By Jen Ross, PoliticsWatch.com
First Web Posted: October 16, 2001 @ 5:30 pm
%2010-16-01.JPG) OTTAWA
-- Pressure was on the Liberal government Tuesday to include a ''sunset clause''
in its new anti-terrorism legislation announced yesterday, to ensure the
sweeping new powers it provides will not be abused unnecessarily.
The calls began during Question
Period with Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe, who suggested
a clause that would allow for a re-evaluation of the law in three
years.
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien responded that there are aspects of
the law that should stay, and some which might be best to
eliminate when the global situation changes. Chrétien even
suggested that a revision of the law could occur even before three
years' time.
But what the Prime Minister
seemed to suggest was appropriate was a parliamentary review on
certain sections, rather than a sunset clause, which would
essentially void the legislation after a certain date.
NDP justice critic Bill Blaikie
asked the Prime Minister directly if he would be open to ''sunsetting
certain parts of the bill.'' Blaikie also questioned the
constitutionality of the bill in his prelude to that question. He
told the Prime Minister that he was well aware of his attachment
to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because he was an MP when
Chrétien made the case for it. He asked if Chrétien was prepared
to put the bill before the Supreme Court as it is in the committee
process to ensure that any constitutional amendments could be made
prior to its approval.
%2010-16-01.JPG) Chrétien
reaffirmed his commitment to the Charter without answering
Blaikie's question about the sunset clause.
But Justice Minister Anne
McLellan flatly ruled out both requests, but said members were
free to make suggestions at the committee stage.
Blaikie said Chrétien seemed at
least open to a parliamentary review, given his response to
Duceppe's question, but that it would not be enough.
''A parliamentary review doesn't
force the government's hand,'' said Blaikie. ''A parliamentary
review could occur and make recommendations but the government is
under no obligation to act. But a sunset bill would force the
government to either drop those aspects of the legislation at the
end of the sunset period, or bring in new legislation.''
The NDP is concerned about
certain parts of the omnibus bill on terrorism which suggest that
illegal protest or dissent that disrupts essential government
services could be classified as terrorist activity. They fear it
could muzzle union activity, native protests, and other legitimate
forms of dissent that are not always deemed ''legal.''
Even the Canadian Alliance, which
has decided to support the government on this get-tough
legislation, said it may back a sunset clause for the bill.
''In principle, sunset laws are
good because it does give an opportunity to review legislation
after a period of time,'' said Alliance leader Stockwell Day.
Debate is ongoing in the United
States between the House of Representatives and the Senate about
whether to sunset or review their own anti-terrorist legislation.
|
