I am grateful for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker. I just want to comment on one aspect of the hon. member's statement concerning these amendments to the bill.
As I understood the hon. member he referred to the change in the value of property involved in crime in an effort to influence the incidence of crime reporting or the crime rates. Perhaps I did not understand the hon. member's point. I apologize if I have it imprecisely but let me just tell the House lest there be any doubt what our rationale was as a government for proposing that change.
The dollar amount of property involved in such crime is the demarcation point for determining where the trial of such charges occurs. At and below that amount the trial of such charges occurs in the provincial court and within the jurisdiction of a provincial court judge. By increasing the amount we have increased the number of cases that will be tried in that court, without the necessity for the more elaborate procedures of preliminary inquiry and the prospect of a trial by judge and jury.
The change is intended to reflect agreement on the part of participants in the criminal justice system-the provinces that administer the system, the prosecutors, the defence lawyers and government federally that writes the criminal law-that we should encourage the disposition of as many of these cases as
possible in the least expensive and most summary locale, which is the provincial court.
It has nothing to do with crime rates, nothing to do with percentages, but everything to do with the more efficient administration of justice and always in keeping with the right to a fair trial and disposition. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the matter.