Bill C-36

Original author: Joan Bryden (CP)
Source: CANOE CNEWS Network
URL: [link]
Date: February 27, 2007


OTTAWA (CP) - Opposition parties joined forces Tuesday to vote down the extension of two controversial anti-terrorism measures, ending an acrimonious political battle rife with accusations of dirty politics.

But the debate over national security vs. civil liberties is sure to continue into the next election campaign. A Conservative government motion seeking to extend the security measures for three years was defeated by a vote of 159 to 124.

Most Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois MPs voted against extending the provisions, which expire automatically Thursday without parliamentary approval to renew them.

The measures empower authorities to detain suspected terrorists without charge and to compel individuals with knowledge of terrorist activity to testify before a judge.

The Conservatives say the provisions are needed to keep the country safe from terrorists, but critics say they go too far and infringe on civil liberties.

The vote marked a victory for Liberal Leader Stephane Dion who had ordered his MPs not to support the government.

[ Read the rest ... ]

Original author: Omar alghabra Source: The Globe and Mail URL: N/A Date: February 22, 2007 The government is fear-mongering, says OMAR ALGHABRA

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.

[ Read the rest ... ]

Original author: Brent Patterson Source: The Council of Canadians Website URL: [link] Date: February 15, 2007 ACTION ALERT UPDATE: Vote against "preventive arrests" and "investigative hearings"

Dear chapter activists, The Canadian Press is reporting today that, "Former public safety minister Anne McLellan, former finance minister John Manley and former justice minister Irwin Cotler said the (C-36) measures (of "preventive arrest" and "investigative hearings")...should not be allowed to lapse as Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has suggested." The news story also notes, "The measures have a built-in sunset clause that requires Parliament to review and extend them every three years. Their new expiry date is March 1." Originally the vote in the House of Commons on these two provisions was to have taken place on Tuesday February 13 because the provisions were set to expire on Friday February 16. It now appears that the vote will take place sometime within the next two weeks given, for technical reasons, a new expiry date of Thursday March 1.

[ Read the rest ... ]

Original author: Press Release Source: The National Union of Public and General empoyees URL: [link] Date: February 12, 2007 National Union urges opposition to Anti-Terrorism Act Sunset provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act to be voted on in House of Commons

Ottawa (12 February 2007) – Members of Parliament will be voting this week on renewing two provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act enabling "preventive arrests" and "investigative hearings." “The National Union opposed this legislation 5 years ago as an unnecessary erosion of the civil liberties of Canadians,” says James Clancy, national president of the 340,000 member National Union of Public and General Employees. “These two provisions in particular represent a serious attack on our democratic rights and we are urging MPs to vote against renewing these provisions.” The legislation was introduced in Parliament by the former Liberal government of Jean Chretien weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States. While a wide range of organizations felt that existing legislation covered most of the powers introduced by the Anti-Terrorism Act, it was the provisions dealing with "preventive arrests" and "investigative hearings” that received the most attention. The two provisions allow for arrest without charge and compelled testimony - both of which represent a significant break from Canada's established legal values. Opposition to these provisions came from unions, civil liberties organizations and the Canadian Bar Association. In what most saw as a partial victory, the government placed a "sunset" clause on the two provisions meaning that they would expire after three years, unless Parliament passes a motion to extend them. The Harper Conservative government tabled a motion last week to extend the provisions for three years. A vote is expected as early as Tuesday, February 13, 2007. NUPGE

Original author: Norma Greenaway Source: The Ottawa Citizen URL: [link] (subscribers only) Date: February 12, 2007 Grits: Liberals' own security provisions no longer necessary, McCallum says

In an about face, the federal Liberal party is poised to help kill "draconian" anti-terror measures the former Liberal government insisted on writing into sweeping legislation passed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. Liberal MP John McCallum made clear yesterday there have been no second thoughts about the party's surprise decision, revealed Friday in the Commons, to vote this week with the Bloc and NDP to strike down the two most controversial provisions of the 2001 anti-terrorism law. The Liberal decision means the minority Conservative government will not have the votes needed to approve a motion extending the provisions for three years. Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day reacted by accusing the Liberals of bailing out of their own legislation and the war on terrorism. As recently as October, the Liberals had said they would support extending the provisions that allow preventive arrests of terrorist suspects and investigative hearings.

[ Read the rest ... ]

Original author: N/A Source: CUPE Web site (?) URL: N/A Date: February 10, 2007 The sun setting on civil liberties?

Five years ago, the Chretien government passed the Anti Terrorism Act, a reactionary and ineffective response to the attacks on the World Trade Center three months prior. The legislation blurred the definition of "terrorism", restricted civil liberties, authorized new powers to the Attorney General, and did little to make anyone any safer. Two of the most extraordinary provisions of this act were subject to sunset clause, expiring in five years unless renewed by a vote in Parliament for a further period. The provisions in question -- preventative arrest and investigative hearings -- allow for arrest without charge and compelled testimony, both of which are stark departures from Canada's legal values. The Harper government has placed a motion before Parliament to renew these extraordinary provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act. The vote takes place on Tuesday February 13, 2007. "CUPE was in vocal opposition to this legislation five years ago," stated Paul Moist, National President, referring to the concerns we raised before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in November of 2001. "We call on our government to approach this vote with a clear head and an eye on democracy. This legislation threatens the rights of all Canadians and must not be renewed." CUPE asks its members to be in touch with their Members of Parliament today, and demand they vote against renewing the provisions in question.

Original author: Ian MacLeod (Ottawa researcher Ken Rubin contributed to this report.) Source: The Ottawa Citizen URL: [link] Date: November 27, 2006 Agency may be unable to define crime by motive

Counter-terrorism investigations by Canada's top spy agency could be jeopardized by yet another snag in post-9/11 national security legislation. An important section of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act that defines "threats to Canada" and mandates CSIS to investigate them contains the same clause recently declared unconstitutional in the Anti-Terrorism Act. If that part of the spy act were challenged and found to be unconstitutional, "arguably any investigation that's conducted in that fashion is potentially impugned," and could prevent the use of vital CSIS evidence at a criminal trial, says David Paciocco, a constitutional law expert at the University of Ottawa. The complication adds to the "perfect storm" of controversy gathering around the security legislation, say several experts. When the Anti-Terrorism Act and related amendments to the Criminal Code and 19 other federal statues were rushed into service in December 2001, "it was evident that it was going to have to stand the test of fire and that test of fire is now being applied with a high temperature," says Mr. Paciocco.

[ Read the rest ... ]

Original author: Thomas Walkom Source: The Toronto Star URL: [link] Date: October 25, 2006 Crime is crime, courts are saying

Carefully, gradually, the courts are nibbling away at Canada's anti-terror laws. They did it last week when an Ontario Superior Court justice ruled that secrecy provisions of these laws contradict freedom of the press. They did it again yesterday when another Ontario judge declared the very definition of terrorist activity is unconstitutional. The rulings represent a sharp rebuke to those parliamentarians who rushed through the terror laws in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. They also call into question the current obsession with terrorism as a unique, world-defining evil. In yesterday's decision — related to the terror charges brought against Ottawa computer software developer Momin Khawaja — Superior Court Justice Douglas Rutherford concluded that the central definition of what constitutes "a terrorist activity" contravenes constitutional provisions that guarantee freedom of religion, expression and association.

[ Read the rest ... ]

Original author: Thomas Walkom
Source: The Toronto star
URL: [link]
Date: October 24, 2006


We are casual about our liberties in Canada. Five years ago, Parliament rammed through new anti-terror laws that gave the state unprecedented powers to jail individuals without charging them or convicting them of any crime.

Now it looks as if the country's elected politicians are preparing to extend these remarkably draconian provisions for at least five more years.

Why? They don't say.

"They" are the Liberal and Conservative MPs who make up the majority on a Commons subcommittee looking into the anti-terror laws. Yesterday, they issued a report recommending that Parliament extend until 2011 the most controversial element of these laws — a provision for preventive detention.

[ Read the rest ... ]

Original author: Andrew Mayeda
Source: The National Post
URL: [link]
Date: October 18, 2006

OTAWA - A Commons panel that has been reviewing the Anti-Terrorism Act plans to recommend the extension for five years of two controversial provisions that give Canadian authorities broad powers in detaining terror suspects and questioning witnesses, CanWest News Service has learned.

The federal act, passed in 2001 in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, added two provisions to the Criminal Code. One enables the police to arrest suspects without warrant if authorities have reason to believe a terrorist act will be committed; the other allows judges to compel individuals to testify at "investigative hearings." Both provisions were due to expire early in the new year.

[ Read the rest ... ]