Debates of Oct. 16th, 2001

Anti-terrorism Act

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is incorrect. If one is convicted and sentenced to a life sentence, there is no guarantee or reason to assume that the person would necessarily be granted parole at any time.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the point is that the terrorists could in fact receive parole. The anti-terrorist legislation tabled by the justice minister yesterday provides parole for terrorists who commit mass murder. Under the bill a terrorist would be eligible for release after 25 years even if convicted of killing thousands of victims.

Why will the Liberal government not amend the law to ensure that terrorists who commit mass murder are never released from custody?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague is not trying to indicate that murderers are automatically paroled at the end of 25 years. The fact is that it is a life sentence and the first chance for parole is at 25 years.

My hon. colleague is also aware that public safety is always the number one priority when dealing with parole.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should read the bill. The government's own backbenchers, specifically the member for Mississauga East, warned the government of this glaring problem in the criminal code when it comes to dealing with mass murderers and serial killers. The same is true with respect to the anti-terrorism legislation.

Will the minister address this frightening concern and amend the legislation to ensure that convicted terrorists never have a second chance to commit mass murder?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is well aware that if an individual is found guilty and sentenced to life in prison, life is life. The first chance for parole is at 25 years but life is life in this country.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the attacks of September 11 force us into an exceptional situation that requires exceptional measures. In the case of the anti-terrorism act, if the situation improves, the exception must not become the rule.

In order to respond properly to both immediate and future needs, will the Prime Minister agree that it would be more prudent to provide a sunset clause that would, after three years, force parliament to reassess the situation and decide whether or not to renew the anti-terrorism legislation?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, not only am I in agreement with the hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois but ,as I said yesterday in response to a question, if three years is too much, we are prepared to shorten that period.

If this is extraordinary legislation and if it must be used in very specific circumstances, I am totally in agreement with the fact that the government should review it. If any piece of extraordinary legislation should no longer be necessary, there should be a requirement for it to be withdrawn.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not merely referring to a review of the law.

To repeat the Prime Minister words of yesterday, we must avoid the errors of the past. What I am referring to is setting, right from the start, a fixed time limit for this law, a law we will also have to review.

Would the government be prepared to set a fixed expiration date for this bill?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the committee is going to examine the bill. There may be some elements of it that will have to be retained, because they represent an improvement over the act we have at present.

We cannot, therefore, say immediately that the entire act should be withdrawn. There may well be certain elements of it that would improve existing legislation, and it will be in the interest of Canadians and the freedoms enjoyed by Canadians to retain them in the criminal code.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has to understand that people's rights and freedoms are at stake here and this is why we are raising the matter again.

Given that even the American congress provided for such a clause in its own legislation, making it null and void at the end of three years, I ask the Prime Minister if he would not do well to do the same thing.

Would it not send a signal that he truly has individual rights and freedoms at heart if he said right now that the operation of the law will be limited in time?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I invited the committee to examine this bill. I have just explained that even before three years have passed, it will perhaps be useful to review it, because parts of it will no longer be needed.

I would hope that this is the case, as it would mean that terrorism was defeated. I am however open to all amendments.

The hon. member must also consider that in Canada, to protect the public, we have created the charter of rights and freedoms, which will always be used by the courts.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's bill in fact goes well beyond the charter and compromises rights traditionally enjoyed by the people of this country.

I would ask the Prime Minister not to confuse “review of the application of the law” with “operation of the law”.

What we are calling for is a law with a limited life of three years, with mechanisms for annual review so that parliament can check how the secret service and the police are applying it.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is making a mistake, because he is implying that this law suspends the charter of rights and freedoms, which is not the case.

This legislation is entirely in keeping with the charter. The committee worked to ensure that the new legislation did not contravene the charter.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just mentioned the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know how attached he is to it because I was here in the years when he made the case for it in the House of Commons.

Given the appropriate attachment of the government to the charter and given the controversy about whether or not the bill actually meets the test of the charter, would the government consider a referral to the supreme court of the more controversial elements of the bill so that the court might consider it simultaneously? We could still do this in the urgent way that the government considers necessary.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has just indicated, we believe the legislation fully complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore we see no reason to refer this matter to the supreme court.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that other people may think differently and it may be in the government's interest to prove that it does meet that test by referring in the way that I have suggested.

Would the Prime Minister indicate whether he would be open to sunsetting, as has been suggested, certain sections of the bill?

I would agree with him that some sections having to do with UN conventions are not things that should be sunsetted but there may be more controversial elements that could be sunsetted. I wonder whether the government would be open to that.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a place to make this debate. We have a committee that will meet very soon and it will look at all that. I want the members to look at that.

I want to affirm again that, yes, rather than rushing into this legislation we took our time because we had a goal. We wanted to have a bill against terrorism that would not work against the charter of rights and freedoms. I wanted the charter of rights and freedoms to remain completely intact despite the legislation.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, would provide police officers with sweeping new powers that need to be properly understood in order to ensure that the rights of Canadians are protected. This will mean the retraining of thousands of police officers across the country.

With many of these officers working for cities, municipalities and towns that are already cash-strapped due to federal downloading, will the solicitor general please tell us when he intends to announce the details of this retraining and how he intends to pay for it?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is well aware, this government put $1.5 billion into the public safety envelope, $250 million about a week or so ago to address immediate needs, and $9 million to address training and personnel for the RCMP.

What we are doing is making sure that the personnel that is required is there and the technology that is required is there to make sure that we continue to live in a safe country.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a short version of that is more money but when.

Certain provisions of Bill C-36 raised questions regarding the overextension of ministerial discretion. The bill allows the minister to authorize actions which could be subject to abuse. There are broad powers to limit public access and possibly civil rights.

Will the minister commit today to include not only a fixed sunset clause but also an oversight committee that we likely have in CSIS and the RCMP to avoid political interference and to avoid the possible undermining of political or police impartiality?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, on that note I will not make such a commitment today.

I think it is fair to say that the role of the attorney general in the legislation is very important because we do believe in accountability, political and public accountability.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general just stood in the House today and said that when someone is given a life sentence life is life. He would have Canadians believe that there is no one out there who is back in society, free after a life sentence. The minister knows there are many mass murderers who are free after 25 years.

Will the government amend the legislation to ensure that terrorists who commit mass murders are never released from custody?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, another measure that was taken by the government a number of years ago was the creation of the dangerous offender classification. If someone is convicted under that it is an indefinite sentence and he or she could spend the rest of his or her life in prison.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the solicitor general said that the RCMP was given $64 million to fill any gaps and to hire new RCMP officers as needed.

I remind the solicitor general that in 1994 the government cut $175 million over some years and 2,200 positions.

In that $64 million that was announced, how many new officers will that bring into the force and to what new positions? Could he announce that today?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing I do not do it is run the operations of the RCMP.

What the government and I do is make sure that the RCMP and CSIS have adequate resources to make sure this country has one of the best police forces in the world and to make sure our society remains safe. We have done it and we will continue to do it.