OTTAWA -- Federal authorities and local police did not use the extraordinary investigative and detention powers of the Anti-Terrorism Act to crack the case of the 17 bomb-plot suspects who were nabbed in weekend raids in Southern Ontario. Though the men are charged for alleged offences under the ATA, their activities were detected and monitored by police and national security investigators using the same legal tools and traditional techniques that were available to them before the controversial law was passed by Parliament in 2001, the RCMP says. Parliament is considering whether to allow those investigative and detention powers to expire under a five-year sunset clause.The ATA, Canada's legislative response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, allows authorities to hold a suspect in preventive custody if there is reason to believe that person might be about to commit a terrorist act.

The law also permits authorities to conduct investigative court hearings at which suspects are not allowed to remain silent.

Though these provisions have never been used in the more than four years since their enactment, the RCMP and other police forces say they want to keep these tools in their kit in case they discover a need for them some day.

Meanwhile, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said the government will review the current case. But neither Mr. Day nor Justice Minister Vic Toews saw any obvious gaps in federal legislation that need immediate attention.

The RCMP says it is sensitive to the human rights concerns raised by the ATA's preventive detention and investigative hearings provisions.

"We have not used them to date, but that does not mean that they aren't important," said Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell, the senior RCMP officer in charge of the current case. "We want to make sure when we use it we really need it."

He said the investigation has not ended with the 17 arrests, and he suggested the ATA's extraordinary provisions might yet come into service. "We are pursuing every investigative lead with every legislative tool we have."

Asked if an investigative hearing might be convened under the ATA, Mr. McDonell said: "We haven't contemplated that as yet."

Such a hearing can be convened only with the prior approval of Mr. Toews in his capacity as the federal Attorney-General.

It appears the police and security operation could have been prosecuted under the Criminal Code without resort to the ATA's extraordinary powers, according to Martin Rudner, the director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa.

However, the prospect of preventive detention, or being compelled to answer questions in an investigative hearing, can be used as a "negotiating tool, if you want to call it that," to get someone inside a terrorist cell to turn informant, Mr. Rudner said. "You say to them, 'Either you talk to us or we'll talk to you.' "

Mr. Rudner noted that the investigation of the alleged bomb plot in Southern Ontario is ongoing, and police might well use these tools to get co-operation from one of the 17.

"That's what you need to have an informant in place if you are going to disrupt the next attempt."

Mr. Day, who is the minister responsible for both the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, said the government is always reviewing legislation in light of experience with security operations, but he seemed pleased with the current case so far.

"What we've seen this weekend, in terms of a capability for a long-term investigation with a lot of different security agencies, has been very effective."

Mr. Day said he talked with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff about the case, and Washington is well aware of Canadian professional capability to deal with terrorists.

A Commons subcommittee is to review the ATA and report to Parliament.

© Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.