moved that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts (miscellaneous matters) be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker, I would like say a few words about Bill C-42.
The other place has now amended the bill in two respects but has otherwise passed it. I should add it has also made minor changes to certain parts of the French language version.
The two important changes which arise from the work of the other place should be mentioned briefly. Clauses 61 and 62 have been deleted. Clause 61 would have replaced section 604 of the Criminal Code. It would have prohibited the defence from publicizing information received from the prosecution in the fulfilment of the crown's disclosure obligations.
The limited purpose of the amendment was to ensure that this information would only be used to prepare the answer and defence in the courtroom.
The committee of the Senate felt that a number of related issues should be dealt with at the same time. I am able to tell the House that is going to be possible because the government is now looking at the prospect of codifying disclosure requirements arising from the Supreme Court of Canada judgment in Finchcomb as part of our work toward the reform of the preliminary inquiry and criminal procedure generally.
We agree with having clause 61 removed from the bill. Now it can be dealt with in the context of the broader treatment of
disclosure and we accept that change for the very good reasons given by our colleagues in the other place.
The second clause deleted is clause 62. That would have amended section 648 of the Criminal Code to restrict publicity about certain jury trial proceedings that occur before the jury is empanelled.
It was the intention of the government in putting this clause in the bill to fill a gap which has existed for some time and to provide for orders banning publication in those cases in which pretrial motions concerning the admissibility of certain evidence were heard in courtrooms before the jury was actually sworn in.
The publication of such pretrial motions, particularly as they relate to evidence that might eventually be heard, might contaminate members of a prospective jury panel, might give them impressions or information about the evidence which would make it more difficult or impossible for them to serve impartially.
It was pointed out by the committee of the Senate which considered this clause that the language which the government used to achieve that purpose might be overbroad. It might be mandatory where permissive language might be preferable. In any event the provision, however worded, should permit the publication of matters other than those which might sway a jury if they were made public before the panel was sworn in.
We are happy to have that clause removed as well. We will consider it and try to meet the legitimate concerns that have been expressed. We will try to improve it and bring it forward at another time.
The government is indebted to the other place for its characteristically careful work, particularly the detailed analysis done in a very constructive way by the committee of the Senate. We are grateful if its work will result in an improved bill, a better law for Canadians.