Lametti was asked about the two highly controversial legal issues in a June 7 scrum with Hill reporters.
Division 31 of the Liberal government’s 400-page-plus omnibus federal budget bill part 1 (C-19), which bill at press time was undergoing third reading debate in the Commons, contains novel provisions which apparently break new ground internationally.
The provisions’ aim, in part, is to enable Russian assets to be forfeited and used to rebuild Ukraine — a country where much infrastructure has been destroyed by Russia — and to compensate the victims of Russia’s illegal aggression.
Bill C-19 would amend the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to, among other things:
- create regimes allowing for the forfeiture of property seized or restrained under those laws; and
- enable the net proceeds from sale of such assets to be used for: “the reconstruction of a foreign state adversely affected by a grave breach of international peace and security; the restoration of peace and security; and the compensation of victims of a grave breach of international peace and security, gross and systematic human rights violations or acts of significant corruption.”
If passed, Canada would be the first G7 country to enact such a law enabling the redistribution of proceeds of sale from seized Russian assets to compensate Ukraine. U.S. President Joe Biden has asked Congress for similar authority, and an EU “seize and freeze” task force is also examining the idea — but constitutional, international law and due process concerns have been raised.
Asked whether C-19 stands on shaky legal ground, Lametti told reporters “we’ll obviously tailor the provision so that ... it could withstand a court challenge.”
“You don’t have an absolute right to own private property in Canada,” Lametti noted. “There are steps that are taken when expropriations happen at whatever level of government, and we'll be sure to stay within those boundaries.”
Elaborating in French, he said (translation) “We don’t have a private property right protected by the Constitution in Canada. There are measures to expropriate someone’s property at several levels in Canada and there are steps to follow ... so we’re going to follow the steps, and we’re going to make sure it’s legal,” he said. “This is also exceptional in the sense that we have an illegal war in Ukraine and it is ... a way of effectively punishing the people who support an illegal war with their resources.”
Lametti was also asked to address the fallout from the Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous decision May 27 to declare unconstitutional, as cruel and unusual punishment, s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code which authorized sentencing judges to impose stacked 25-year parole ineligibility periods that could amount to life imprisonment without parole for those convicted of multiple murders.
Some Conservative politicians have suggested that the federal government could use the notwithstanding clause to shield from constitutional attack any replacement law that again extends parole ineligibility beyond 25 years for persons convicted of multiple murders.
Lametti was cool to the idea.
“It’s a very serious situation when you use the notwithstanding clause,” he remarked. “It’s a 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court written by the chief justice ... calling the inability ... to be eligible for parole after 25 years ‘cruel and unusual punishment’, [and] that followed a [similar] decision from the Quebec Court of Appeal that was also quite clear.”
“So there’s only a small margin of manoeuvre there,” he explained. “Using the notwithstanding clause is very, very serious. You have to do it after very serious reflection because you are going against the fundamental right that has been, in this case, enunciated and elaborated by a court. ... It goes to our values.”
Lametti pointed out “it is extremely rare that a multiple murderer who is eligible for parole actually gets parole. Paul Bernardo has, for example ... not received parole and I don't expect it’ll happen.”
Lametti indicated in French that the Department of Justice is examining what prospect there might be for a replacement law, “but the room for manoeuvre is very slim. ... There is a very, very, very small margin ... if there is one (translation).”
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for The Lawyer’s Daily, please contact Cristin Schmitz at Cristin.schmitz@lexisnexis.ca or call 613 820-2794.
See here for free access to Law360’s coverage of the war in Ukraine.