Report to Parliament says there can't be any abuse if sections have not been applied

The most contentious new powers under the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act were not used by federal authorities last year, proof the extraordinary measures are not being abused, the government says.

The Criminal Code powers allow police to arrest and detain people without warrants and let police and justice officials compel individuals to testify at "investigative hearings," even though they have not been criminally charged and may not even be suspects. Judges also can order the hearings be held in secret, a move critics liken to a "Star Chamber."

In an annual report to Parliament yesterday, the Justice Department and Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada said neither new power was used in the year ending Dec. 23, 2003.

In fact, they have not been used by federal officials since the act became law in late 2001.

"The fact that these provisions were not used by the RCMP or federal prosecutors in the first two years of their existence illustrates that these measures are not being abused and that these officials are proceeding cautiously in using these powers," the report states.

The two provisions are part of Bill C-36, the sweeping new federal anti-terrorism legislation passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

To address concerns from civil libertarians and other critics, the bill requires federal and provincial annual reports on the provisions to ensure parliamentary and public oversight.

So far, the only use of the new laws has been in British Columbia, where the solicitor-general consented to an RCMP request in 2003 to convene an investigative hearing connected to the Air India bombing case.

Satnam Kaur Reyat, the wife of Inderjit Singh Reyat, serving a five-year manslaughter term for his role in the 1985 aircraft bombing, was compelled to testify at an investigative hearing.

The hearing's judge also ordered that the name of the witness, the testimony and even the fact that such a hearing was taking place could be suppressed.

Ms. Reyat, who was not a suspect in the case, launched a legal case against being forced to testify and the hearing was adjourned pending her constitutional challenge. The Vancouver Sun also started a challenge after being denied entry to the hearing.

In June, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a first test of the anti-terrorism laws, ruled that the heightened threat post-Sept. 11 does not necessarily justify secret court hearings to try to root out terrorist plots.

The court cautioned that judges still have the discretion to shut out the public when national security concerns are of major importance. However, the starting point should be that the courtroom is open, not closed.

But in a separate decision, the court ruled that compelling someone to appear before a judge to testify at an investigative hearing does not violate protections of the Charter of Rights.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2004. All rights reserved.