefits of greater security. Those who responded to the civil-liberties poll were asked to make those calculations quickly. The rest of us have the luxury of more time to assess each proposal on its merits.
[And while the populace is distracted and fearful, their rights are smoothly and quickly stripped away, few understanding that the 'catch-all' and flexible definition of 'terrorism' can later be used to criminalize their own now-lawful activities at the government's pleasure...]
Miami Herald,
October 15th, 2001Government introduces tough anti-terror bill;
By Nahlah Ayed,
critics worry about civil rights
Canadian PressOTTAWA -- Police could arrest anyone believed to be involved in an imminent terrorist attack, even without a warrant, under far-reaching legislation that aims to ``deter, disable and dismantle'' terrorist activity in Canada.
The proposed law, introduced Monday by Justice Minister Anne McLellan, was largely applauded by opposition parties, but some critics slammed it as a strong-handed attack on civil liberties.
The bill -- the latest in a series of government measures aimed at fighting terrorism -- proposes a series of firsts in Canadian law, ranging from providing a definition of terrorist activity to tilting the balance in favor of the public interest over individual rights.
McLellan said its the right balance.
``The government of Canada will work with the international community to paralyze those who seek to terrorize the innocent, those who hide behind a cause to kill and maim and those who aid and abet these criminals.''
The bill would create several new terrorist-related offenses under the Criminal Code, but McLennan acknowledged the tough prison sentences would likely do little to dissuade terrorists bent on giving their lives for their cause.
The sentences range from a maximum life sentence for those in leadership roles instructing others to commit terrorist acts, to a maximum 10 years for those who participate in or contribute to activities of terrorist groups or help raise funds for them.
The legislation proposes to go even further in the war against terrorism:
Police would be able to make a ``preventive arrest'' if there were reasonable grounds to believe someone was about to commit a terrorist act. A warrant wouldn't be required if ``exigent circumstances exist.'' The suspect could be held for up to 72 hours without charge, but would appear before a judge within 24 hours.
Also, police would no longer have to show that wiretapping was a ``last resort'' before being allowed to use it in monitoring suspected terrorists. And wiretaps could be used for up to a year, instead of 60 days, after an initial request.
More significantly, critics say, the Defence Department's Communications Security Establishment would, for the first time, be allowed to monitor communication between Canadians and foreign groups or individuals.
That proposal sent shivers up the spines of civil libertarians, who say it flies in the face of the protections offered by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The government, meanwhile, suggested that without the provision, police would be powerless to prevent a terrorist attack they knew was coming.
McLellan defended the legislation and the provisions, acknowledging that she expects charter court challenges when the legislation comes into force.
She added the provisions are necessary to alleviate the fears of Canadians.
``People who live in daily fear for their personal security and safety cannot live in a free and democratic society,'' she told a news conference.
``That fear starts to eat away and erode at the very underpinnings of democracy.''
Critics say the legislation itself is ominous proof that what McLellan says is true.
``There are lots of things in there that in Canada, we have for a long time . . . taken for granted we would never see,'' Simon Potter, vice-president of the Canadian Bar Association, said Monday.
In the House of Commons, the New Democratic Party was the only party that didn't express initial approval of the bill, saying it would reserve judgment until it was clear the rights of Canadians would not be unduly curtailed.
The Canadian Alliance lauded the bill as being in the right direction, but justice critic Vic Toews said McLellan should have moved to outlaw membership in terrorist organizations outright instead of just banning participation.
``Why another half measure?'' he asked during question period.
McLellan's move was aimed at skirting possible constitutional challenges based on the right of freedom of association -- the same approach used in the government's anti-gang legislation earlier this year.
The government hopes that the tide of support it has received since the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States means the bill is passed in the Commons in as little as a month.
The bill also:
- Allows for the freezing and seizure of assets of terrorists and their supporters.
- Allows for the establishment of a list of terrorist organizations and individuals.
- Targets hate crimes by creating an offense with a maximum 10-year prison sentence for mischief in relation to religious property.
- Allows for consecutive sentencing for terrorist offenses.
- Amends the Official Secrets Act and creates new offenses to counter espionage.
The law would also be reviewed by Parliament three years after coming into effect, McLellan said.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley, chair of the government's security committee, said the bill won't be the last legislative measure the government takes in its effort to combat terrorism, but he declined to give details.
The legislation came after members of the security committee announced several measures last week to protect the safety of Canadians against terrorist attacks. Among them were more money for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, new ID cards for landed immigrants which are tougher to forge, and new explosives-detecting equipment for airports.
Also expected in the coming days are changes to make Canadian passports harder to forge or obtain fraudulently, and more money for Canada's intelligence agency.
The government is also said to be preparing a package of measures to protect Canadians in the event of a bioterror attack.
---------------------------------------------------
Civil libertarians say anti-terrorism bill is anti-democratic, unnecessary
By Bruce Cheadle
Canadian PressOTTAWA -- Sweeping new anti-terrorism legislation will do little to make Canada safer, say some civil libertarians, but it could undermine basic freedoms that help define the country.
``Remember, this is all about preserving our way of life, in which we regard liberty as a prime example,'' said Alan Gold, president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers Association.
``We don't want to turn into a police state. To turn into a police state in the name of liberty is bizarre.''
Justice Minister Anne McLellan introduced the legislation in the Commons on Monday, barely a month after terrorist attacks in Washington and New York claimed more than 5,000 lives and rocked public confidence in domestic security.
McLellan said she fully expects court challenges of some aspects of the massive, 170-page omnibus bill. But she said the government is ``very comfortable going into any court in this country'' to justify some of the legislation's unprecedented measures.
``Keep in mind that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not suggest for a minute that any of the rights therein are absolute . . .'' said McLellan.
``People who live in daily fear of their personal security and safety cannot live in a free and democratic society. That fear starts to eat away and erode at the very underpinnings of democracy.''
But some of the bill's new provisions could also erode democracy, say civil libertarians. They cite new rules that:
Even the government's much-touted definition of terrorist activity itself came under fire.
- Permit the arrest of individuals without warrant if it's believed that would prevent terrorist activity.
- Compel people to provide information related to terrorism to an investigating judge without charges laid or a crime having been committed.
- Reduce safeguards on obtaining and extending warrants for wiretaps.
- Make it illegal to ``facilitate'' terrorist activity.
In the past, Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress would have been terrorists under the definition, said Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, while today the Kurds of Iraq would likely qualify in their battle against Saddam Hussein's repression.
``I am hard-pressed to appreciate why all this has been considered necessary because I'm very aware of the considerable power that already exists,'' said Borovoy.
He added some of the relaxed rules for police surveillance are simply ``a gratuitous undermining of safeguards'' that will do nothing to help apprehend terrorists.
Most of the political response to the legislation was more muted.
NDP House leader Bill Blaikie said his party seeks public input but the New Democrats would like to see that ``the legitimate rights of Canadians to domestic political dissent are not in any way threatened or curtailed.''
Conservative Peter MacKay said he believes the bill achieves a balance between civil liberties and security, although he noted some concern about preventive arrest.
``I suggest strongly (such detention) will have to be coupled with training, with follow-up with municipal and RCMP and military police to ensure there are no abuses . . .'' he said in the Commons.
Simon Potter, first vice president of the Canadian Bar Association, said his group wants to work with the government to curb the legislation's more draconian possibilities -- such as 14-year prison terms for facilitating terrorist activity.
``We're going to have to make sure these things are defined appropriately so that a travel agent doesn't suddenly find himself or herself a criminal -- so that people know when it is they're breaking the law,'' said Potter.
The bar association is also concerned about the unprecedented creation of judicial investigatory hearings.
``It is very, very new in Canada to imagine that someone can be compelled to come before a judge and testify about events or activities without there being any ongoing case, civil or criminal,'' said Potter.
While the specifics of the Sept. 11 attacks may make such investigations attractive, he said, ``you can also easily imagine you don't want that power leaking over the edges into our normal daily lives.''
One critic privately likened the judicial investigations to ``summoning people before Star chambers, it rings bells of inquisition.''
Most civil libertarians agree the anti-terrorism measures serve a political agenda but may do little to enhance domestic security itself.
``There's demonstrated need for more police work to gather evidence and locate people that are responsible, there's no doubt about that,'' said Gold.
``But I'm not sure there's a demonstrated need for more legislation.''
Added Potter: ``Some people have been willing to jump into a very deep end on the basis of contemporaneous events. We want to confront the danger of us going much further than is necessary.''
--------------------------------------------------
Definition of terrorist activity provided in proposed legislation:Terrorist activity means:LINK: http://cgi.herald.com/cgi-bin/rc_emailfriend.cgi?mode=print&doc=http://www.miami.com/herald/content/news/canada/digdocs/108344.htmAn act or omission, in or outside Canada, that is committed
i:
(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or refrain from doing any act, whether the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada,
and
ii: that is intended
(A) to cause death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
(B) to endanger a person's life,
(C) to cause a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public
(D) to cause substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses A to C and E
or
(E) to cause serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that does not involve an activity that is intended to result in the conduct or harm referred in any of clauses A to C,
and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counseling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.
National Post, Toronto
October 16, 2001Police get vast power of arrest
By Luiza Chwialkowska
National Post, with files from The Canadian PressOTTAWA - Canadians could face arrest without warrant and be forced to testify before a judge without charge under sweeping anti-terrorism legislation tabled yesterday by Anne McLellan, the Minister of Justice.
The 171-page omnibus bill introduces unprecedented "preventive arrest" provisions allowing detention of suspected terrorists for up to 72 hours without charge and creates "investigative hearings" to compel material witnesses to disclose information about terrorism to a judge even in the absence of a formal trial.
The legislation -- which aims to "deter, disable and dismantle" terrorist activity -- expands a variety of government powers, ranging from seizing terrorist property to censoring the Internet.
Conceding that provisions such as arrest without a warrant are "basically new" to Canadian law, Ms. McLellan said she would be comfortable defending all the measures before any court as reasonable limits to individual rights.
"No legislation that I am aware of has gone through as rigorous Charter [of Rights and Freedoms] analysis as this," she said at a press conference.
"The Charter does not suggest for a minute that any rights are absolute," she said, noting that Section 1 of the Charter allows for limitations as justified in "free and democratic society."
"People who live in fear of their personal safety cannot live in a free and democratic society," she said.
"Either nothing changed on Sept. 11 or everything changed," said John Manley, Minister of Foreign Affairs and head of a Cabinet committee on national security. Without the controversial arrest power, he said, "It might be impossible to prevent a terrorist activity even if we had information [that it was to occur.]"
In a speech to the House of Commons last night, Jean Chrétien said the law was carefully drafted to respect the Charter, but promised all the same to listen to any criticism that surfaces as committee hearings unfold.
"Terrorists seek to undermine the rule of law and the preservation of human rights," he said. "The real test of our values is how they guide us in times of crisis.
"Quite frankly, in the past as a country we did not always pass that test. We must be vigilant today to make sure that we do not repeat past mistakes."
The bill introduces Canada's first definition of "terrorist activity." It is similar to the definition of terrorism used in British and U.S. laws, and allows the federal Cabinet to draw up a list of proscribed "terrorist groups" on the advice of the Solicitor-General.
The law stops short of criminalizing membership in the groups. Instead, "participating" in or "contributing" to their activities becomes a crime punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison, even if the nature of the participation consists of otherwise legal activities. Leaders of terrorist groups face life in prison.
Some civil libertarians say the legislation will do little to make Canada safer but it could undermine basic freedoms that help define the country.
"We don't want to turn into a police state. To turn into a police state in the name of liberty is bizarre," said Alan Gold, president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers Association.
Terrorist activity is defined in the bill as acts taken or threatened for political, religious or ideological purposes that threaten public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering a person, causing substantial property damage that is likely to seriously harm people or by interfering with or disrupting an essential service, facility or system.
The definition includes violations of 10 UN anti-terrorism conventions that cover such things as aircraft hijacking, hostage taking, terrorist bombings and protection of nuclear material. To knowingly "facilitate" terrorist activity becomes a crime punishable by 14 years in prison, while instructing anyone to carry out terrorist activities leads to a maximum life sentence.
To knowingly harbour or conceal a terrorist will be punishable by 10 years in prison. Crimes committed for the benefit of terrorist groups will carry a maximum of life in prison. The sentences would be served consecutively.
The bill states plainly that terrorist activity does not include "lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work" that does not seriously harm or kill people. It also does not cover actions taken during an armed conflict in accordance with international law.
Bill Blaikie, the NDP justice critic, said he would reserve judgment on the legislation until he hears expert testimony as to whether the bill "might curtail legitimate dissent."
Vic Toews, the Canadian Alliance justice critic, called the bill "an important first step," but without a complete ban on membership in terrorist groups, it remains "a half measure."
"The bill is an important step forward and certainly reflects many of the issues that our party has been raising in this House, and unfortunately to little avail until the tragic events of Sept. 11," he said in the House of Commons. "It is unfortunate that we could not have moved much quicker in dealing with these issues."
Peter MacKay, the Tory justice critic, said the law "goes a long way to give law enforcement the powers they require," but the arrest and investigative hearings measures gave him "some cause for concern" and should be coupled with careful training of police officers.
Ms. McLellan said that because terrorists operate in isolated cells and because many are ready to die for their cause, the emphasis of the law must be on prevention through investigation and surveillance of terrorist groups and on cutting off their financial support.
Strengthened investigative powers include:
- Allowing arrest without a warrant where police have reasonable grounds to believe the arrest is necessary to prevent an act of terrorism they have reason to believe is about to happen.
- Detaining suspected terrorists without charges for up to 24 hours before facing a judge, and an additional 48 hours with the judge's permission.
- Creating new "investigative hearings," in which a material witness could be compelled to testify before a judge. In order to preserve the right of a person not to incriminate himself, any information could not be used as a basis for proceedings against that person.
- Increasing protections under the Evidence Act for classified evidence used in court proceedings.
- Extending to terrorism investigators electronic surveillance powers already available to police investigating organized crimes and contained in the anti-gang legislation now before the Senate. Police will no longer have to prove a wiretap is a tool of last resort in order to obtain a warrant and the warrant will be valid for one year, up from the current 60 days. The requirement to notify a suspect after surveillance has been concluded can be delayed up to three years from the current one year.
- The Communications Security Establishment, the government agency that monitors foreign communications, would be allowed for the first time to intercept the communications of foreign targets even while they are communicating with Canadians -- a move that would require permission of the Minister of National Defence.
- A new Security of Information Act will replace the Official Secrets Act to impose stronger measures to combat foreign spies.
The bill also ratifies the UN Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Financing and will allow a Federal Court judge to order the seizure and forfeiture of terrorist property. It prohibits making money or financial services available to terrorists or terrorist groups, and denies such groups charitable status under the Income Tax Act. Money-laundering laws would be amended to authorize the detection of financial transactions that may constitute threats to the security of Canada and allow them to be disclosed to CSIS.
To help enforce the new laws, the number of Federal Court judge positions will be increased by as many as 13 new trial judges and two appeal court judges.
Ms. McLellan said the cost of implementing the laws is unknown since no one knows how many prosecutions may take place. Mr. Manley said more legislation could come as other departments review what they can do to fight terrorism.
LINK: http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/stories/20011016/738248.html&qs=sweeping
National Post, Toronto
October 17, 2001Violent protest is a terrorist activity, Liberal MP says
By Luiza Chwialkowska
National PostOTTAWA - Violent protesters who destroy property and endanger lives in the name of a political cause could fall under the broad measures of the government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation, predicted MPs from across the political spectrum yesterday.
"In my opinion, [the bill] clearly and explicitly would include, as terrorist activity, the kind of violent protest that we saw at Quebec City and we are seeing at the World Trade Organization whenever the leaders meet across the world, where protesters throw Molotov cocktails, as they did at Quebec City, and attack the police and the barriers with the use of violence," said John Bryden, an Ontario Liberal MP
"Violent protest is a type of terrorist activity. It is designed to intimidate and disrupt the democratic process," said Mr. Bryden, stressing that peaceful protest would not be affected.
"I am glad to see that the government in its wisdom has brought forward a bill that is sufficiently broad to include that activity," agreed Peter McKay, justice critic for the Progressive Conservative party.
"It is a threat to life and limb, and it has to be dealt with in the harshest and most just but swift fashion," he said of violent protest.
But Bill Blaikie, NDP justice critic, said protesters should be covered under the existing criminal law without the added sanctions designed for terrorists.
"The bill needs to make clear the difference between protest and terrorism. Part of what our job will be in committee is to make sure the bill does that as it stands, and if it doesn't to amend it so that it does," he told reporters.
Pressed by Michel Bellehumeur, the Bloc Québécois justice critic, for assurances that Quebec City-style protesters would not be covered by the bill, Anne McLellan, the Minister of Justice, who tabled proposed anti-terrorism legislation on Monday, did not address directly the issue of violence.
"We have taken great care to ensure that those who would carry out lawful and legitimate activities, be it political protests in relation to labour movements and other things, are not affected by this legislation," said Ms. McLellan in the House.
Bill Bartlett, counsel for the department of Justice, said that even though the bill does not target protesters, they could get caught up in it.
The intent behind the violence would be critical to deciding whether it qualified as terrorist activity, he said.
"We presume that they have to have political, religious or ideological purpose, and that they are trying to either intimidate the population or compel -- compel, not simply influence -- a government and they intend by their act to cause serious bodily harm or endanger life," he said.
A violent act by protesters would not characterize an entire protest event as a terrorist activity, and not all acts of violence would qualify.
"It's not simply a matter of violence occurring. It's not simply a matter of whether a weapon is used," he said, noting that a Molotov cocktail thrown to get police to back up could not be construed as terrorist activity under the law.
The novel and sweeping powers under the bill led many MPs to call on the government to include a so-called sunset clause that would cause the legislation to expire after a number of years and require the government to reintroduce -- and justify anew -- expanded police and government power.
"What is contained in this legislation is so profound and so important and so, in a sense, contrary to the way Canadians like to see themselves, and yet so terribly necessary in the context of international terrorist threat, that I hope the government would consider a sunset clause," said Mr. Bryden.
Ms. McLellan rejected the request as well as a demand by the NDP to refer the legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion as to whether the bill complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
She said the legislation fully complies with the Charter and is subject to parliamentary review within three years.
Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, said he would be open to mandating a review sooner.
Some of the harshest criticism of the sprawling legislation came from within the Liberal ranks.
Mr. Bryden compared the measures to conceal security information to measures taken by totalitarian dictatorships because they would allow the Attorney-General to prohibit indefinitely the disclosure of information pertaining to international relations, national defence and security.
"The government will be able to exclude information from public view forever, indefinitely and with no review. No outside ombudsman, no court, no one can come in and see what they are doing," he said, noting that even secret Cabinet documents must be released after 20 years.
"That is terribly, terribly, terribly dangerous. That is precisely the excuse that has been used by dictatorships throughout history and around the world is that in the interests of security -- we are talking about the police -- information is withheld forever. We cannot have that," he said.
Stockwell Day, the Canadian Alliance leader, said the law did not go far enough in banning only participation, rather than membership, in terrorist organizations.
LINK: http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/stories/20011017/740103.html&qs=sweeping
National Post, Toronto
October 17, 2001McLellan finds it all rather tiresome
Paul Wells
National PostTom Hanson,
The Canadian PressPhoto caption: 'Anne McLellan, the Minister of Justice, answers -- or doesn't answer -- questions in the House yesterday.' (Photo ran in all editions except Toronto.)
Today we bring you Jean Chrétien's Approximate Words of Reassurance. "As Roosevelt said, there is nothing worse than the fear of fear," Jean Chrétien told reporters after a Cabinet meeting yesterday. Precisely so, more or less. And as Winston Churchill once said, we have nothing to offer but the sweating and the tears and the other fluids.
Never let it be said that these halls were empty of stirring oratory at this historic moment. Or as Julius Caesar put it, I came, I saw, I performed optimally against the victory parameter. The Commons is debating terrorism around the clock, except when members pause to complain they're shut out of the debate on terrorism.
On Monday, they were at it until 2 a.m. Then they were right back at it for another 12-hour session yesterday, devoted to second reading of C-36, Anne McLellan's jumbo economy-sized anti-terrorism bill. At this rate the bill could pass second reading and be fired off to the justice committee by tomorrow. Already yesterday a few clauses of the massive bill had become the subject of concern among MPs from every party. As sometimes happens outside Question Period, partisan labels mattered less than individual members' interest in passing a good law. Which is sort of the way this place is supposed to work.
Here's John Bryden (Liberal, Ancaster), for instance, worrying that C-36 would permit the Justice Minister to declare information that led to the detention of a suspected terrorist off-limits -- unavailable for public examination -- forever. "Mr. Speaker, that is terribly dangerous," Mr. Bryden, a long-time freedom-of-information advocate, said. "That is precisely the excuse that has been used by dictatorships throughout history and around the world." That's not the way Liberals usually talk about Liberal bills.
But as somebody once said, you learn something new approximately seven times a week.
Variations on Mr. Bryden's concern about rights abuses were shared by several of his colleagues -- even Scott Reid (Alliance, Lanark-Carleton), a bright young libertarian who's had little to say on the Opposition benches because his assigned topic, intergovernmental affairs, has been as lifeless as the Parti Québécois lately. Mr. Reid staggered to his feet very late Monday night to sound the alarm about "six limitations of freedom" in the new bill, "which I think ought to be taken very seriously by all of us."
Some of these, like the restriction on free association implied in jail terms for participation in terrorism activity, are fine with Mr. Reid. But others worry him in a sweeping bill that extends police powers of surveillance and arrest; assigns the label terrorist activity to a dozen kinds of behaviour; and attempts to sweep terrorists' henchmen, helpers and bankers up in the same governmental dragnet.
Given all that, Mr. Reid said, "there is an absolute need for a sunset clause in the legislation." This idea -- that the new law would become ineffective after, say, three years, unless specifically reintroduced by the government -- is gaining fans in every party, although they hardly seem the majority of MPs yet.
Still, already you can sense a lively play of ideas around this crucial bill. That's good news, because as Edmund Burke once said, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to play hooky.
The question is whether Ms. McLellan will show any patience for mere MPs' meddling with her brainchild. The Justice Minister is not fond of free advice. Her answers during question period yesterday were a litany of condescension as she systematically pooh-poohed each critique.
Fun excerpts: "Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition should know ..." "Mr. Speaker, I believe the Honourable Member is incorrect ..." "Mr. Speaker, if the Honourable Member cares to read the definition of terrorist activity ..." "I would hope that nobody in the House would suggest ..." "Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member deliberately misconstrues ..."
It all became wearisome for the Minister, and she began pleading with her colleagues to put a cork in it until later in the legislative process.
"If the Honourable Member wishes to discuss this point further I would be happy to do so at committee." And again a minute later, "As I have said I will be more than happy to take this matter up with the member in committee."
One wonders why, if the Minister finds her colleagues' every thought repetitive or excessive or ill-informed at second reading, she expects to become a font of collegiality at committee. Still, anything's possible. As P.T. Barnum once said, there's a sucker born at frequent intervals.
LINK=http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/stories/20011017/739977.html&qs=sweeping
National Post, Toronto
October 19th, 2001Bill C-36 to slide through Senate like a greased pig
Paul Wells
National PostRushing from the Commons lobby to the Senate lobby yesterday, a senior bureaucrat paused to tell me his new job was to ride herd on Bill C-36, Anne McLellan's anti-terrorism bill. In fact, that's everyone's job at Justice these days. "It's all hands on deck."
A friend who works at the Senate answered her cellphone on her way to a steering committee meeting: The upper chamber's justice committee will study C-36 at the same time as the Commons justice committee does. Witnesses from out of town will testify to MPs in the morning, then to Senators in the afternoon. "It's going to be hearings, hearings, hearings all day long," she said.
The point is to give C-36 the quickest possible ride through the legislative process, giving the police sweeping new powers of surveillance and preventive arrest within less than a month.
The parallel committees will quiz experts and ponder amendments for perhaps two weeks. In the upper chamber, this highly unusual procedure is called "pre-consultation." The hope is that if the senators in their ancient wisdom decide C-36 needs any changes, they'll be able to propose them before the bill even returns to the Commons for third reading.
Once it's out of the House, the bill should slide through the Senate like a greased pig.
Your legislators manage to do a few things even more quickly than they'll pass this bill -- they typically vote themselves pay raises lickety-split, for instance --but not many.
This time there is very good reason for the haste. Our allies are hitching up their anti-terrorism pants at comparable speed.
France's Senate passed improvements to that country's already formidable Vigipirate law on Wednesday.
That's the same day the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives broke a deadlock on their own anti-terrorism bills, clearing the way for consensus legislation within a week or two.
But more is at stake here than simple me-too. Much more. It was Lawrence MacAulay who made it clear how urgent the new law is when he spoke to the Commons justice committee.
Reading from prepared remarks, the Solicitor-General said police and courts need the bill.
Then he added: "And, our allies need this bill. If we truly want to be a leader in the international effort to deprive terrorists of sanctuary ... we must have strong anti-terrorism laws."
This is especially true for our common border. The free flow of people, goods and services between Canada and the United States is absolutely essential to both of us.
"We must prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage by terrorists. Because if we don't, then the terrorists have won."
Well. The only reasonable interpretation of the minister's remarks is that if Canada cannot convince its neighbour we are taking the anti-terrorist fight seriously, the Yanks will boost security at the border so severely the free flow of people and treasure will be paralyzed. So the stakes are $1.5-billion a day.
Already, John Manley said in an interview published in yesterday's New York Times, traffic across a border "on which two economies depend" is "moving slowly."
Freight volumes, he warned, "are way down."
So the Liberals have clearly decided that if they are going to err in drafting this law, they must err on the side of toughness.
In its measures for preventive arrest, sealing of evidence, surveillance and compulsory testimony, this bill pushes up hard against the limits of the Charter of Rights.
MPs in every party are nervous about this street-fighting approach.
I suspect the Prime Minister's Office is delighted, because if anyone could credibly argue the bill were too soft, the economic cost to Canada might be more than it could bear.
The Canadian Alliance is, in fact, arguing the bill is too soft, but the Liberals clearly don't find that position serious enough to worry about.
Instead, Ms. McLellan and Mr. MacAulay spent most of their time rebutting the NDP's fear that their handiwork is too tough. (New Democrats were the only party to vote against C-36 at second reading.)
"The scope of the threat ... has no parallel," Ms. McLellan told the committee. Preventive arrest -- incarcerating somebody because of what they might be about to do -- may be profoundly creepy, but, she argued, it is necessary: "Punishing terrorist attacks after they occur is too late."
Ever since this corner made fun of Ms. McLellan earlier in the week for pooh-poohing her critics, she has bent over backwards to seem as accommodating as possible.
There will be limits to her co-operative spirit. A senior Liberal who's shepherding C-36 through the legislative process told me the government will accept no change to "the thrust of the bill."
Yet there's some openness to the NDP's pet idea, which is that "sunset clauses" could render the law's nastiest provisions ineffective in a few years, unless Parliament passes them all over again.
The French and U.S. laws will include sunset provisions. Ours might, too, if it will calm the NDP and the Liberals' own backbenchers. But MPs might as well understand that this bill's overarching goal is to calm a much bigger, richer, traumatized customer to the south.
LINK: http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/stories/20011019/743807.html&qs=sweeping
[As you read the following story, remember that if 'A week in politics is a very long time', then two to three years is an eternity - and an unpredictable eternity, at that!]
National Post, Toronto
October 20, 2001Cabinet eyes expiration date for terror bill
Robert Fife and Luiza Chwialkowska
Sunset clause of 2-3 years wins support of ministers
National PostOTTAWA - The federal Cabinet is poised to include a sunset clause in some of the more controversial aspects of its anti-terrorism legislation to assuage Canadians who fear it gives law enforcement agencies sweeping powers to infringe on civil rights, senior government insiders say.
A sunset clause would cause the legislation to expire after a set time and would require the government to reintroduce and justify anew the controversial provisions. Officials expect the set time to be no more than three years.
A fierce debate has raged in Cabinet over whether the Liberal government should build in automatic expiry dates, which are rare in Canadian legislative tradition, rather than a mandatory three year parliamentary review of the far-reaching law that was presented to the House of Commons on Monday, sources say.
The issue has cause considerable friction within Cabinet, some of whose members refer derisively to the Minister of Foreign Affairs as John "The Hawk" Manley and to the Minister of Justice as Anne "Too Eager" McLellan.
The bill -- the latest in a series of government measures aimed at fighting terrorism -- proposes a series of firsts in Canadian law, ranging from providing a definition of terrorist activity to expanding police powers of arrest and interrogation.
One senior official told the National Post that Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, supports the automatic repeal of certain clauses in the proposed anti-terror legislation because, as the former justice minister who shepherded in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he is leery of giving the police and courts the power to detain people without charge and to hold secret judicial hearings for suspected terrorists.
"The Prime Minister is worried about this. A lot of us in Cabinet have concerns. We are very open to a real sunset clause that repeals the law after two or three years unless it is renewed by Parliament," one source said.
Another insider said Mr. Chrétien has deep reservations about certain clauses of the bill "because of who he is and because the Charter matters to him."
After she introduced the anti-terrorism legislation on Monday, Ms. McLellan said a sunset clause had been ruled out in favour of a simple parliamentary review within three years.
But her stance has softened in recent days after several opposition parties and some Liberal MPs insisted certain provisions introduced in the context of the war on terrorism should not be allowed to remain unchallenged and permanent.
However, Ms. McLellan has emphasized the government "cannot sunset" provisions that enact measures the United Nations conventions on the suppression of terrorist financing and on dealing with terrorist bombing.
She also warned members of the House of Commons justice committee on Thursday not to be "naive enough to think terrorism will be eradicated in three years."
Sources say Cabinet expects the committee will recommend expiration dates on sections of the contentious omnibus bill that give police powers such as preventive arrests that do not require judicial warrants and "investigative hearings" that compel questioning of suspects outside a trial setting.
Under Bill C-36, police would be able to make a preventive arrest if there were reasonable grounds to believe someone was about to commit a terrorist act. A warrant would not be required if "exigent circumstances" exist. The suspect could be held for up to 72 hours without charge, but would appear before a judge within 24 hours.
Also, police would no longer have to show wiretapping was a "last resort" before being allowed to use it in monitoring suspected terrorists. And wiretaps could be used for up to a year, instead of 60 days, after an initial request.
Many Cabinet ministers are also concerned the bill gives the Defence Department's Communications Security Establishment the power, for the first time, to monitor communication between Canadians and foreign groups or individuals. The government has said this power is necessary so foreign terrorists can be monitored at the crucial time when they communicate with collaborators in Canada and when they enter the country.
MPs of various political stripes have called for a sunset clause since the bill was tabled.
Bill Blaikie, the NDP justice critic, told the justice committee that in his more than two decades as an MP he has seen many parliamentary reviews "ignored forever or delayed for many years."
He said a sunset clause would go a long way to "establish trust" in the legislation.
Michel Bellehumeur, the Bloc justice critic, told Ms. McLellan France and the United States were including sunset clauses in their anti-terrorism legislation.
Ms. McLellan said U.S. lawmakers were contemplating one only on a narrow portion of the legislation that relates to expanded wiretap powers. However, she said she would be open to any recommendations the committee would make as to alternative review approaches.
Peter McKay, the Progressive Conservative justice critic, and Liberal MP John Bryden are among members of the committee who support a sunset clause.
Used frequently in the U.S., sunset clauses are considered by some to be outside Canadian parliamentary tradition. However, Mr. Bellehumeur said, some of the anti-terrorism bill provisions are also new to Canadian law.
LINK: http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/stories/20011020/745778.html&qs=c-36
Toronto Star,
October 21st, 2001PM rules out sunset clause in terror bill
SHANGHAI (CP) - Prime Minister Jean Chretien says there's no need to put safeguards into newly proposed anti-terrorist legislation to ensure some of the more extreme measures have an expiration date.
Chretien 'satisfied' that provisions conform to Charter of RightsThe anti-terrorist legislation, tabled by Justice Minister Anne McLellan, proposes, among other things, to allow police to arrest anyone if they're about to commit a terrorist act - even without a warrant.
Critics of the legislation, who say it's an affront to rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, say it makes for a slippery slope.
McLellan said last week that she was open to a so-called sunset clause that would eliminate parts of the law after a set time period.
But Chretien, speaking to reporters following the conclusion of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit, eliminated the possibility that such a clause would be included.
"We don't know when terrorism will be over," he said.
"If you can guarantee that there will be no problem with terrorism in three years, I have no problem with a sunset clause. The problem will not necessarily disappear that easily."
He pointed out that the proposed law provides for a parliamentary review after three years of coming into effect.
Chretien maintained that the legislation does not contravene the charter, as some have suggested.
"There is a debate about that, but I'm satisfied that . . . the provisions that have been put in the bill are in conformity with the Charter of Rights."
The bill was one of several measures the government has introduced over the past two weeks in an effort to fight terrorism at home.
The government's security committee met at a retreat all day Saturday to discuss what other measures might be necessary.
The committee's chair, Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley, has said there may be a need to introduce a second omnibus bill related to terrorism.
Chretien said that if the decision is made soon that more changes are needed, they could be included in the bill now before the Commons.
But "there is no decision that has been made about another omnibus bill," he said.
McLellan has said that she expects court challenges to the legislation but believes that it will withstand such tests.
Toronto Star,
October 21st, 2001Ministers mull security needs
Tim Harper
Sky marshals, borders on agenda
OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEFOTTAWA - The 10 federal cabinet ministers entrusted with crafting anti-terrorism strategy in this country grappled with issues of border security and tougher airline safety during a day-long retreat near here yesterday.
The Meech Lake, Que., retreat, chaired by Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley, was called to look at outstanding security needs between now and the end of the year.
Yesterday's discussions could ultimately lead to another all-encompassing security bill to augment Justice Minister Anne McLellan's omnibus anti-terrorist bill introduced just last week.
Journalists were kept from the site and no ministers were talking afterward, but government sources indicated the agenda included:
- The issue of Ottawa moving closer to Washington standards on external border security and refugee claimant policy, while ensuring the free flow of goods across the Canada-U.S. border.
- The issue of placing armed sky marshals on Canadian planes and fast-tracking amendments to the Aeronautical Act to buttress air security measures already announced.
- Expanding the international mandate of the country's spy agency, CSIS, to allow it more latitude in international intelligence-gathering.
- More security measures built into the Canadian passport to make fraudulently obtained documents more easily detectable.
The session was also key for Finance Minister Paul Martin, who is trying to get a fix on long-term security costs arising from the Sept. 11 attacks before deciding whether he'll introduce a fall "security budget."
Manley's committee is set to wrap up Dec. 31, and sources said he was undecided whether an omnibus bill - a legislative tool usually decried by opposition parties - would be needed.
The government could decide to simply amend existing laws where it sees fit.
Ottawa Citizen,
October 22nd, 2001Writing off into the sunset
What do you do when urgently needed anti-terrorism legislation also contains measures harmful to civil liberties? Rage against the dying of the light? No. Provided the restraints on liberties are absolutely essential to the fight against terror, you ride into the sunset. In other words, we support calls for the new anti-terrorism bill to be amended to include a "sunset clause" that will make it lapse after a clearly defined period of time unless Parliament specifically re-enacts it.Such a clause would pose no danger to the fight against terror, because the measures in the bill, if adopted by Parliament, would take effect immediately and could be re-enacted if parliamentarians deemed them still to be necessary when they were scheduled to lapse. This would give Parliament an automatic second look at Jean Chrétien's version of "Just watch me," instead of leaving it to the government to decide if such a review should take place.
Indeed, sunset clauses are such a good idea that they should be in every bill and regulation passed by any level of government. Politics being what it is, governments hate admitting that anything they did was wrong because that would give ammunition to the opposition parties. With sunset clauses, every law would come up automatically for reconsideration, so failed embarrassments could be quietly left to die, flawed acts tidied up and successful ones triumphantly re-enacted. We'd get better laws that way.
We'd also get fewer of them. In days of yore, the function of Parliament was to stop the government from spending all our money on its projects. Nowadays, MPs seem to think that, since they are "legislators," they should legislate. And legislate they do, if for no other reason than to prove they deserve their salaries.
But do we really need all these new laws? At what point can we say we are as close to peace, order and good government as we're going to get in this vale of tears and it's time to stop? Obviously never. But since 1975, our federal, provincial and territorial governments have published more than half a million pages of laws and regulations. Do they think that's enough? Hardly. They're hip-deep in regulations about other regulations, and still regulating.
With even Mr. Chrétien looking for a "legacy" of some kind, no new Parliament is going to arrive, say "things are good" and spend the next four years doing nothing. No, indeed. It's going to legislate morning, noon and night. If it's not busy amending and adding clauses to old laws, you can bet it will be dreaming up new ones.
Sunset clauses would change that mindset. In addition to making MPs think long and hard about improving or repealing existing laws, a finite lifespan for legislation would impede politicians' ability to impose new mischief on us. They'd still be busy dealing with legislation (so they could keep the title legislator), but they wouldn't be able to hide behind the veil of passing laws as a substitute for doing something truly meaningful with their time. Like striking against terror.
It would be the dawn of a new day.
The Ottawa Citizen
Tuesday, October 23, 2001Terror bill's powers 'exorbitant'
by Jack Aubry and Rick Mofina
Spy agency watchdog says government would gain power to break privacy lawsCanada's new anti-terrorist legislation will give "exorbitant" powers to the federal government by allowing the interception of communications -- and the invasion of Canadians' privacy -- without a search warrant, said the federal watchdog of a top-secret Canadian spy agency.
Claude Bisson, a former judge who oversees the Communications Security Establishment, acknowledged to a Senate sub-committee reviewing the legislation that the new powers will allow the contravention of the country's privacy act.
Under the new law, the government's electronic spy agency will be given the power to use information gleaned from conversations between people in Canada and suspected foreign terrorists.
All the law requires is that the CSE first receive permission from the defence minister. Until now, the agency has been prohibited from intercepting any communications involving a Canadian citizen.
In one of his few public appearances since his appointment in 1996, Mr. Bisson explained to the senators that when he uses the word "exorbitant," he means "out of the norm" and not "excessive."
Mr. Bisson's part-time job as watchdog appears to be made easy by the fact that no one seems to be aware of what the agency is up to most of the time. For instance, he said he has not had to rule on any complaints from the public in the past two years since none have been made.
Many of the senators appeared exasperated in trying to understand the functioning of the agency. For example, Liberal Senator Sheila Finestone exclaimed to Mr. Bisson that she had "no idea" what he was talking about when describing the functions of the agency.
Liberal Senator Serge Joyal questioned Mr. Bisson on the portion of the legislation that will see the watchdog office report to the minister of defence even when it involves a matter involving the minister.
Mr. Joyal asked Mr. Bisson if it would not be better for the watchdog to report to the prime minister rather than the involved minister, as is done in Britain. A similar situation exists in the Prime Minister's Office where cabinet's ethics commissioner reports to Jean Chrétien rather than to Parliament.
Mr. Bisson said the decision on whom he reports to is made by the legislator, but he agreed reporting to Parliament was a viable option. Appearing unprepared for the pointed questions, he added that perhaps someone else might be able to give good reasons for reporting to directly to the minister.
Earlier in the day, senators were also concerned with the government's creation of a list of terrorist groups without allowing those accused to offer a proper defence.
Justice Minister Anne McLellan told the committee that police will pull back on investigations of suspected terrorists if parts of Canada's new anti-terrorist legislation have an expiry date, or so-called sunset clause.
"If your law enforcement authorities know that a provision is going to automatically sunset, they will start to ramp down in anticipation of that," Ms. McLellan told the special committee reviewing Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act.
Ms. McLellan's stand on limiting aspects of the bill differed from the one she took last week when she tabled the sweeping legislation in Parliament.
At that time, Ms. McLellan indicated she was open to attaching "a sunset clause" that would put a deadline on aspects of the proposed law.
But following the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit in Shanghai, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien dismissed the idea of limiting some of the bill's harshest measures because, "we don't know when terrorism will be over," he told reporters Sunday.
Appearing before the Senate committee, Ms. McLellan underscored that it was better to review the legislation in three years, rather than insert an expiry date, which would hamper the gathering of intelligence and prosecutions.
"You will probably be in the middle of court proceedings and investigations, and you run the risk of losing some of that valuable work," she said. "And law enforcement agencies will ramp down ... early to prevent that from happening."
Ms. McLellan said a sunset clause would also run counter to the parts of the broad counter-terrorism bill tied to Canada's obligation to United Nations conventions dealing with terrorist acts and financing.
"You don't sunset compliance with UN conventions, because of course you're found to be in violation of those conventions," Ms. McLellan said. "A sunset clause is an extreme measure."
Solicitor General Lawrence MacAulay refused to answer questions from senators on which organizations would automatically be placed on the government's list of charities that support terrorism.
Even when Tory Senator David Tkachuk asked whether Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network would find itself on the Canadian list, Mr. MacAulay said it would be "inappropriate" for him to comment before the issue went to cabinet.
National Post, Toronto
October 24, 2001Laws hamper terrorism fight: RCMP
Luiza Chwialkowska
Police commissioner testifies in support of Bill C-36:
Law would allow creation of a Big Brother file on every Canadian,
privacy watchdog says
National PostOTTAWA - The RCMP has been hampered in its fight against terrorist organizations in Canada by a lack of adequate laws, Giuliano Zaccardelli, the RCMP Commissioner, said yesterday.
The RCMP has done its best to heighten vigilance since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11., but stronger powers and more money are needed to fight "complex, sophisticated and clandestine criminal organizations," he told the House of Commons Justice Committee.
"Some people say that Canada already has a strong legislative framework and enforcement capacity to deal with terrorist threats. It has been our experience, based on our investigation into the tragic events of Sept. 11, that that is not true," he told the committee.
"Notwithstanding our efforts, it has become evident that there are serious obstacles preventing law enforcement organizations such as the RCMP from detecting, deterring and destabilizing terrorist groups," he said.
"Traditional investigative tools are inadequate," he said, explaining his support for Bill C-36, the federal government's proposed anti-terrorism law.
The extraordinary nature of terrorism demands an extraordinary response, he said.
Laws that outlaw terrorist fundraising, allow for seizure of terrorist assets, better protect sensitive information, allow for preventive arrests of suspected terrorists and identify terrorist groups are key to stopping terrorists, he said.
Since Sept. 11., officers have been working overtime or without time off and lower-priority investigations have been put on hold, he said.
The RCMP and security agencies such as CSIS, in particular, "could use more money so that we can provide better security for Canadians."
He said "active discussions" are ongoing with the federal government and he expects more funding to come.
Mr. Zaccardelli assured MPs RCMP officers would never use the proposed laws to target anti-globalization protesters or other political dissenters.
"I believe they are absolutely, totally outside the ambit of this legislation," he said of protesters.
"This legislation is in no way meant to address public dissent in this country. It is meant to address very limited, serious acts that try to destabilize our society. It is meant for very serious acts of violence," he said.
Even violent demonstrators would not come under the ambit of the law, he said. "I saw nothing at the Quebec Summit that would come close to qualifying [as terrorism]," he said.
Mr. Zaccardelli emphasized that unlike regular criminal law charges, permission of the Attorney-General is required to use the anti-terrorism provisions and the decision could be reviewable by a judge.
George Radwanski, the Privacy Commissioner, and John Reid, the Information Commissioner, told the committee sections that allow the Attorney-General to declare information secret on the grounds of national security or foreign policy violate privacy and openness laws.
"The way the legislation is written, information issued by CSIS or a department of Government -- or even all departments of government could be [declared secret]," Mr. Radwanski said.
He called the proposed power an "unnecessary and unjustifiable back-door incursion into the privacy law."
The law could allow the "creation of a Big Brother file on every Canadian" and the disclosure of the information to anyone, including employers, because there would be no one overseeing how that information would be used, he said.
Mr. Reid disputed past comments by Anne McLellan, the Minister of Justice, that the section was necessary to maintain information-sharing by Canada's allies.
Other countries are not planning changes to their access to information laws, he said.
Even the United States is retaining judicial review of decisions by the U.S. President that declare information secret on national security grounds.
"If our allies are not changing, why is it necessary for the government of Canada to go to such lengths?" he asked.
LINK: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/national/politics/story.html?f=/stories/20011024/751470.html
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation,
Wednesday, October 24th, 2001Anti-terrorism bill raises concerns over rights
OTTAWA - Two senior parliamentary officers issued warnings Tuesday about the sweeping new powers in Canada's proposed anti-terrorism bill.
Privacy Commisioner George Radwanski told MPs that Bill C-36 would allow government to suspend the Privacy Act in the name of national security.
"This law as written could permit the creation for instance of a Big Brother file on every Canadian," said Radwanski. "It could permit government to disclose any information about you to anybody it wants – your employer, your insurer, you name it."
Information Commissioner John Reid warned senators that Bill C-36 would prevent his office from challenging excessive government secrecy.
Reid said Ottawa wants the power to suspend the Access to Information Act. He said Canada is the only western government to make such a drastic proposal.
"In point of fact, from what our allies are doing, they are not making changes to their access to information or freedom of information pieces of legislation. Only Canada is," Reid said.
Senators and MPs are shifting the focus of their debates on the anti-terrorism bill.
Until now, they've focused on new police powers, such as allowing suspects to be arrested without a warrant or criminalizing participation in a new list of terrorist groups.
On Tuesday, the committees began considering the impact on the rights of Canadians.
Conservative MP Peter MacKay believes the justice minister would have the power to keep crucial decisions from proper review indefinitely.
Justice Minister Anne McLellan tried to reassure the House. "The power given to the attorney general to issue a certificate is a limited one for very limited purposes."
But the privacy commissioner doesn't see it that way. "It gives the minister unlimited power, in unlimited circumstances," said Radwanski.
Keith Coulter, chief of the secretive Canadian Security Establishment, told a Commons committee there is also a need for expanded powers to listen in on domestic communications.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S., Ottawa gave the CSE a one-time installment of $37 million to upgrade its technology for eavesdropping on electronic communications.
CSE's mandate will soon be expanded to monitoring communications that originate or end in Canada. It currently can eavesdrop only on foreign communication.
Defence Minister Art Eggleton told the committee that Canada's key partners in collecting and sharing communications intelligence – the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand – already have the powers to tap domestic communications.
"If we're to make a meaningful contribution to the international campaign against terrorism, we must ensure that our own legal framework is aligned with theirs," said Eggleton.
Some MPs were uncomfortable with the lack of judicial authority needed for CSE to eavesdrop. The RCMP and CSIS both require a judge's approval to wiretap.
Written by CBC News Online staff
LINK: http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/view?/news/2001/10/23/anti_terrorism011023
Globe and Mail, Toronto
Wednesday, October 24, 2001Antiterrorism bill worries some MPs
By Daniel Leblanc
Definition of terrorist in proposed law too loose for some,
who fear chill on dissentOTTAWA -- Ottawa's proposed antiterrorism powers have already had a "chilling effect" on supporters of terrorist groups in Canada and forced them to wind down activities, the head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service said yesterday.
But CSIS director Ward Elcock and RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli, appearing before the House of Commons justice committee, emphasized that police and security forces need strong legislation to keep the pressure on such groups.
While giving no details of the impact the proposed bill has already had on suspect groups, Mr. Elcock told told the panel that, in most cases, terrorist groups in Canada are present to fund, plan or recruit for overseas campaigns.
Commissioner Zaccardelli told the MPs that current Canadian laws to fight such acts are inadequate in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, and that police need new, stronger tools.
"Notwithstanding our efforts," he said, "it has become evident that there are significant obstacles preventing law-enforcement organizations such as the RCMP from detecting, deterring and destabilizing terrorist groups."
The two men urged MPs to approve the new powers of preventive arrests, investigative hearings and increased surveillance outlined in Bill C-36.
Liberal MPs on the committee started laying the groundwork to amend the bill's definition of "terrorist act."
The definition specifically excludes lawful protests and strikes but not violent protests or illegal blockades that disrupt essential services.
Many critics have argued that the loosely worded definition could be used by police to crack down on antiglobalization protesters or native activists, for example.
Andy Scott, Liberal chairman of the committee, and Stephen Owen, parliamentary secretary to the justice minister, asked Commissioner Zaccardelli whether he would object to a tighter definition.
Mr. Owen said the government needs the most precise definition possible, because everything else in the bill "hangs" on it.
"That's where we have to pay a lot of attention," he said.
Commissioner Zaccardelli said that the bill will not and cannot be used to target violent protest, and that it should clearly state that point.
"This legislation in no way is meant to address public dissent in this country or any such thing," he said.
"This law is meant to get at the most hideous crimes that anybody can perpetrate in our democratic and free society."
Liberal MP John McKay also raised concerns about the proposed plan to create a permanent list of terrorist groups, for which it would be illegal to raise funds or work.
Mr. McKay said the listing process, done by cabinet on recommendation by CSIS, is too secretive and does not include enough safeguards.
"If Ward Elcock says you're a terrorist, you're a terrorist," Mr. McKay said after the committee meeting.
Mr. Elcock told the MPs he would be vigilant in recommending the designation of groups and would rely on clear facts, not rumour and innuendo.
Information Commissioner John Reid and Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski also weighed into the debate.
They said some elements of the bill go too far in restricting the rights of Canadians.
In a worst-case scenario, Mr. Radwanski said, the government could use the new powers to create "Big Brother files on all Canadians" and share information with employers, for example.
Mr. Reid said the new law would give the government too much power to prevent the release of some documents under the Access to Information Act.
Ottawa is insisting it needs the measure to protect information received from foreign allies.
National Post, Toronto
October 23, 2001Liberal position changes as sun rises, sets
Paul Wells
McLellan comes close to agreeing with boss, without agreeing
National PostOTTAWA - Perhaps the name is the problem. If you're arguing about sunset clauses, perhaps it's only reasonable to expect the government's position would change as frequently as the sun sets, which where I grew up was generally once a day.
That would explain Anne McLellan's testimony, not very long after sunrise yesterday, to the spanking-new Special Senate Committee on the Subject Matter of Bill C-36, the Justice Minister's prize anti-terrorism omnibus bill.
Bill C-36 is Canada's version of anti-terrorism laws being introduced or improved in most Western democracies in the wake of the Sept. 11 atrocities.
It would give the police strong new powers of surveillance and preventive detention.
The government is so eager to pass the bill quickly that C-36 is being pre-studied by a hand-picked