The Canadian judge heading the Air-India inquiry is being asked by the Stephen Harper government to consider new ways to try terrorism suspects -- including a parallel system where cases would be weighed by three-judge panels instead of the standard judge or jury. Since it was announced one week ago, Mr. Justice John Major's commission has been chiefly described as a means of bringing "closure" to families whose loved ones were killed more than 20 years ago.But his job is more broad and forward-looking than just that: He is to perform nothing less than a full review of the Canadian criminal justice system as it applies to terrorism prosecutions.

That means, according to the commission's terms of reference, pondering fundamental changes, such as "whether there is merit in having terrorism cases heard by a panel of three judges."

Defence lawyers say they are alarmed by any implicit suggestion that Canada's legal system is incapable of prosecuting terrorists. "There is a discussion that a single judge or judge and jury, somehow, are not up to the task," said criminal lawyer Marlys Edwardh. ". . . There is no evidence that that concern is justified."

Ms. Edwardh, who represents Maher Arar at a continuing inquiry into his deportation and torture in Syria, is writing to the Canadian Criminal Lawyers' Association and the Canadian Bar Association about the wording of the order-in-council that established the Air-India commission of inquiry last week.

While she said she has no doubt that Mr. Major, a retired Supreme Court judge, will bring his "enormous experience and wisdom" to the job, she is concerned about the language of the order.

The inquiry comes amid rising doubts that the Canadian criminal justice system is capable of bringing terrorists to justice. Last year's acquittal of two Vancouver men, the alleged ringleaders of the 1985 Air-India bombing, outraged relatives of the 329 victims. Last month, a U.S. State Department report criticized Canada for failing to convict anyone under the anti-terrorism laws passed in 2001.

Now, the government itself is wondering whether the system needs fixing. It has ordered Mr. Major to examine "whether the unique challenges presented by the prosecution of terrorism cases . . . are adequately addressed by existing practices or legislation, and, if not, the changes in practice or legislation that are required to address these challenges, including whether there is merit in having terrorism cases heard by a panel of three judges."

Mr. Major is also asked to look at "establishing a reliable and workable relationship between security intelligence and evidence that can be used in a criminal trial" and ensuring "adequate protection for witnesses against intimidation."

Such changes could open up a Pandora's box of thorny legal questions, and lead to a change in current laws intended to keep spy "intelligence" separate from Crown "evidence," as well as a Charter of Rights and Freedoms principle that every accused is entitled to a jury trial.

Mr. Major isn't tipping his hand as to how he will proceed. "I understand your concern when you read the mandate, but I'm really in no position to discuss that with you unless I do it publicly, which I will at some point in the not-too-distant future," he told The Globe and Mail.

The Air-India inquiry has been driven by a call for justice from the families of victims, who say the government of Canada failed them.

In the early 1980s, Canadian officials were watching a cell of B.C.-based Sikh extremists who openly espoused terrorism against Indian targets. But these officials proved unable to prevent -- or blame anyone for -- the premeditated murder of 329 people aboard an Air-India flight that originated in Vancouver.

The one man who was convicted in connection with the crime made a plea bargain. He said he bought bomb parts without knowing what would be done with them. He is now nearing the end of a manslaughter sentence.

Family members, who fault investigative bungling and legal technicalities for keeping important evidence from the courts, say a new way of doing business is in order.

Some Air-India relatives find inspiration from a three-judge panel in Scotland that sent a Libyan terrorist to jail for life after finding that he was to blame for killing 270 people after a jet exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.

Susheel Gupta, an Ottawa lawyer whose mother was killed in the Air- India bombing, said Canada could benefit by moving to something more along the lines of a three-judge panel used in Scotland.

"I don't see too many chefs. In our own justice system, the Court of Appeal is three judges, the Supreme Court is nine judges," he said in an interview.

Canada's Privy Council Office said the ideas in the order largely flow from the Air-India families. The commission will look at "what went wrong, have we fixed it, and, if we haven't, what are the kinds of the things we should do," said PCO spokesman Bob Quinn.

Terrorism prosecutions remain rare. A case against an Ottawa man accused of an al-Qaeda-style bombing conspiracy is to go to trial next year. It remains the only test of the criminal charges set out in Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act.

Terrorism suspects have found themselves jailed by other means. For example, Canadian authorities are holding five immigrants as possible "security threats," under provisions of the Immigration Act.

A separate judicial inquiry is looking at how a series of naturalized Canadians wound up being jailed as terrorism suspects in Syria, Egypt and the United States.

© Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.