THE GUARDIAN - (From Friday, November 2, 2001)

Lead editorial

What does government have to lose?

The arguments for putting sunset clauses into Ottawa's anti-terrorism legislation are compelling ones. So why do the federal Liberals seem so unwilling to comply?

Since the Liberals introduced Bill C-36 two weeks ago, critics have pleaded with government to put in expiry dates on some of the more controversial parts of it. Among other things, the bill provides a definition of terrorism that some critics claim is too broad and could potentially include wildcat strikes or public demonstrations. It also allows for preventive arrest, allowing police to arrest anyone believed to be planning an imminent terrorist attack, even without a warrant.

When the bill was introduced, it was supported by many because it empowered police to monitor and deal with suspected terrorists. But between then and now, the list of critics ˜ who fear the intrusive effects of the bill and its potential to violate Canadians' civil rights ˜ has grown. There's a clamour for sunset clauses that would require the controversial parts of the bill to expire in three years. As it stands, the bill provides only for a review.

Although Justice Minister Anne McLellan has said she's open to the idea of monitoring the controversial measures, government hasn't shown any signs that it's willing to concede on the sunset provisions. The word is, the prime minister apparently thinks they would make us look weak in the midst of the global war on terrorism.

We disagree. Sunset clauses would do nothing at the moment to weaken the proposed ˜ and very tough ˜ legislation. Their inclusion would merely recognize that government is working as speedily as it can to empower our crime fighters to fight terrorism and that, should the measures in place today be deemed inappropriate in three years, they would expire. If those measures are, in fact, deemed appropriate, all government would have to do is reintroduce them.

This isn't weakness. This is a bold, pro-active, common sense approach by a government that would be demonstrating its regard for two things: the delicate balance between personal rights and public safety, and the responsibility of government to justify and defend the rational for reintroducing the stiff measures, if it came to that.

The prime minister has reportedly told his ministers to keep their comments about the bill to themselves. But this hasn't stopped at least one ˜ Fisheries Minister Herb Dhaliwal ˜ from calling for the sunset clauses. The prime minister must not ignore the apparent concern within his own cabinet. Nor should he dismiss the growing number of high profile groups, such as the Canadian Bar Association, that are expressing their concerns.

Government should put the expiry clauses into the legislation. It has nothing to lose and the confidence of many worried Canadians to gain.