Oppose and be damned!

With national security and civil liberties at stake, this is no time for the opposition parties to pull their punches

The federal Conservatives have faced considerable questioning over elements of the anti-terrorism bill unveiled on Friday by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. In newspapers and magazines, on talk radio and on social media, doubters have raised questions about a bill they view as too onerous or far-reaching. It has been suggested Bill C-51 would create a “secret police force,” endanger privacy rights and important civil liberties, and facilitate law-breaking on the part of those mandated to uphold the law. Some question the need for the bill at all, arguing that existing laws provide all the tools necessary to monitor and foil would-be terrorists.

Some of these concerns we share; others strike us as overwrought. Which is to say this is a complex, far-reaching piece of legislation with serious implications for good and ill, one that deserves the most searching democratic scrutiny.

All the more surprising, then, that Canada’s two main opposition parties have had so little to say about it. Apart from arguing in favour of increased oversight — preferably by a parliamentary committee — neither New Democratic Party leader Thomas Mulcair nor Liberal leader Justin Trudeau have addressed the content of the legislation in any detail. Indeed, Mr. Trudeau said Wednesday the Liberals will vote for the bill even if the Conservatives ignore their calls for additional oversight. Should the Liberals form the next government, he said, they’ll revisit the issue.

It’s always wise to do your homework, but even allowing for due caution it appears the opposition leaders are mainly concerned with protecting their political flanks. If other Canadians were able to spot the bill’s potential flaws in quick order, there’s no reason Mr. Mulcair or Mr. Trudeau should have difficulty doing so. Among the most contentious provisions are those that would criminalize the promotion of terrorism, give CSIS wider latitude to spy on Canadians and allow the police to preemptively arrest anyone they suspect “may be” about to commit a terrorist act, a far lower bar than was previously the case. It doesn’t require exhaustive study of the bill to see why these provisions might be cause for concern.

Perhaps the opposition is afraid it will be portrayed as soft on terrorism should it raise objections to the Conservative plan. And no doubt the government would attempt to do just that: there’s lots of politics on both sides of this issue. But the job of opposition parties is to oppose — to criticize legislation, probe for weak points and, yes, raise objections — not to tiptoe about in fear of the lash of government rhetoric. Mr. Mulcair has proved more than capable of holding his own in the House of Commons; now is exactly the moment he should be putting that skill to use. Mr. Trudeau, though less adept at cut-and-thrust debate, still has a responsibility to tell Canadians where he stands on the issues, and no issue is more fundamental than the security of the country — or the rights of its citizens.

This is not a law to be swallowed whole. While Canadians may broadly support tougher measures against terrorism, they also want to be certain those measures are reasonable, responsible and subject to independent examination. Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Trudeau should do their job, and hold this legislation up to the light of rigorous debate.