Our experience so far raises a debatable question of whether the government's response amounted to legislative overkill.

Citing the potential for further attacks, the Liberal government rushed several bills into Parliament, some of which gave it unprecedented powers to override traditional liberties.

And while it is early days yet, there has not been a single instance where police, security agencies or Crown prosecutors have used the two most egregious provisions of the new Anti-Terrorism Act: preventive detention without charge, and investigative hearings in which people with potential knowledge of terrorist acts or organizations can be compelled to testify about them. Nor has there been any successful prosecution involving the newly created offences of engaging in or supporting terrorism.

In a similar vein, it is not clear how many of the new restrictive provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, especially the power to turn suspected terrorists or criminals around at the borders and restrict access to the refugee-determination process, have been used. That bill took effect only on June 28.

How many potential hijackers or bombers have been deterred by the new Canadian Air Transport Security Authority? It is probably an impossible question to answer, but we do know that none have been caught red-handed. In the meantime the $12 fee added to each plane trip to cover additional security costs has played havoc with business on short-haul flights.

The Public Safety Act, C-55, was also introduced last spring, containing several additional measures. Included was a proposed amendment to the National Defence Act that would have permitted the minister of defence to declare a national emergency and impose severe restrictions without even a reference to Parliament.

At the time, the government argued that the bill had to be pushed through to help the Canadian Armed Forces protect world leaders arriving for the Group of Eight summit in Alberta. But it quickly became clear that the government had overreacted and several prominent Liberal backbenchers indicated they planned to vote with the opposition parties against the bill.

The bill stalled but the summit went off smoothly without it, and now C-55 will probably die when Parliament is prorogued later this month.

New legislation was only a small part of the government's reaction to last year's attacks. But one can ask how much safer Canadians feel as a result of the overall plan, which carries a $7.7-billion price tag.

Of that amount, $348-million will go to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service over three years to finance an increase of its activities by 30 per cent. We may never know how much more intelligence about terrorists Canada will get and how many attacks will be thwarted as a result. CSIS Director Ward Elcock has testified that all of the measures for increased scrutiny and prosecution have had a deterrent effect.

"We have already seen some groups, particularly those engaged in the collection of funds for terrorist organizations, retreating," he told a committee last spring.

Similarly, the new get-tough approach to immigrants and refugees has sent a message that Canada is no longer the soft touch it once was, especially a decision to deport unsuccessful refugee claimants to their country of origin.

Many of the measures Canada has adopted since last September were done as much to assure our American neighbours as to respond to tangible threats in Canada. That strategy seems to have worked. If it hadn't, we would not have had U.S. President George W. Bush travelling to Detroit this week to endorse the so-called Smart Border Initiative.

And since one of the biggest beneficiaries of improved border procedures is the integrated North American auto industry, it seem to be another case in which what is good for General Motors is good for the country.
hwinsor@globeandmail.ca