Posted: 7 Mar 2002
Professor Friedland analyzes the various police powers in the bill. Like others, he would narrow the definition of terrorism by dropping clause E. Some of the police powers, he argues, are not subject to enough safeguards, others, such as the investigative hearings, are unnecessary. Others, however, such as arrest on reasonable suspicion, are acceptable if the definition of terrorism is narrower. Further, undercover agents, a subject not covered in the bill, should have greater freedom to infiltrate terrorist organizations. The main point in the chapter is that the special police powers should be subject to the control of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, whose mandate includes terrorism. This would ensure review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee and would not leave these powers in the hands of every police force in Canada.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Friedland, Martin, Police Powers in Bill C-36. THE SECURITY OF FREEDOM: ESSAYS ON CANADA'S ANTI-TERRORISM BILL, Ronald J. Daniels, Patrick Macklem & Kent Roach, eds., U of Toronto Press, 2001. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=299461