Anti-Terrorism Act Debate

Enacted 18 December 2001, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) has been at the center of debate for the past couple of weeks. Why? Well, some of the more controversial provisions of the Act contained a five-year sunset clause, which are now due for renewal.

One of the provisions allows police to arrest suspects without a warrant and detain them for three days without charges if police believe a terrorist act may be committed.

The other would allow a judge to compel a witness to testify in secret about past associations or perhaps pending acts under penalty of going to jail if the witness doesn't comply.

Neither clause has been used by police or prosecutors in the five years the act has been enforced but, in October, a parliamentary committee recommended extending the two provisions for another five years.

On February 27, 2007, the House of Commons voted 159 - 124 against renewing the provisions. Was this the right decision?

Two positions can be taken: 1) the fact that the provisions have not been used since their enactment indicate the unnecessary infringement of the rights of individuals OR 2) the fact that the provisions have not been used does not mean that they are no longer necessary, as we can never predict when another attack will occur and its better to give the police force all the tools necessary to combat terrorism.

Both arguments, in my book, are persuasive. I think the latter is more convincing, though. The Liberals have changed positions on this issue, and I'm disappointed on the politicking and partisanship that has been shown in this very important debate. I think our officers need to be given all the tools necessary to fight terrorism, and those provisions of the ATA are some of them.

Liberals have acted as if this is some grave infringement on the Charter, and have again staked a position that they are the 'party of the Charter'. But let us remember that Charter rights are in no terms absolute, and the rights of citizens can be limited as long as it is reasonably justifiable in a free and democratic society (Article 1, Charter). The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of "investigative hearings" in 2004, thus there is nothing barring Parliament from renewing these provisions [conversely, this does not prevent Parliament from protecting a person's rights more than constitutionally necessary].

I see no actual reason why Liberals would oppose renewal, other than serving their own partisan purposes. Why not renew it, and attach another five-year sunset clause on it? It is not as if the ATA gives unfettered power to police: Parliament review of the legislation is thorough - as the Ministry of the Attorney General has to present an annual report on the usage of the ATA.

Thus far, these provisions have not needed to be used [thank God]. But, is it not possible that they could provide benefit in the future? The police have not abused this power, and there is no reason to indicate that they would, so I am of the opinion, "no harm, no foul". My preference is to actually see this provision in action before deciding whether its necessary or not...hopefully that will never happen.