Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to introduce the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut court of justice and to amend other acts in consequence.
Today we stand at the crossroads of a very important time in Canadian history. On April 1, 1999, which is less than six months from now, the new territory of Nunavut will come into existence. The creation of the new territory in the eastern Arctic is a realization of a long held dream of Inuit people. The realization of this dream is one to which we look forward to with great anticipation.
As people of Nunavut we will have our own government and, as a result of Bill C-57, we will have our own unique court system.
I want to emphasize that a new court structure will only become a reality for Nunavut if Bill C-57 is passed by the House by April 1, 1999. I therefore hope that members will give this bill their utmost and urgent attention.
The original Nunavut bill, passed in 1993, contemplated a two-level trial court structure. Members will recall that earlier this spring Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867, included a number of amendments to clarify the operation of the two-level trial court system in Nunavut. This two-level trial court structure is the default option if Bill C-57 is not passed before April 1, 1999.
When Bill C-39 was introduced the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development indicated that a subsequent bill would be introduced later in the year to deal with court structure issues. Bill C-57 is the bill in question. It is the last major piece of legislative structuring which the federal government has undertaken with regard to Nunavut.
Bill C-57 proposes changes to the Nunavut Act and other federal statues, including the Criminal Code, the Judges Act and the Young Offenders Act. Amendments to the Nunavut Act are proposed to ensure that a single level trial court structure established at the superior court level is in place and that transitional cases are adequately dealt with.
The Department of Justice worked closely with government officials in the Northwest Territories, as well as with Nunavut representatives to ensure that the appropriate territorial legislation will be passed before April 1, 1999 to provide for the operation of a single level trial court system in Nunavut.
The Criminal Code amendments make the changes needed to accommodate a single level trial court structure within a criminal justice framework which is premised on two levels of trial court.
Members may ask themselves what precisely is a single level trial court. Let me answer that question as follows. The single level trial court will combine into one court all of the duties, powers and functions performed elsewhere in Canada by two levels of court. For constitutional reasons, the Nunavut court of justice will be established at the superior court level. Its judges will be appointed by the federal government.
For the people of Nunavut it will mean that all criminal, civil and family law matters will be dealt with by one court. That court will be called the Nunavut court of justice.
In addition to creating a new and innovative court system for Nunavut, Bill C-57 is also significant from another perspective. It represents another successful example of co-operative federalism. The development of the legislation in Bill C-57 represents a high degree of co-operation between the federal government, the territorial government of the Northwest Territories and political leaders representing Nunavut. The interim commissioner of Nunavut and the parties to the Nunavut political accord formally asked the Minister of Justice to develop a single level trial court system for Nunavut. Bill C-57 is the result of those efforts.
I am very pleased to say that throughout the process of developing the legislation, officials from the justice department worked very closely with northern leaders and the members of the northern legal community to ensure that the legislation was responsive to the needs of the Nunavut people.
I think it would be helpful for me to indicate some of the particular difficulties with the delivery of justice services identified by the residents of eastern Arctic as a prelude to explaining how the single level court structure is expected to bring improvements.
Those members familiar with the delivery of justice in the eastern Arctic will know that with the exception of Iqaluit, court parties must fly into various communities of the eastern Arctic in order to deal with trial matters.
Currently there are two separate circuits, one for the territorial court and one for the supreme court. Neither of these two courts will hear all matters arising in a particular community.
On average each of the courts visits a particular community only three or four times a year. As a result there can be significant delays between the laying of a charge and the final determination of guilt or innocence, or in family law matters, resolution of custody issues for example. This can have a devastating effect on the parties and can lead to division within the community until the matter is resolved. I can give some examples of what we have to go through with these court procedures.
Currently a court party will fly into a community. The lawyer arrives on the same plane with the court party. In some cases the accused spends 15 minutes with the lawyer before the case is heard, because the lawyer has just arrived in that community. The accused has 15 minutes to talk with the lawyer. The future of the accused is to be determined in that little time.
There are also suicides directly related to people waiting for the dates of their court cases. I personally know of a young family where the husband took his life, leaving a wife and two children, because of the stress involved with waiting for a court case to come around.
The long waits between cases is just not healthy for anyone. All the communities are small and the accused and the victim have to live in the same community. Consequently they have to see each other in the store and the community hall. They are forced to live near each other which is very stressful for both.
There is also a strong desire in the north for more matters to be diverted from the formal justice system, or in criminal matters if charges are laid, to have the court cases heard by local justices of the peace. Having matters dealt with in the community rather than by the circuit court enhances access to justice by removing time and distance barriers between the parties involved and the decision maker. This would help address those situations which I just gave examples of.
The single level trial court structure has been designed with the expectation that with proper training a local justice of the peace will be able to conduct uncomplicated preliminary inquiries and summary conviction trials.
I would like to give another example. The people of Nunavut are already preparing for this. I recently attended a justice retreat in Rankin Inlet that identified priorities to be pursued. Training of justices of the peace was a very crucial priority. They are capable and will be more capable after the training they receive.
I would now like to describe in more detail some of the main features of the single level trial court. They are expected to enhance both the accessibility and efficiency of the justice system in the eastern Arctic.
Bill C-57 makes changes to the Nunavut Act which will establish one trial court for Nunavut at the superior court level. Whereas superior court judges currently fly in to the eastern Arctic from the western Arctic, changes to the Judges Act will provide for up to three full time superior court judge residents in Nunavut.
The Nunavut Act and the Criminal Code will clearly provide that judges of the Nunavut court of justice will be superior court judges in all respects and will have all the inherent and statutory powers of the superior court judges.
The Criminal Code will expressly give the judges of the Nunavut court of justice all the powers to deal with all criminal matters, even those normally performed elsewhere in Canada by officials or judges who are not superior court judges. Amendments to the Criminal Code will make clear, however, that when judges perform these duties or functions, they do not lose their status as superior court judges.
The practical benefit of this measure to the people of Nunavut will be that a single judge of the Nunavut court of justice will be able to deal with all matters on the court docket when he or she holds court in a particular community. It is anticipated that delay in the resolution of matters will be reduced and improvements in the efficiency of the court system will be achieved.
Justices of the peace will continue to do most of the pretrial matters. With the appropriate training they are expected to gradually assume more responsibility for conducting some preliminary inquiries and minor criminal trials.
At the present time the Alberta Court of Appeal serves as the core of the court of appeal for the Northwest Territories. This arrangement has worked very well. I am grateful that the judges of the Alberta Court of Appeal have agreed to continue their excellent work and their dedicated efforts in Nunavut.
Because of the need to assess the workload of the court of appeal in Nunavut sometime after the territory is established, we have decided that the Alberta Court of Appeal will act as the core of the court of appeal for Nunavut. I expect that it will be assisted in its workload by resident northern superior court judges sitting as judges of the court of appeal. When the Nunavut government is in a position to do so, it may wish to consider other models for its court of appeal.
The amendments in Bill C-57 relating to the summary conviction appeals reflect the fact that the trial function performed by two levels of court elsewhere in Canada will be combined into one court in Nunavut. In order to retain substantially equivalent rights of appeal, it was necessary to create an intermediate level of appeal.
Where the Nunavut court of justice conducts a trial in respect of a summary conviction matter, an appeal will lie to a single judge of the court of appeal of Nunavut on the same grounds that apply in all summary conviction matters elsewhere in Canada. Appeals in respect of indictable matters will remain unchanged.
The policy behind the appeal structure regarding summary conviction appeals is to provide parties in Nunavut with substantive and procedural rights equivalent to those available to other parties elsewhere in Canada. It might be argued that this approach undermines the status of judges of the Nunavut court of justice as superior court judges. I think it is more important to characterize this feature as a necessary choice resulting from a desire to protect the rights of parties before the court within a Criminal Code structure that is designed for a two level rather than a single level trial court.
Just as in the case of all other jurisdictions in Canada, a secondary level of appeal on much more restricted grounds will be available to a three person panel of the court of appeal.
Bill C-57 will provide that decisions in summary conviction trials conducted in the community before a justice of the peace can be appealed to a judge of the Nunavut court of justice and then on further appeal to a three person panel of the court of appeal.
In addition to appeal rights, a statutory review measure has been designed to serve as a faster, interim, error correcting mechanism with respect to key decisions which may be made by judges of the Nunavut court of justice. I must again emphasize that in formulating this statutory form of review, our goal has been to provide substantially the same kind of relief that is available to parties to criminal proceedings elsewhere in Canada through prerogative writ review.
Bill C-57 will provide a new form of statutory review that is limited in scope to key decision points in the criminal justice process where an expeditious form of review is essential. The review will lie to a single judge of the court of appeal of Nunavut.
Prerogative writ review as embodied in the Criminal Code and in the common law will continue to apply to the decisions of justices of the peace and other inferior officials in Nunavut.
Changes to the Young Offenders Act made in Bill C-57 are not of a policy nature but are restricted to those which are necessary to accommodate the operation of a single level trial court in Nunavut.
For example, Bill C-57 makes changes to the Young Offenders Act to provide an appeal scheme which parallels that available for adults in Nunavut. This is in respect of the summary conviction matters heard by the Nunavut court of justice sitting as a youth court. As in the adult system, these appeals will be heard by a single judge of the court of appeal for Nunavut with a secondary right of appeal on more restricted grounds to a three person panel of the court of appeal for Nunavut.
Bill C-57 also adapts the elections provisions in the Young Offenders Act to reflect the fact that for murder trials held in youth court in Nunavut, the choice for youth will be the Nunavut court of justice sitting as a youth court either alone or with a jury.
Amendments to the Judges Act will provide for three superior court judges on the Nunavut court of justice all of whom will be resident in Nunavut. Bill C-57 will also amend the Judges Act to provide for full membership in the Canadian Judicial Council for the senior judge of each of the three territories.
At this point I should add that Bill C-57 also makes various consequential amendments to three other federal statutes to ensure that they accommodate a single level trial court structure in Nunavut. In many instances these changes amount to simply changing the name of the relevant court or judge in definition sections of the act.
I am very pleased to be able to say that the amendments in Bill C-57 to establish a single level trial court structure for Nunavut are entirely consistent with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Establishing the Nunavut court of justice reflects the longstanding desire of the people and leaders of Nunavut to create a new institution which is more suited to our unique traditions, culture and needs.
This court reform reflects the desire of the Nunavut people to have an accessible and integrated justice system.
The Nunavut court of justice will have the authority to hear all criminal, civil and family matters. It is expected to work in harmony with justices of the peace who will have an important and perhaps growing role in providing speedy and culturally sensitive responses to crime.
The government's response to the recommendations of the royal commission on aboriginal people called for a new partnership with aboriginal people. The consultative manner in which the single level trial court structure was designed is an example of such a partnership.
I am confident that the future direction in justice reform in Nunavut will evolve in the continued spirit of this equal partnership and will become increasingly responsive to the unique needs of this new territory.
I call on all members in the House to support Bill C-57 to establish this very innovative court structure for the new territory of Nunavut. It would also help if the justice committee could have the hearings in my riding so it can hear directly from the people and see the beautiful riding of Nunavut.
