Dion firm as mutiny brews on terror act

CanWest News Service via National Post ^ | 2007-02-17 | Juliet O'Neill And Peter O'Neil

[Clive]

Dion firm as mutiny brews on terror act

Opposition should be revisited if it imperils Air India inquiry: mps

Juliet O'neill And Peter O'neil

CanWest News Service

Saturday, February 17, 2007

OTTAWA - A spokesman for Liberal leader Stephane Dion said yesterday the party will "absolutely not" revisit its opposition to extending two controversial provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act despite a potential mutiny that appeared to be shaping up among Liberal MPs.

Spokesman Andre Fortin made the statement amid growing opposition within Liberal ranks, where some see one of the measures as vital to an RCMP probe into the 1985 Air India bombing. Among Liberal MPs citing the Air India case are justice critic Marlene Jennings, Stephen Owen, Keith Martin and Don Bell.

Toronto MP Roy Cullen said he is trying to persuade 30 colleagues to break ranks and side with the government to extend the measures, which allow "preventive arrests" and "investigative hearings."

This week, four other prominent Liberals spoke out against the party's opposition to extending the measures, which were introduced by the former Liberal government of Jean Chretien just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and are to expire on March 1.

The four included Montreal MP and former justice minister Irwin Cotler. The others are former public safety minister Anne McLellan; former deputy prime minister John Manley; and Bob Rae, a former rival to Mr. Dion for the Liberal leadership who now co-chairs the Liberal committee that is developing party policy for the next election.

"Preventive arrests" allow police to arrest suspects without warrant and detain them for several days without charge if authorities have reason to believe a terrorist act will be committed.

"Investigative hearings" allows judges to compel individuals to testify in terror cases.

The party reversed its position on human rights grounds, but concern has grown that allowing them to expire could hamper continued investigations into the Air-India disaster.

Mr. Cullen said in an interview that investigative hearings should not be allowed as a tool to retroactively probe previous terrorist attacks, but only to compel witnesses to provide testimony that could be used to prevent terror.

"The whole idea of the Anti-Terrorism Act is it's supposed to be proactive and preventative," he said.

He cited an interim report in October, 2006, of the Commons public safety committee that recommended investigative hearings be confined to situations "where there is imminent peril of serious damage being caused."

Mr. Fortin said while no decision has yet been made on whether the Liberal vote will be whipped or if MPs will be allowed a free vote, the policy decision will not be revisited.

"The decision was made last Wednesday at national caucus, and this is the decision that the party will stand b y," he said.

He said Ms. Jennings, a Montreal MP, was "incorrect" when she said on Thursday the Liberals would revisit their decision in light of B.C. Solicitor-General John Les saying investigative hearings are needed in the Air-India case.

Mr. Owen defied Mr. Dion, saying the Liberal caucus must and will revisit its decision at caucus next week.

"I think this is new information," said Mr. Owen, referring to the Air-India case. "And with due respect to them, this will be discussed at caucus for sure. And I'm sure Mr. Dion, as with everybody else, will be listening to any new information or ideas. So I think it's still in play."

Mr. Owen said people who were afraid to step forward in the Air-India case would be compelled to do so under the investigative hearing provision. The RCMP has planned 15 investigative hearings.

"They wouldn't be seen in their own community to be doing it voluntarily, and second, it could be an in-camera hearing," Mr. Owen said. "So I think it's a useful tool."

Mr. Cullen estimated up to a dozen Liberals oppose party policy, and he vowed to work on convincing another 20 or so, enough to give the government a majority.

The New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois oppose the extension.

Mr. Martin said there is a lot of hysteria around the two measures.

"While I understand the concerns the party has, I think that personally I?m not prepared to remove those provisions that exist." © National Post 2007

[Clive]

At issue is the renewal of certainprovisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act that had been enacted by the previous Liberal government. The provisions had invoked the non obstante section (s. 33) in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The following is the text of the non obstante provisions:

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).

(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

[Clive]

Note that the expiry of the non obstante declaration does not per se revoke the sections that are protected by the declaration. It simply has the effect of expiring the protection.

If the government and the police and Crown Attorneys were to continue to act as if the provisions were still valid legislation, it would be for courts to decide whether the provisions will stand in the face of the expiry of the declaration.

Note also Section 1 of the charter, which might be argued in support of the continued validity of the provisions in context of apprehended terrorism:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

However, the appellate courts have construed this section contra proferendum .

[Mount Athos]

Dion's pride versus national security, which will win?

[LtdGovt]

Thank you, Dion, for continuing to destroy the Liberal Party.

[fanfan]

Canada ping.

Please send me a FReepmail to get on or off this Canada ping list.

[Former Proud Canadian]

The liberals originally authored this legislation. Now they are voting against it.

If Dion wants to fight an election on this issue, he is insane.

[Candor7]

Thank you, Dion, for continuing to destroy the Liberal Party.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

He is a pussy. An ideologue, and a tragic figure , a political woody allen with a French accent.

I think he really looks like woody allen in this photo. Loser.