OTTAWA—Pity our poor civil liberties.

Watch the quivering debate in our nation’s capital and you would think they’ve been abandoned, all but orphaned, tossed in a snow bank in the dead of a pre-election winter.

Stephen Harper rejects any type of oversight over his proposed expanded anti-terror powers and the Liberals have meekly called for amendments they know will be rejected. They will support the prime minister.

Political pragmatism means it would take a brave — or foolhardy — party to raise substantive questions about a law that promises more security following the autumn shootings in Canada, the hostage-taking in Australia, the carnage of Paris and Peshawar and the continued depravities of the Islamic State that understandably sow fear here and elsewhere.

The debate is playing out in a week when there were more Ottawa terror arrests and the trial of alleged Via rail bombers is underway in Toronto. We have watched videos praising the Parliament attack and calling for more. We have seen young Canadian men join ISIS and try to recruit more.

Voters will decide whether Opposition leader Tom Mulcair is brave or foolhardy, but the official Opposition is preparing a case to oppose the bill — not simply by working around the fringe on oversight or sunset clauses, but by questioning the guts of a bill that gives the country’s spy agency radical new powers, allows longer and easier preventive detention and would criminalize the “promotion” of terror from a naif in a basement.

So far, parliamentary debate has been an exercise in pretzel logic.

Mulcair doesn’t want to become a target, so while his caucus builds its case, he limits his questions largely to job losses in Ontario or asks about oversight. Thursday, he left it to his deputy public safety critic, Rosane Dore-Lefebvre, to ask a direct question about the new CSIS power to “disrupt” emerging terror threats at home and abroad.

Opposition MPs, with the exception of Green Party leader Elizabeth May, tread warily around the question of terror, the now unquestioned third rail of Canadian politics. Rarely do we hear a question that turns the premise around. Rarely does one question whether we need this CSIS overhaul that so desperately requires oversight.

In announcing his support for the bill, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said this matter was too important to be politicized, but, of course, it has been politicized by Harper from the get-go.

The Liberal three-step is most perplexing.

First, the party signalled it would support the bill before it was even tabled, adding only that it would seek proper oversight.

Then Trudeau, in announcing his support, called for amendments that would provide parliamentary oversight of our spy agency, would move to have the legislation reviewed in the future and provide more funding for programs to choke radicalization off at the roots.

“I believe that when a government asks its citizens to give up even a small portion of their liberty it is that government’s highest responsibility to guarantee that its new powers will not be abused,’’ Trudeau said..

All laudable goals that will not be achieved.

So the Liberals will support the bill and make their amendments part of their election platform and fix things once they are elected.

But what if they are not elected? They have essentially abrogated their duty to oppose and vote against a bill they believe flawed.

They will rightly be accused of wanting to have it both ways, but most importantly for them, they will not be accused of being soft on terror.

Liberals have learned their lesson from last autumn when they found themselves on the wrong side of Harper’s involvement in the anti-ISIS coalition in northern Iraq.

But even there they appear to want to have it both ways, praising and backing the work of our special operations forces, the forces they opposed sending to war.

Mulcair will likely announce his opposition when the House returns later this month.

Is he filling an opening left by the Liberals? Yes. Is he ensuring he responds to his base? Surely.

There may be cold feet in the caucus, but opposition MPs must raise the questions, provide the skepticism and, ultimately, oppose a law if that is their view. They’re not supposed to flee from a wedge issue.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Mulcair will have to stand and explain that keeping Canadians safe does not mean sacrificing civil liberties. He will have to fend off the inevitable attacks that he is a weak-kneed terrorist-hugger.

But he will stand and oppose a bill he believes is flawed, meaning we will have one opposition leader doing his job.

Tim Harper is a national affairs writer. His column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. tharper@thestar.ca

Read more about: