Debates of Nov. 24th, 1997

Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act

[Some hon. members]

No.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 20 agreed to)

(On clause 21)

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister.

Clause 21 indicates that the hybrid offence provides an opportunity for enforcement officers to determine, depending on the gravity of the offence, whether or not to proceed with a more serious instance of indictable process.

What criteria will be used to differentiate between a summary conviction and an indictable offence within the context of the bill?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chairman, as in most cases it would be up to the prosecutor to determine what would be the criteria. Again I would not want to prejudge any able prosecutor in what they would define that to be. I think we would leave it to the normal Criminal Code process.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Chairman, are there any precedents or examples to which the minister can speak that would show how the prosecution can decide whether or not in circumstances such as these there is a separation between summary convictions and indictable offences?

I am concerned that the bill can be driven into very punitive measures where a great deal of effort is put into convicting people of indictable offences. On the contrary, a great deal of effort could be put into making sure that people are charged under summary convictions.

I would like to know from the minister and his officials what separation exists. Are there examples that we can examine, or examples he can give the House today to show how the process would actually work?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, it is a little difficult to give examples because this is the first time it has been done.

In other international treaties, chemical weapons conventions and others, we have not been in a position where we have had to actually use the question of principle. The normal test would apply, which is the seriousness or the gravity of the action. If under the act someone inadvertently provides information or sends one of the munitions abroad, not with deliberate intent to get around the legislation but inadvertently, then clearly the prosecutor has a judgment call for the lighter sentence. However, if it is done deliberately to contravene the act for malicious purposes, if someone wants to export land mines for use in another country as part of a military arsenal, then clearly the heavier weight of that would be applied.

That would be a judgment call by whatever prosecutor was used. They would have to weigh the gravity of the offence and use the temperate nature of our Canadian justice system to determine how it would work out.

[The Chairman]

Perhaps the Chair might ask if the minister has an amendment to this section. Earlier in the discussion there was some reference to the fact that there might be an amendment to section 21. I notice one is not forthcoming.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, it goes back to the amendment that was proposed and passed under clause 11(2) which obviates the need for this amendment.

[The Chairman]

Thank you.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I have been asked about the matter of the French-English translation under the clause 11(2) amendment. In looking at the proper interpretation, our officials were able to determine that the reference to the federal court trial division is exactly the same as the “section de première instance de la Cour fédérale”.

[The Chairman]

That is on clause 11. Perhaps we could complete clause 21 first. Are there further questions or debate on clause 21?

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I believe it was on Thursday, late in the day, that I had the opportunity to meet with lawyers from the justice department. At the time, I was told that the bill had been reviewed by the authorities to make sure it complied with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am now rather surprised to see an amendment to ensure such consistency.

I am also a little curious as to whether the whole bill was reviewed to make sure it is consistent with the charter, and I wonder if the government could tell us when this review was conducted by the authorities?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his comments. Perhaps it shows the value of the ever vigilant activity of members of Parliament. In our opening remarks we did beg the indulgence of the House. This legislation was drafted in a two and a half week period which, if you know the system around here, is pretty fast.

We wanted to take into account all particular references to the charter. The hon. member's examination last week was tough in that regard. Then we asked for a full review again this weekend by justice officials who went over with a fine tooth comb all particular ways in which the term apply, and that is when we came out with the proposed amendment under section 11(2). It was to make sure the courts would be the interpreter, not the minister.

I give the House my assurance that in our best judgment, based on the tertiary review that took place this weekend, that was the only question. Even at that, it was just that we did not want to leave any question. We wanted to make sure it was airtight in terms of its relevance to the charter.

(Clause 21 agreed to)

(On clause 22)

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Chairman, on subclause 22(2), I have a question for the minister and his official.

They talk about things that have been seized in respect to the commission of an offence. I would like a point of clarification here. When they talk about things being seized, does that clarify subclause 22(2) and refer to things being specifically modified for use in committing the offence which excludes property only marginally related to the offence?

In other words, do things in subclause 21(1) refer to things that are directly associated with the commission of the offence, for example a car that can be used to transport mines, not the person's home?

Also, when you are referring to the fact that the minister has the discretion as to how the things that are seized are to be disposed of, should not the courts decide how these things, as they are defined in subclause 22(2), be the power that decides where and how these things are supposed to be disposed?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chairman, in response to the hon. member, and clarifying with officials, this follows practice already in the Criminal Code where rather than seizing the entire property of an individual who may be indictable under the act, the difference would be that we do not want to seize the house even though one of the products that is prohibited may be within it.

To wit, if somebody is in possession of an anti-personnel land mine and that piece of property is to be seized as a matter of evidence, we do not want to seize the entire house and all the things in it as a matter of conviction. The family may still be there and they are not liable. That is the same kind of principle that is now applied in the Criminal Code, say, on drug offences.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his answer. I wonder, though, if he could address the second part of my question. In subclause 22(1) it states that the minister has the discretion as to how the things being seized are to be disposed of. Should it not be the courts that decide how things are to be disposed of and not the minister?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chairman, I should clarify just in case people did not quite understand it.

When we used the designation “minister” in the definition, it did not necessarily refer to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Different ministers could apply. In this case, clearly it would be the Attorney General of Canada who is the legal officer for the Government of Canada, again comparable to the other offences in the Criminal Code where they would act on behalf of it. The Minister of Foreign Affairs I can tell you would have absolutely no interest in being the operative agent in this case.

(Clause 22 agreed to)

(Clauses 23 to 25, inclusive, agreed to)

(On clause 11)

[The Chairman]

We have an amendment proposed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to clause 11.

Shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chairman]

Shall clause 11, as amended, carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Clause 11, as amended, agreed to)

(Clause 1 agreed to)

[The Chairman]

Shall the schedule carry?

(On the schedule)

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

It is not really necessary to include the convention in a schedule, as some lawyers from the justice department told me, but I think it is worthwhile to include the convention in a piece of legislation so it becomes better known.

Earlier, the minister read in a very eloquent manner a treaty drafted by children, who hope to see included in the declaration their rights under the convention. Does the minister intend to publicize the text of the convention, on which all parties in this House agree and in which they put their hopes that the use of anti-personnel mines will be eliminated?

I want to know what measures the government intends to take to publicize the treaty.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr Chairman, first, I believe it was last week that a kit was distributed to all members of Parliament which contained information about the treaty. I believe a copy of the treaty was included.

The treaty has also been on the website and is available for everybody to access. We can give hon. members the website number. I should mention we have also established a separate website to cover the conference itself. We will be, during the course of the proceedings next week when the treaty conference is being held at the Conference Centre, organizing within the parliamentary area a special room in which members of Parliament can watch the proceedings.

We intend to bring a number of participants, ministers, NGOs and some of the children who are involved to meet the members of Parliament. We will have our officials available to share information.

I think that portion is scheduled for next Thursday, probably after question period. We would like to involve the the members of Parliament as much as possible. The conference room is small in terms of the number of people who can get in. That is why we thought we would open an ante-room here at Parliament so that members could participate and have access to the number of individuals, officials and participants who come for a special session on Thursday.

It happens from time to time that staff take our documents to read and cherish them. If this has happened in the case of members, we will be more than happy to replace them, perhaps through the spokesperson for each party. If any of the members would like further documentation we would be more than happy to supply it.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I beg your indulgence not to use props. We just had hand delivered this morning the logo pin for the conference. If any member of Parliament would like to have one, I would be more than glad to distribute them when our proceedings are completed.

[The Chairman]

I hear no points of order on the issue.

(Schedule agreed to)

(Title agreed to)

(Bill reported as amended and concurred in)

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic, Dairy industry.