Cons never let a good crisis go to waste: "Combatting Terrorism Act" returns for debate

[Joe Shlabotnik]

House Leader Peter Van Loan earlier today:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement respecting the business of the House next week. As I said at the start of question period, leadership requires decisive and serious action in response to the serious threats of violent terrorism.
In order to give members of this House an opportunity to express their views on the appropriate way to respond to terrorist violence, on Monday and Tuesday the House will debate Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act. This bill is at its final stage in Parliament and I call upon all members of this place to pass this bill, we don't need further study - we need action.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2013/04/liberals-to-push-for-more-freedom-for-backbench-mps.html

About Bill S-7:
Statement on Reintroduction of Anti-Terrorism Provisions November 28, 2012

Bill S-7, also known as the ‘Combating Terrorism Act’, would allow persons to be detained for up to three days without charge (“preventive arrest”); strip individuals of their basic rights as accused under criminal proceedings to know and challenge evidence against them; threaten them with criminal punishment; and compel individuals to testify in secret before a judge in an “investigative hearing”. Further, the judge may impose imprisonment of up to 12 months if the person does not enter into recognizance.

Individuals subject to these provisions do not necessarily have to be suspected of committing any crime. It is enough that they are alleged to have information relating to a terrorism offence, or that they are alleged to be associated with another individual suspected of committing (or about to commit) a terrorism offence, or that they are otherwise suspected of potential future involvement with a terrorism offence. Furthermore, the scope of Bill S-7 extends beyond Canada’s borders, and could potentially result in a reliance on foreign intelligence. Without the ability to challenge evidence, there is no guarantee that the evidence is accurate, or was not obtained from a third country or source that conducts or condones torture as a method to elicit information. [It should be noted that the Canadian government has already given the green light to law enforcement agencies to accept information that may have been derived through torture, in violation of international agreements and standards].

In all such cases, individuals may find themselves caught up in these detention and interrogation provisions without any effective legal recourse.

Under these provisions, individuals could be forced to testify in a court of law, arrested, detained or made subject to bail conditions – all without charges being laid. Individuals have no right to know, and no opportunity to challenge, the basis on which they are being subjected to preventive arrest or required to attend investigate hearings.

http://bccla.org/news/2012/11/civil-liberties-and-human-rights-groups-united-in-opposition-to-bill-s-7-combating-terrorism-act/

Bill S-7: Conservative Terror Crime Bill Threatens Civil Rights
‘Anti-Terrorism’ Legislation Attack on Canadians: MP Olivia Chow October 17, 2012

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against Bill S-7, a bill designed to violate the civil and human rights of Canadians, a bill to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act to allow a Canadian to be arrested without a warrant, imprisoned without having a fair trial and imprisoned for up to 12 months without even being charged with a criminal offence.

These fundamental changes were brought in by the Liberal government of the time in 2001, immediately after September 11. At that time, it was not a public policy discussion; it was a crisis management tool. Some of the provisions of the bill expired in February 2007 and, at that time, the NDP led the opposition to the renewal of these clauses and opposed the extension of the provisions. We were very proud to stand for human rights. It is unfortunate to see that through the Senate this bill is now back in front of us.

http://www.oliviachow.ca/2012/10/bill-s-7-conservative-terror-crime-bill-threatens-civil-rights/

Not surprisingly, the Liberals are pissed off. The conservatives just stole their thunder by postponing debate on Standing Order 31 that would empower dissident back-benchers, and instead refocused debate on the 'tough on crime', 'war on terrorism' agenda. A double smack down. Marc Garneau:

...suddenly, S-7 appears roughly less than an hour after we announce what we want to debate in the planned opposition day for the Liberals on Monday. So it does seem rather suspicious. And it is unfortunate. We cannot understand why suddenly S-7, when it was not even mentioned in the days after the Boston bombing, suddenly is invoked as being something that urgently needs to be, I presume, closed off in third reading by Tuesday evening. So that’s our view. And it’s unfortunate. I think Boston is kind of being used as a political football a second time.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/04/19/the-backbench-spring-justin-trudeau-joins-the-cause/

Unfortunately, the Liberals ire is focused on politics, instead of policy. The Liberals have voted in support of Bill S-7 along side with the Conservatives:

Vote #484 on October 23rd, 2012
Bill S-7 An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act
Yes 183 Liberal Conservative, No 93 Green Bloc NDP
http://openparliament.ca/votes/41-1/484/