Ottawa - What if he is wrong? What if Stephen Dion’s monumental flip flop on two provisions of his own party’s anti terrorism legislation was the wrong decision? These are legitimate questions and they are questions that are being asked today by members of his own party, the families of terrorist victims, police and the constituents of my riding.

I believe as the leader of the Official Opposition Mr. Dion owes the people of Canada an explanation. After all he was part of the government that introduced and passed the Anti Terrorism Act following 9/11. As leader of the opposition he supported these measures until just two weeks ago. His caucus members on the committee that have been carrying out a comprehensive review of this legislation for several months unanimously endorsed and in fact wanted to extend these provisions two years longer than what we as the government were proposing. The Senate, dominated by members of the Liberal Party recommended the legislation be extended. And according to several media reports when members of the Liberal Caucus attempted to negotiate a compromise with the government, Mr. Dion cut them off at their knees. In fact members of his caucus who refused to join him in this stunning reversal will not be allowed to run for the Liberal Party in the next election. Is this leadership? The Liberal Party had a choice – they could vote for the safety of Canadians or they could bend to Liberal Caucus politics. Unfortunately, Liberal Caucus politics won!

Those around Mr. Dion have suggested the legislation didn’t do enough to protect human rights. With all the theatrics and hysteria surrounding the discussions of these provisions over the past couple of weeks, it is essential that Canadians understand their implications and judge for themselves if Mr. Dion’s actions constitute a win for human rights or for those plotting acts of terror in Canada.

The "preventative arrest" provision is an appropriate and according to the Supreme Court, a constitutional response to today's mass-casualty terrorist threat. This provision allows police to detain persons whom they believe "on reasonable grounds" to be about to commit an act of terror. Within one day, or as soon as constitutionally possible, the detainee must be brought before a judge to validate the detention.

The other provision authorizes the use of "investigative hearings" to require a person who has material knowledge of a terrorist act to be examined by a judge with regard to information that may prevent a planned attack or help identify the perpetrators of a past attack. Again, the law requires "reasonable grounds" to proceed. Moreover, it allows the person in question to have counsel, and prohibits the use of information drawn from the person to be used against that individual in any later criminal proceedings, save for reasonable exceptions relating to perjury and associated offences.

More so, the human rights argument is specious at best. How can two provisions that have never been used be a violation of one’s human rights which pales in comparison to what is really the fundamental question? Are the human rights of those plotting terror and death to Canadians more valuable than the rights of Canadians to safety and security? Indeed every expert agrees the terrorist threat has actually increased. Just two weeks ago Al Kida published a threat to blow up the oil sands in Alberta. Last summer 13 individuals were arrested for plotting a number of terrorist attacks in Ottawa and major Canadian cities

Mr. Dion’s actions have resulted in a loss of loss of vital tools needed to stop a terrorist attack in its tracks and to compel those with knowledge of terrorist activity to disclose such vital information to a judge.

If he is wrong – there are no consequences for him. However if he is wrong the consequences for Canadians could be unfathomably tragic!

-30-

For more information contact Bev Shipley, M.P. – 519-627-4899