Concluding Thoughts

Despite the fact that the past year has posed many challenges, I look back upon it with no small degree of satisfaction. It has been a successful year. Addressing certain ambiguities in law in respect of CSE's activities under Ministerial authorizations, and establishing how my office will increase its effectiveness in reviewing them, for example, are positive steps. I am heartened by the number of recommendations made since the creation of my office that CSE has accepted and implemented, and by the ongoing dialogue between CSE and ourselves.

On a broader note, I am fully persuaded that review agencies such as my own can make an important contribution to the ongoing debate between the considerations of security and of privacy. Western democracies must make difficult choices as to where to draw the line at a time when asymmetric threats are a part of our reality, and it is not an easy debate.

At a recent symposium on Counter-terrorism and the Law held at the University of Ottawa, and referred to earlier, my former colleague Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie raised questions for discussion by the panel. He observed that the greatest threat to our rule of law is terrorism, and in matters of security it is absolutely necessary for the courts to show deference to state agencies because they have more expertise, information and resources on such matters than the courts. He questioned, however, at what point this deference should stop. While I do not have an easy answer to Mr. Justice Binnie's question, I know that it is one that merits serious contemplation given the challenges our contemporary society faces.