CAUT has joined a large number of organizations questioning the federal government's proposed security legislation - Bill C-17, the Public Security Act.
In an appearance before a special Parliamentary Committee established to examine Bill C-17, CAUT executive director James Turk presented a broad critique of the government's legislative project.
He complimented other groups, such as the Canadian Bar Association, which he said had presented an excellent line by line critique of the legal implications of C-17.
Turk told the committee CAUT wanted to place C-17 in the historical and political context of national security legislation, where security often trumps liberty.
CAUT's brief focussed on the phenomena of "function creep," a tendency for national security legislation, no matter how narrow its stated purposes, to invariably cast a far wider and more intrusive net than originally envisaged.
Turk cautioned that the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks will achieve their aims if democratic states undermine their own legitimacy and support by overreacting to the violence with unduly restrictive legislation.
He cited one section of the bill that is of special concern - the section that would allow screening of air passenger manifests for people who are a threat to transportation security. C-17 would allow the RCMP to compare a passenger manifest with a more general list of people who are wanted for outstanding warrants for criminal code offences unrelated to transportation security.
"This is a new and serious invasion of the privacy rights of Canadians," Turk said.
In addition, he said, while the need to ensure aircraft security is legitimate, keeping lists of passengers for seven days and allowing police to scan those lists for purposes unrelated to aircraft security and anti-terrorism is unacceptable.
"Even for their narrow anti-terrorism purposes, there are issues of racial profiling, of false matches, of errors in data entry and of how the list of people who are threats is established in the first place," he said.
CAUT's concerns have been echoed by organizations such as the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Labour Congress.
The Canadian Bar Association, which represents 38,000 lawyers around the country, has condemned C-17 and its companion legislation. The legislation is taking Canada "down the road towards a police state," CBA told the committee.
CAUT's presentation was favourably received by Canadian Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz.
"The problem is that many people in our society do not realize the importance of privacy rights in a free and open democratic society," Breitkreuz said.
But Liberal MP Steve Mahoney challenged CAUT, saying it would be absurd to limit the general policing powers of the bill if those new powers of search were to allow the arrest of someone wanted for murder unrelated to terrorism.
"We can't just allow people to walk away," Mahoney said.
"One could always use those kinds of sensational things to justify violations of fundamental civil liberties," Turk said in rebuttal. "We've made a choice as a democratic society that we are prepared to put up with certain risks in order to protect the key characteristics of civil liberties in our society.
"We don't allow police to go on fishing expeditions - they can't wander through your house, they can't wander through your office looking for things, they can't demand lists. That's something we've valued historically and I think it's very dangerous to be willing to give that up too readily in the name of anti-terrorism."
Bloc MP Mario Laframboise said Turk's statement is the heart of the matter and complimented CAUT for its presentation and for joining the Canadian Bar Association and the privacy commissioner in raising these concerns.