Immigration.ca - Canada Immigration News - February 2008
In a rush to beat a February 23rd deadline, the House of Commons voted last week to pass an anti-terrorism bill designed to ease in the deportation of terrorism suspects while still protecting civic liberties.
The February deadline was imposed a year prior, when the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the old policy regarding security certificates. Under the previous system, terrorism suspects could be detained indefinitely and be convicted in �closed� court proceedings based on secret evidence.
The new law would �improve bail procedures� and allow for suspects to have legal representation- providing those representatives passed �special security clearances.�
The bill was passed by the minority Conservative government, with the support of the Liberals, the official opposition. However, critics in the Bloc and the New Democratic Party believe that the changes in the new system are not substantial enough to effectively protect individual rights.
In fact, even within the Liberal party, the flaws are obvious. For example, public safety critic Ujjal Dosanjh, who stated that the bill was �not ideal� but said it was the best that could be done in the face of the looming deadline.
If not passed before February 23rd, the five cases currently pending in court will be forced out and the government would be left with no policy.
The bill moves now from the House of Commons to the Senate. The Senate is mostly Liberal and is thus expected to favour the bill. Immigrant advocates and critics in other Parties do not see the sense is passing a controversial bill that is as likely to be contested as its predecessor.
The new system is being based on a similar policy legislated in Great Britain in response to recent terrorism concerns. Already there, however, the weaknesses are being seen. Critics say that the �special� advocates are operating with their hands tied and are almost as unable to act as the suspects themselves. They argue that it is a temporary, emergency solution to the bigger problem of balancing civil liberties with public safety.
Source:
The Canadian Press
