Previously published on theStar.com, April 29, 2010

Soon after the fear-inspiring 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001, Jean Chrétien’s Liberals rewrote the Criminal Code to saddle Canadians with anti-terror laws that infringed on some of our fundamental freedoms. They included the right not to be imprisoned without due process and the right to remain silent. Even at that time, these draconian measures sparked controversy.

But Parliament made the new measures temporary by including a five-year “sunset” clause in the bill. As it turned out, the police never used these new powers to thwart a terror attack. And when the measures lapsed in 2007, Parliament wisely refused to renew them.

As Canada’s former spy master Reid Morden put it just last week, the police and security services already have “perfectly sufficient powers to do their jobs,” provided they are properly resourced. “They don’t need more powers.” If anyone should know, Morden should.

Unfortunately, the voice of common sense falls on deaf ears in the offices of the Conservative government. Last week, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson capped a flurry of recycled law-and-order initiatives by introducing Bill C-17, the Combating Terrorism Act, to reinstate the lapsed anti-terror laws for five more years.

Under a “recognizance with conditions” provision, Bill C-17 would rearm the police with the power to preventively arrest people without a warrant. Anyone, including Canadian citizens, could be held for 72 hours without charge. What’s more, a judge could order the person jailed for a full year, without charge, if he or she didn’t abide by court-ordered conditions to keep the peace.

And under an “investigative hearing” provision, C-17 would let the courts compel persons who may have knowledge of a terrorist offence to say what they know, even if it incriminates them, although the testimony couldn’t be used in later criminal proceedings. This measure would create a troubling alliance between the police and the judiciary, with judges in effect presiding over police investigations.

These are retrograde steps that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff should reject as an unwarranted dilution of our rights. But the Liberals don’t want to seem “soft on terror.” So they are studying C-17. Public safety critic Mark Holland says the party wants to “make sure that police agencies have every tool at their disposal,” provided they don’t “go too far.” That’s not reassuring.

Bill C-17 is an attempt to recycle measures Parliament rejected three years ago. They weren’t needed then. They aren’t now.