Debates of Oct. 17th, 1995

Excise Tax Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until five o'clock today, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

Law Commission Of Canada Act

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-106, an act respecting the Law Commission of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in connection with Bill C-106. May I say at the outset that by tabling this bill the government fulfils a commitment which it made during the campaign of 1993, a commitment that was expressed clearly in the red book to restore the important machinery for law reform that had been abolished by the previous government.

This bill fulfils that commitment by creating a new body to be known as the Law Commission of Canada, a commission whose object would be continuously to monitor the evolution of Canadian law, to advise the government, and Parliament, on its improvement and modernization, and to do so in a manner that would reflect our unique bijuridical system of law: the common law and the civil code.

In short, this Commission will play a major role in fulfilling the responsibility-common to every generation-of keeping Canadian law relevant to the needs and conditions of our time. The task is a much more difficult and complex one than it was in the early 1970s, when the former Law Reform Commission was formed.

Now in the mid-1990s we are swept along on a tide of social change, change involving technology, change involving social life itself. In some areas, these transformations have rendered existing law either obsolete or inadequate. In others, we confront issues that have not yet been addressed by law or by precedent.

It is the view of the government that we need a commission with respect to law, a commission that is independent and objective to provide informed commentary to government on the directions it should take.

Let me provide some examples to hon. members about the kinds of challenges to which I refer. One is the increased risk and incidence of economic crime flowing from the application of computer technology in financial markets, the way funds are transferred from person to person and, indeed, from continent to continent. Another is the steady parade of new questions that accompany the commercialization of biotechnology. A third is the emergence of issues raised by the mass application of new information technology, such as the use of the Internet for hate messages or pornography.

In addition, there are issues that concern the functioning of the criminal justice system itself, including the effectiveness of that system or the effectiveness of incarceration for certain offences as compared with other sanctions.

To compound the challenge, these issues are coming on to the screen at a time of profound social and political change. In many respects, Canadians are not the same people they were a quarter of a century ago.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has changed the way we look at the law and at each other. People are no longer content to leave government to politicians and bureaucrats, and law to lawyers. They insist on having a hand in decisions which affect their lives.

Something else that is different in the 1990s is the fiscal environment. We must cope with these challenges with drastically reduced budgets. The quality of every option and of every decision must be tested not only for theoretical effectiveness but also for financial feasibility.

For all these reasons, the government is not proposing in Bill C-106 a restoration of the last Law Reform Commission brick by brick. We propose the creation of an entirely new institution, a new kind of institution, to deal with new issues in new ways.

The law commission visualized in Bill C-106 will first of all be an independent and accountable body working at arm's length from government and operating in a mode that matches the challenges and the constraints of our time, that is to say, it will work with the

windows open. It will make law reform a visible, understandable process in which not just legal professionals but Canadians in every walk of life can play their part.

Furthermore, because of its structure, the commission will not be remote or isolated. Last but not least, it will approach its task with a vigilant attention to cost.

The principles that will govern the make-up of a commission and guide it in its work are set out in the preamble of Bill C-106. The House should know that these principles were not developed in a theoretical test tube. They emerged in a rigorous nationwide consultation that preceded the drafting of the bill. They reflect the synthesized thinking of many disciplines, sectors and groups. These are the characteristics that Canadians tell us the process must embody if it is to work effectively.

The first principle is related to the unwritten goal of every aspect of this work, the building and the maintenance of confidence in our system of justice. To that end, this principle points to the need to democratize and demystify the making and remaking of the law.

It provides that the commission must be transparent, must involve disparate interests in its work. The door to the workshop of law reform must be open to all who want to watch or join in the process. The results of that work must be available for inspection by all in a form understandable by all.

The second principle is that the commission must not only have keen foresight, it must also have wide peripheral vision. It must see the challenges of law reform in their full social and economic context. To achieve this end, the commission will have to be multi-disciplinary in its approach. It will focus not just legal expertise on the issues, although that will be needed, but the talent and training of all the relevant disciplines-for example, in economics, in technology, in the social and natural sciences, in the field of law enforcement.

The third principle is that the commission should be responsive and accountable. Specifically, it should forge partnerships with a wide range of interested groups and in particular with the academic community. The law is never static. Only in this way can the commission keep ahead of endless change to avoid gaps or duplication in agendas and to make the most of limited resources.

The fourth principle is one that would have seemed odd in legislation drafted 25 years ago, but it seems perfectly natural in our time.

It is a requirement that the Commission, as it tackles today's tasks, employ today's technologies, wherever it is appropriate to do so. The Commission must take advantage of the capabilities of new tools and new methods, particularly in information technology. This is essential to success in every aspect of the Commission's operation-to its ability to share work with other groups and institutions-and to operate effectively on its modest budget.

The fifth principle relates to the overriding requirement that we arrive at solutions we can pay for. This principle requires that the commission in its deliberations must never fail to consider the elements of cost and economic impact. This too is a matter of relevance in the 1990s.

These then are the five principles as set forth in the preamble. There is a sixth, which may not be spelled out expressly but which hon. members will find implicit throughout the statute. That is to say, the requirement for balance, the need for the commission to be both independent of government in its decisions and accountable to the public for its actions. This principle and indeed all the others find expression in the structure of the commission as set forth in clause 7 of the bill. Let me touch briefly on that structure.

The executive branch of the Law Commission would be appointed by order in council. It would comprise five members, a full-time president and four part-time commissioners, who may all be drawn from different disciplines. In terms of size, it seems to me this is the balance we need: large enough to be diverse, but small enough to be decisive.

The fact that four of the five commissioners will serve part time has many important advantages. First of all, it means that these individuals will not run the risk of becoming isolated from the world beyond the national capital region. They will retain their roots in their home communities and in the sectors they represent and their careers will not be interrupted. There is another benefit. It will make it easier for government to attract the calibre of person we want on such a commission to join in the work of law reform.

The second element is an advisory council made up of 25 members representing a variety of viewpoints and disciplines and backgrounds. All of these people will serve as unpaid volunteers, except for reimbursement of expenses. This arrangement supports the independence of the process. The council will be appointed by the commission, not by the government, and the commission, not the government, will be the client of the council.

The third component also fosters independence of the whole. It comprises the study panels that the commission will set up as required to focus on specific issues. Each panel would be headed by one of the commissioners and the other panel members would be drawn from the relevant disciplines or interested groups. For instance, a study panel on biotechnology might include representa-

tives of the industry, the health sciences, consumer groups, and the legal profession.

The use of these panels will also contribute to the cost-effectiveness of the process. These bodies will be transient rather than permanent. They will come into being as the issues emerge. They will then do their work and they will disband. Panel members will perform this public service on a voluntary, unpaid basis.

These then are the components of the Law Commission of Canada as proposed in Bill C-106. The structure is simple. It is also economical. The commission will be served by a small secretariat of no more than eight people. Instead of retaining an in-house staff to conduct studies, the commission will contract for research from outside sources. In this way we will avoid duplicating the effort of provincial reform bodies or work being done in the academic communities. As a result, the commission will be highly cost-effective.

Although the last law reform commission, abolished by the previous government, cost $5 million a year to run, the law commission proposed in Bill C-106 will have a budget of $3 million, all of which will be found through a redeployment of existing funds. It seems to me that we can be confident of getting the job done within these constraints because of the new commission's composition and because of the way it is approaching its work: the use of new technology, a commitment to partnership endeavours, and the reliance on voluntary advisers and panel members.

That brings me to my final observation. The legislation would give the new commission a mandate to explore and to innovate. That requirement is explicit in the purpose section of the bill, which provides that the commission's tasks will include the development of new approaches to law and new concepts of law.

What does that mean? Among other things, it means that the commission will not feel compelled to recommend as the solution for every problem a new law or even an amended law. Its mandate requires the commission to look at the full range of options. It is vitally important that it do so. One of the most urgent challenges of law reform is to cope with change without creating an impassable morass of litigation, administration, and enforcement.

The system is close to being overburdened now. A primary goal of the commission will be not only to avoid increasing that load but indeed to lighten it. As the purpose section of the bill provides, the commission's task will include, and I quote, "the development of measures to make the legal system more efficient, economical and accessible".

As to the balance in that architecture of independence and accountability, obviously both elements are indispensable: independence because the value of the commission will depend in large part on its ability to provide expert impartial advice to the government on legislative programs and policies; accountability because the commission will be a public body serving the people of Canada, and as such it must answer to the people and their elected representatives for the conduct of its affairs and the quality of its work.

I believe these principles are reflected in the arrangements the bill describes. The commission will submit its reports and recommendations to Parliament through the Minister of Justice of the day. That minister must forward these products of the commission to Parliament untouched, unaltered, and must respond to them in a specific period. On the other hand, the responsibility for the final decision about their disposition remains, as of course it must, with the government.

Hon. members will find balance built into not just the general design but the detail of this legislation. One example is to be found in the section on Purpose, Powers and Duties. The Commission will draw up its own agenda-but will consult with the Minister of Justice before making it final.

The legislation would also require the minister to consult with the commission before referring other matters to it for consideration.

As I have said, the essential purpose of the bill is to bring a wide-ranging integrated approach to the reform of Canadian law. The law is more than a book of statutes. It is a living thing, a presence in our individual lives. The law is also the infrastructure of our social and economic life. Seen in that context, the task of law reform is part of the wider work of nation building, of advancing our collective and individual well-being, of building social harmony, improving our competitiveness, our standard of living, our quality of life, and our relations with each other.

It was in the 18th century that the British jurist Lord Mansfield said that as the usages of society alter the law must adapt itself to the changing needs of all. At the end of the 20th century that is still the task. I suggest that the instrument proposed in Bill C-106 will help us meet that continuing challenge.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before yielding the floor to the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, may I suggest to the House that it is 5 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-64, an Act respecting employment equity, be now read the third time and passed.

Employment Equity Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 5 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45(5), the House will now proceed to a deferred division at the third reading stage of Bill C-64, an Act respecting employment equity.

Call in the members.

(Motion agreed to on division.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-9, an act to amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House will now proceed to the deferred divisions at report stage of Bill S-9, an act to amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984.

The first question is on Motion No. 1.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it you might find unanimous consent. One or two members may wish to vote otherwise, but you might find consent for the members who voted on the previous motion to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay on this motion.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not give unanimous consent to vote the same way as other Liberal members on the bill, in fact not the same way as the Reform or the Bloc will vote on the bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I wonder if I might ask for clarification from the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls. Is he stating his own intention of voting or is he also declining the unanimous consent?

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I moved the motion so obviously I would support Motion No. 1.

On Motion No. 2 perhaps there are other members who may feel the same way as I do about the amendments I have put forward so I would suggest that the vote proceed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There is not unanimous consent.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare Motion No. 1 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 2

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe that you would find unanimous consent in the House to apply the vote just completed on Motion No. 1 to Motion No. 2.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc members will vote nay.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

All right thinking Reformers will also vote no.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, all New Democrats present in the House this afternoon will be voting yea on this motion.