More from Tasha Kheiriddin available More fromavailable here

At least we haven’t heard anyone say the words, “Just watch me.” The Conservatives have introduced Bill C-44, the Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, which would make it easier for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to gather intelligence on Canadians engaged in terrorist activities or training abroad, give the Federal Court the ability to issue warrants for CSIS to investigate threats to national security outside of Canada, and afford informants anonymity — similar to the protection given police informants — to encourage them to come forward.

Finally, it would permit the government to attempt swifter revocation of citizenship. All this in the hope of rooting out potential terrorists — whether lone wolves or organized cells — before they strike.

Even prior to the bill’s introduction, critics such as journalist Glenn Greenwald accused the feds of going too far, particularly in expanding its snooping abilities. Government supporters say the measures are overdue and don’t unduly infringe on personal freedoms.

Whatever one’s position, one thing is clear: The timing of the new measures is not directly connected to last week’s attacks in St-Jean-sur-Richilieu and Ottawa, since they were originally slated to be introduced last Wednesday. One cannot make the case that the Tories are using last week’s attacks to expand state powers. Not yet, at any rate.

As confirmed by Public Security Minister Stephen Blaney in QP Monday, the government also will introduce new measures in a separate bill. The betting is that those will include an amendment to hate speech laws that would criminalize the act of endorsing terror attacks online — a measure which would mimic the law in the United Kingdom — and give security services the same expanded powers of pre-emptive arrest which exist in both the UK and the United States.

There is no way to completely protect Canada from terrorism. Before we go further in curtailing freedom in the name of safety, we need to know exactly how far the government proposes to go.

And this is where things get dicey. Such measures would represent a serious encroachment on civil liberties in this country. And criminalizing the online celebration of terrorist acts could easily backfire; discourage members of terror networks from advertising their ideology online, and you make it much harder for CSIS to track them down.

As for pre-emptive arrest, the real question is: Why bother? Security services already have the Emergencies Act, a robust piece of anti-terror law which replaced the old War Measures Act. It allows the government to invoke a variety of powers to restore public order, including regulating public assembly and travel, and designating and securing protected places. The law arguably could extend to allowing police to arrest people who contravene such regulations; while it would be a draconian step, that power is available if terrorist threats escalate to a level that compromises national security on a wide scale.

A better approach would be for the government to make sure CSIS and the RCMP can actually enforce the laws we have now. It takes cash and manpower to keep people under surveillance, monitor Internet postings and infiltrate groups who may be plotting terrorist attacks. Allocating adequate resources is the first step, something the government has started doing; in an interview with The West Block, Blaney told Global News host Tom Clark, “We have invested and beefed up (the) budget by more than one-third, both for RCMP and CSIS.”

And no number of new laws will do the trick unless all branches of security and law enforcement talk to each other, both within and between their organizations. That’s not happening right now. A report tabled by the Security Intelligence Review Committee found that regional offices operate in silos. Finally, more has to be done to frustrate the recruitment and fundraising channels that support terrorists at home and abroad.

All of which merely skates around a bedrock truth: There is no way to completely protect Canada from terrorism, particularly from the “lone wolf” types who may feed off a combination of mental instability and online jihadi propaganda. The measures introduced this week may make it easier to ferret out such individuals. But before we go further in curtailing freedom in the name of safety, we need to know exactly how far the government proposes to go.

And that means a debate — a full and fair hearing of all proposed anti-terror bills in the House of Commons, without the government invoking closure or ramming legislation through in the name of expediency. Stronger police, yes. A police state? Non, merci.

Tasha Kheiriddin is a political writer and broadcaster who frequently comments in both English and French. In her student days, Tasha was active in youth politics in her hometown of Montreal, eventually serving as national policy director and then president of the Progressive Conservative Youth Federation of Canada. After practising law and a stint in the government of Mike Harris, Tasha became the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and co-wrote the 2005 bestseller, Rescuing Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution. Tasha moved back to Montreal in 2006 and served as vice-president of the Montreal Economic Institute, and later director for Quebec of the Fraser Institute, while also lecturing on conservative politics at McGill University. Tasha now lives in Whitby, Ontario with her daughter Zara, born in 2009.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.