Latest News

With the completed report of the Commons Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act, and with the earlier Senate report on the same issue, the Conservative government has had two comprehensive reviews of Canada's anti-terror laws in hand for over a month. Together, they contain over 100 recommendations. While there may be valid reasons for not acting on a particular recommendation, the government now owes it to Canadians to explain in a timely manner precisely why any of these recommendations cannot be acted upon.

A Balanced Response to 9/11

The former government played a very active role in promoting the safety of Canadian citizens from potential security threats, including terrorism. Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the Liberal government quickly passed the Anti-Terrorism Act and established the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. In fact, close to $10 billion dollars were allocated to form this umbrella department to respond to a variety of security issues. My colleagues and I continue to support the powers contained in the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Two particular provisions within the Act – provisions regarding investigative hearings and preventative arrests – were considered controversial from the beginning and were only approved by Parliament for a limited time period. As the Subcommittee report stated: “This was complex legislation, dealing with difficult issues in a highly charged atmosphere characterized by much fear and uncertainty about the unknown.” It needed review.

The preventive arrest provisions allowed police to arrest and hold an individual, without a warrant, provided they have reasonable grounds to believe that arrest will prevent future terrorist activity. The investigative hearings provisions allowed authorities to compel the testimony of a person – even a non-suspect – without the right to decline to answer questions on the grounds of self-incrimination. The provisions were never used, and the time limit has now expired.

The government has not made a specific case for keeping these provisions. It has now been five months since the House subcommittee’s first report suggested ways to make the two most controversial types of provisions more acceptable. The Conservative government instead chose to ignore these recommendations.

Although the threat of terror remains, six years after the events of 9/11 we are able to assess the security climate with greater perspective and we have more information at our disposal. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Canada has made clear in its recent decision with respect to security certificates, while the objective of national security is pressing and substantial, it does not give the government a blank cheque to ignore the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians.

The Official Opposition will continue to work tirelessly with the government to find reasonable and effective improvements to the anti-terrorism laws. In doing so, we will press the current government to respond to important questions from all angles of this complex issue.