Cross-posted to the E-Group.
The latest issue of Maclean's includes an article that reminds us of an important upcoming anniversary. Bill C36, the Anti-Terrorism Act, received Royal Assent on Dec. 18, 2001. As a result of criticism of the initial draft of the legislation, the bill as finally passed included the stipulation that it would be reviewed by Parliament in three years, which would mean that review will take place in the current session. (That assumes, of course, that the government doesn't fall before we get to that point.)
The Maclean's article reports that the Canadian Bar Association, which was critical of the original legislation, is already working on the position it will take regarding the review and is hopeful that this far removed from 9/11 its criticisms will be taken more seriously.
...during the spring election, the influential lawyers' umbrella group said the anti-terrorism measures Ottawa took after Sept. 11 "dramatically expand state powers at the expense of due process and individual rights and freedoms." The association also warned about "the resulting invasions of privacy and fundamental rights that have been creeping into Canadian law over the past few years."
But I suspect that the Liberal government will come out strongly opposed to any weakening of the bill. They have a lot invested in it since Anne McLellan, currently Deputy Prime Minister and Public Safety Minister, was Justice Minister at the time the bill was written and passed. Add to that the fact that the Liberals remain extremely concerned about perceptions south of the border. The outcome of the November election could improve that situation but meanwhile McLellan is taking every opportunity to assure Tom Ridge, her opposite number in the U.S., that Canada has its role in the fight against terrorism firmly in hand.
Unfortunately our government doesn't seem to have its own accountability firmly in hand.
The two most controversial measures in the act are so-called preventive arrests and investigative hearings. The arrest power allows police to detain a suspect without a warrant if they deem it necessary to stop a terrorist action. The power to compel individuals to testify at secret hearings is designed to make sure authorities can collect vital information on terrorist activities. While government is required to report annually on how these two extraordinary tools are used, it has done so only once since the law was passed, reporting that neither power was exercised in 2002. No report for 2003 has yet been released, prompting criticism from civil liberties advocates. But federal officials said the report for 2003 is being "fine-tuned" and should be made public soon.
Right. It's now October of 2004 and they're still ?fine tuning? a report on 2003. The fact that they're taking their accountability so lightly only reinforces my original reaction to C36. The kind of extrajudicial authority it represents isn't something that government and law enforcement should be trusted with.
The timing would be even better if the Arar inquiry was completed but the latest report there is that public testimony won't even resume until the new year, while this review should take place in mid-December. Still I'm hoping that the CBA is right and that this will be the opportunity for the kind of thoughtful debate on the compromises to civil liberties contained in this legislation that was difficult to have in the wake of 9/11.
And on the subject of the Arar case:
One part of anti-terrorism law that Ottawa is already committed to reviewing is the widely criticized section of the Security of Information Act that was used early this year to search a journalist's home and office. The RCMP was hunting for clues to the source of leaked information to an Ottawa Citizen reporter who had written about the case of Maher Arar, whose deportation to Syria by U.S. authorities in now the subject of an inquiry.
This part of the review at least provides some hope that the whole matter will merit as much attention in the media as Adventures with Throne Speeches did, though it seems a foregone conclusion that it can't possibly compete with Kinsella vs. The Blogosphere. ;-)
Have there been any arests under C36, preventive or otherwise? Maybe this trojan horse has no one inside.
Since the government hasn't issued their report for 2003, we don't know. One is left to wonder what they're "fine tuning" if, in fact, there's been activity here.
The problem with this kind of extrajudicial authority is that it becomes a temptation. If it remains on the books, sooner or later it will be used. And sooner or later it will be abused.
I meant to say "if ... there's been no activity".