ASSESSMENT OF GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

Assessment of Government Response to September 11, 2001

Assessment of Government Response to September 11, 2001

In response to the terrorist attacks in New York on September 11 2001, the government of Canada has proposed new anti-terrorism legislation known as Bill C-36. It is clear that Bill C-36 challenges many rights and freedoms that are protected under the Charter we as Canadians value so highly. This bill consists of several changes and amendments to Canadian law in areas such as criminal procedure, international relations, immigration, individual privacy, law enforcement, and charitable giving. This proposed change to Canadian law has generated heavy criticisms by scholars, officials, and numerous others, regarding the potential impact that these changes may have upon the civil rights and liberties of Canadians. This legislation proposes new measures to identify, prosecute, convict, and punish terrorist organizations, and also to provide new investigative ways for law enforcement and national security agencies to uncover terrorist activities. With this kind of legislation producing such serious measures in hopes of creating more effective anti-terrorism laws, it is not surprising to see so many provisions come along with them as to ensure Canadians' values and rights are preserved. With respect to the changes that Bill C-36.

Additional safeguards as outlined by the Honorable Anne McLellan relating to the Preventative Arrest powers include; judicial supervision of the recognizance process, the requirement for reasonable grounds for belief that terrorist activity will be carried out, the requirement that an arrest without warrant can only be made where it is necessary to prevent the commission of a terrorist activity, and the ability of the person to vary a recognizance. I keep seeing the same concerns come into the light regarding the security apparatus revolving around the bill. For example, police could have a suspect in custody that is being un-cooperative, and if they are sufficiently frightened that a terrorist event is about to happen in a matter of days or hours, physical means could be used to get the suspect (s) to answer.

So how can terrorism have temporary laws if terrorism itself is not temporary? It would be a mistake to only have these powers in legislation for a limited time, especially considering all the work and review that would have to be directed for proper implementation of these new laws. With the numerous safeguards that Bill C-36 gives along within this new legislation, it is not very comforting reading about these new powers that are hardly ever contemplated in Canadian Law. nes, there are numerous amendments to existing pieces of legislation including the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, and measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism, and the financing of terrorism. Provisions allowing the state to compel testimony under this new clause have been seen as a violation of fundamental traditions and rights under Canadian law. It calls for additional review mechanisms to guard against abuses ...