February 12, 2007
Update: On Tuesday February 27, the House of Commons voted 159 to 124 against extending the preventive arrests and investigative hearings provisions of C-36, Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act. As of Thursday March 1, these two provisions expired and are no longer the law in Canada. This is a victory for civil liberties in Canada. Thank you to everyone who responded to this action alert.
Dear activists,
Prior to Thursday March 1, the House of Commons will be voting on two controversial provisions of C-36, Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act, which became law on December 18, 2001.
Originally the vote 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.
The two provisions within C-36 are 1) "preventive arrest" without bail for 72 hours and 2) "investigative hearings" of material witnesses.
The "preventive arrest" clause enables police to arrest suspects without warrant and detain them for several days without charge if authorities have reason to believe a terrorist act will be committed. The "investigative hearings" provision allows judges to compel individuals to testify in terror cases.
These provisions are subject to a five-year sunset clause in C-36 and are now set to expire by Thursday March 1 unless a Conservative government motion to renew these clauses for a three-year period is approved by the House of Commons and Senate. The NDP, Bloc Quebecois and Liberals say they will vote against the renewal of these powers.
However, on Thursday February 13 the Canadian Press reported that, "Former public safety minister Anne McLellan, former finance minister John Manley and former justice minister Irwin Cotler said the measures ("preventive arrest" and "investigative hearings")...should not be allowed to lapse as Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has suggested." As such, it is even more vital now that activists be in touch with their Member of Parliament to ensure that these provisions are not renewed.
In a November 27, 2001 open letter to then-Justice Minister Anne McLellan, Maude Barlow wrote, "Bill C-36 is simply too broad and too vaguely worded to allow for the freedom of expression that is so important in a democratic society while addressing potential terrorist threats."Click here to read Maude's full letter.
Maude Barlow also wrote in Too Close for Comfort, "C-36 gives security services sweeping new powers to arrest and detain a suspected terrorist without charges for up to seventy-two hours; carry out preventive arrest without warning; compel a person believed to have information about terrorism to testify before a judge, thereby removing an individual's right to remain silent..."
And at the Council of Canadians' "Crossing the Line: A Citizens' Inquiry on Canada-U.S. Relations", Denis Barrette, a lawyer with the Ligue des droits et libertes, told us, "The Anti-Terrorism Act is primarily used for intimidation: if you don't cooperate, authorities threaten you with a preventative 72-hour detention before sending you to a judge, who will force you to answer questions."
THE DEMAND
Chapter activists are encouraged to contact their Member of Parliament today and encourage them to vote against the "preventive arrest" and "investigative hearing" provisions of C-36.
Find the e-mail address of your Member of Parliament on our website.
Dear <your MP's name>,
As a member of the Council of Canadians, I encourage you to vote against the "preventive arrest" and "investigative hearing" provisions of C-36. I feel that these provisions unfairly restrict the civil liberties of people in Canada. Preventive arrest is primarily used for intimidation: if you don't cooperate, authorities threaten you with a preventative 72-hour detention. Investigative hearings compel a person believed to have information about terrorism to testify before a judge, thereby removing an individual's right to remain silent. I trust that you will vote against the three-year extension of these controversial provisions.
Thank you.
<your name>
Read more
SEND YOUR LETTER NOW:
