Members of Parliament are getting ready to vote on a new and controversial bill. The proposed Bill C-7, Public Safety Act, has passed its first two readings and has been reviewed by the Senate. The bill as described in its introduction is: "An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada ... in order to enhance public safety."

This bill is offensive because it proposes to suspend due process in our legal system under the pretext of security. If this bill is approved, security agencies would have unprecedented executive power. With just a signature, government ministers and their delegates would be able to amend certain acts on the advice of a security agency. With no one to challenge their decisions, the checks and balances of our system would be diminished significantly. This should be a concern to everyone.

The bill contains 23 parts covering a wide range of previously enacted legislation. To give you an idea of its scope, acts such as Air Transport Security Authority Act, Environmental Protection Act, Exports and Imports Permit Act, National Defence Act, Pest Control Products Act, Marine Transportation Security Act and others are affected.

The proposed bill gives ministers and their delegates extended and concentrated powers. The respective minister and his or her delegates will have the unchecked authority to "make an interim order if the minister believes that there is a significant (security) risk." The ministers and their delegates are granted powers to arbitrarily and unilaterally circumvent a piece of existing legislation based on assessments conducted by security agencies that cannot be challenged.

For example, the current Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Act was set up to protect the privacy of individuals and their personal information. But with this bill, the responsible minister and his or her delegates can use personal information for reasons of "national security" without setting any safeguards or defining what that term means.

The first version of this bill was tabled by the government in November, 2001. It was called C-42. That bill was withdrawn and replaced by Bill C-55, which was introduced in late April, 2002. That was replaced by C-17 in October, 2002, which was also withdrawn later. And now C-7 was introduced in February. All four proposed versions had the same title, essentially the same content but with different bill numbers. All share the same fundamental flaw: The dangerous combination of too much power concentration, licence to infringe on individual rights, and lack of accountability and safeguards.

The Canadian Bar Association issued a warning that the proposed bill "would take Canada down the road toward a police state." The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group asserts, "the proposed new power would turn all Canadians into suspects." The Canadian Arab Federation argues this bill offers "intrusions on privacy and violations of rights this society does not need." The Coalition of Muslim Organizations believes this act combined with the controversial C-36 Anti-Terrorism Act "represents a significant threat to civil rights, democracy and the rule of law."

While debating the previous version of this bill, NDP caucus member Bev Desjarlais said "this bill gives sweeping powers to government ministers to do whatever they want, whenever they want, supposedly in the name of security. The only precedent for something like this in the history of our great democracy was the War Measures Act."

Peter McKay, leader of the Progressive Conservatives at the time, said this "bill backs away from that fundamental principle, that tenet of justice that says there has to be accountability, that there have to be consequences for actions taken."

A few Liberal MPs told me they didn't like the bill, either.

As the threat of global terrorism increases, it is the responsibility of the government to re-evaluate priorities and security concerns. Preventative measures and emergency responses need to be planned and implemented for the protection of Canadians.

Many experts have been arguing that we live in different times now. One clich says: Different times require different measures. Another says: Better safe than sorry.

The sad part is that as an outcome of these attitudes and the resulting intelligence failure, we are seeing people feeling more sorry than safe. The infamous Maher Arar ordeal, the regrettable arrest and treatment of the 21 Muslims in Toronto last fall, and the embarrassing RCMP raid on the home of an Ottawa Citizen reporter are all examples of shoddy intelligence that led to power abuse and serious repercussions.

The bill is not asking us to accommodate mild inconveniences such as more elaborate airport security checks. That would be a small price to pay. The consequence of some measures proposed under Bill C-7 could be devastating. People's lives could be permanently and negatively affected. They would not be granted due process and recourse to defend themselves. Decision makers would not be held accountable for mistakes. Checks and balances would be absent.

Willingness to compromise any of our basic civil rights will lead to a dangerous deterioration of safety nets that were set up to protect our citizens.

When critiquing this bill, Senator Raynell Andreychuk asked: "Where is the oversight? Where is the justification?"

I hope C-7 finds a fate similar to that of its predecessors.

--
Omar Alghabra is a member of the Star's community editorial board.