Once again, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is using fear and patriotism to distract from reality and fact as parliamentarians consider renewing two of the most extraordinary and controversial powers of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act. Extraordinary, because they give law-enforcement and security agencies broad powers to arrest Canadians without charge (preventative arrest) and compel them to testify against their will (investigative hearings); controversial, because legal experts, community leaders and respected human-rights organizations have warned that such broad and unprecedented powers may threaten Canadian protected liberties. Indeed, recognizing their unique nature, parliamentarians approved these provisions in 2001 as temporary measures that would automatically expire after five years. Of course, if, after review and sober second thought, Parliament decided to renew these powers, they could do so. That brings us to the debate before the House today. An all-party committee of Parliament reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act has recommended the two provisions be renewed, but with the addition of specific safeguards to prevent abuse and costly mistakes.Notwithstanding the advice of the committee, the government decided to propose a take-it-or-leave-it, unrevised three-year renewal.

Despite being branded soft, the opposition parties are united against the motion to renew these extraordinary powers without any revisions or safeguards. What have we learned from the passage of time, careful deliberation, and sober second thought?

When the Anti-Terrorism Act was introduced in 2001, many legal experts took special exception to preventative arrest and investigative hearings. Eric Rice, president of the Canadian Bar Association at the time, reminded a Senate committee that "no one wants a regime where wrongful arrest and detention are unchecked, or where the right to remain silent or the right to privacy or freedom from discrimination is damaged beyond repair. The 20th century left a legacy of many states where freedoms were removed temporarily at first and then lost permanently."

In the context of the 9/11 attacks, there was an assumption that our traditional laws were not sufficient and perhaps a new set of powerful tools was necessary to combat a new form of threat. But parliamentarians had the presence of mind to build in a safety mechanism -- the sunset clause.

Five years later, we have the benefit of experience and hindsight.

Judges have raised serious concerns about some of our national security legislation. Preventative arrest and investigative hearings provide a temporary suspension of judicial oversight. It is important that we restore that oversight because the checks and balances between branches of government are the bedrock of our democracy and the rule of law. We need only look at the tragic case of Maher Arar to see what the lack of transparency and accountability can do to innocent families. History is replete with the victims of unchecked governments acting to keep us safe because of unintended or misguided errors. It is irresponsible and cruel when the Conservatives provide the false perception that, without these provisions, Canadians are less secure or that security agents are handicapped. These claims are, at best, misleading, and at worst, fear-mongering. Canadians remember when Mr. Harper accused the Liberals of "hitting the snooze button on security matters" when they were trying to bring Mr. Arar back home.

Our legal system has evolved over many years and fine-tuned methods to distinguish truth from falsehood, guilt from innocence, while respecting human rights. Certainly, mistakes are made, but on the whole, our justice system is robust and effective. Those who say we will be less safe without the extraordinary provisions in question, or those who argue that we ought to maintain them "just in case" have not provided any evidence to merit the risk of such extraordinary tools.

In the past five years, ordinary criminal powers and investigative techniques were used to apprehend alleged terror suspects in Toronto. The extraordinary powers in question apparently were not necessary to nip impending acts in the bud. This speaks volumes about the effectiveness of good police work using ordinary legal measures. This is a serious and legitimate debate. It would be unfortunate if we lost sight of the substance of this debate and let ourselves be dragged into a rhetorical battle.

Parliament's priority is to protect all Canadians and not to allow ideology to trump rational and evidence-based debate. It takes strong leadership and rock solid commitment to see through the fog of emotions and to stand up for the collective well-being of all Canadians.

Omar Alghabra, Liberal member of Parliament for Mississauga-Erindale, is past president of the Canadian Arab Federation.

© Copyright 2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.