Debates of Dec. 10th, 1997

Finance

[An hon. member]

The NDP is the one.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

But we were not too familiar with the NDP in my neck of the woods. Now I have come to appreciate my NDP colleagues in this House. We were also told that the Conservatives were a bit more to the right.

But what it seems to me from reading the report from the finance committee is that the Liberals were voted in on the left but are governing on the right. I will not use any more semantics at their expense, but that is my impression.

What I would like to say today is about the real world of the Liberals. A few Liberal MPs are okay. I will tell the House of my experience in recent days. In the last ten days, over the end of November and the beginning of December, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, of which I am a member, travelled the lower North Shore, the Magdalen Islands, New Brunswick, the Miramichi, Nova Scotia, and all around Newfoundland, including Labrador. My goodness, a public servant or a minister is a rare sight for the people of Labrador, yet they often find their resources being drained away by them.

What I want to say is that there were five parties in on this tour, and I hope we will be able to table a unanimous report.

The purpose of our trip was to hear what people had to say about the Atlantic groundfish strategy. We wanted to find out what they had liked about it, what they did not, and what they would like to see follow it. If the hon. members here in the House do not already all know this, we were told last year before the elections that TAGS was to end in May 1998.

I told the committee members that we needed to hurry up, that we needed to go and see the people where they lived, and to get back to the House before Christmas. We did so, but tabling our report is taking a bit of time. That is why I am pleased to intervene today and to share the impressions I gathered, but in a rather unpremeditated way, as I have no written report.

People are afraid that TAGS will not be renewed. People are afraid that the government will not keep its word. This is a program that was designed to end in 1999. People are afraid it will end in 1998, because the situation has not changed. The cod, the cod moratorium, the fisheries have not revived.

At the beginning of this program, there were close to 40,000 or 45,000 people enrolled in the program. People have lost their eligibility along the way, but there must still be a good 22,000 or 25,000 today. What are we to tell those 22,000 people who will no longer have a cheque in May 1998, but no job either? I think the government must give them some directives. It must inform them as soon as possible. It would seem that the machinery of government grinds very slowly.

People who are on TAGS did not ask to be there. People on TAGS are anxious to get back to work, anxious to be able to do something. They were put on a program, and to make it worse, when the auditor general brought in his report this fall, they got the impression that they were the ones at fault, because the government had transformed TAGS into a passive program. It told them “Sit there and wait for your cheque, and don't say a word, not a word”.

The people are really upset. Worse yet, not only do they not know what the government is going to do about renewing or maintaining the TAGS income security program, but we discover thanks to our NDP colleagues that the Minister of Human Resources Development has provided funding in the amount of $350,000 to train Human Resources Development officials how to act in case of trouble, should fisheries workers ever get angry. Does that make any sense? What sort of a country is this? What sort of a government is this?

I will summarize in three lines what I heard. I know the members opposite. More than three lines and they are lost.

The first line is what people told us when we toured with the fisheries committee. We heard a lot of people. We travelled for ten days and visited three cities a day, with an average of 300 to 400 people in the room, so close to 10,000 people came to deliver a message.

The people wanted three things: first, more income security. There was no other option. Take the example of the people of the Magdalen Islands. There used to be a redfish processing plant called Madelipêche. At one time it employed 600 people. However, when you live on an island and cannot fish any more and there are no trees to cut and no chance of a job in tourism, what do you do? There is nothing else to do. They said they needed income support. That is the first point.

Second, they told us “You MPs should tell the government to renegotiate in 1998 the distribution of resources. Negotiate with the provinces, which you did not include the first time. Negotiate with the plants. But we have to know who will continue to fish, if the stocks ever recover, because everyone agrees that there may not be enough fish for everyone. We want to know who will be redundant so that we who work in the processing plants can reorient ourselves. But no one is saying anything. They are saying “Now you have your little cheque, but pretty soon you will not have one any more”. And they won't take that.

So the first thing is the bread and butter, maintaining the TAGS income support program. The second point is for all ministers of fisheries, both federal and provincial, to have a look at resource distribution in 1998. The third point demonstrates the pride of the people of the maritimes, be they from the Quebec coast, New Brunswick, Newfoundland or Nova Scotia. They say: “Give us the tools to work. We need funds. If you want us to diversify, give us money, not peanuts. It is impossible to start up new industries without money”.

I could go on at length. As members are paying attention, perhaps we could check whether there would be unanimous consent to allow me to continue for a few more minutes. I would like to make another point and I note the members seem willing to give their consent.

I would like to say something about what Human Resources Development officials demand from the people participating in the TAGS program and trying to get out of it. The limit is $26,000, while the income ceiling for EI recipients is $30,000 before they have to start paying the government back, but only at the rate of 30% of what they earned over $39,000. Fishers or processing plant workers with families and machinery to maintain lose their benefits as soon as they earn $26,000.

During this trip, I met people who were trying to catch new species of fish. They had earned a supplementary income. What happened? They had to give it back to Human Resources Development Canada. I met a man who has not had a cent coming in since September. He is not entitled to welfare because he owns a home, poor soul, and a pickup to get to work. So he gets not one red cent.

Do you know what he told me, and I do not know how it will come across in English, but the cry from the heart was “Dear members of Parliament, I have had no money since September. I am not an animal, I cannot just graze in a field”.

I would like the Minister of Human Resources Development to come to my region and travel around to see the people, see what the real world is like. He will see that he will change his tune.

In conclusion, I am asking this today: if cabinet is not prepared to make a policy decision on maintaining TAGS, let the Minister of Finance establish in his provisions enough money so that, if a policy decision is reached in May, there will be enough money in his reserves to last all year.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With consent, we will take questions and comments right through to Private Members' Business so that the hon. member for Halifax will not be interrupted. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Thornhill. We will keep them short and sweet and the responses short and sweet. Then we will go to the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did listen very carefully to the member opposite as he described the important work that the fisheries committee did.

I have spoken with members from my own caucus who were a significant number on that committee. They too were seriously moved by the stories that they heard from the people who made presentations before the committee.

I think we all know there is a serious problem. The question that faces the government is how to respond in a way that will not only be helpful to those people who want to work, although the member talked about income support which is certainly an important part. We know the people of the Atlantic region want their jobs and the ability to work in the fishery. We also know there are problems with the fishery.

In making my comment to the member, I would ask him if he has heard any suggestions from the people who made presentations to the committee that would help to resolve the issue of how people will be able to find work in order to sustain themselves rather than looking to income support as a long term situation for the Atlantic region. We all know what the real problem is.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in order to get as many questions in as possible, since I know that there are people to my left who also want to ask some, and in order not to show disrespect for the hon. member, I shall be brief.

The situation fisher communities are in cannot be fixed by the hon. member with a snap of her fingers. My colleague for Lotbinière pointed out a minute ago the old TAGS program was created by just one public servant. It took less than four months and has led to four years of horror stories.

What people are asking us is to give them a slice of bread and butter, because that is precisely all the government's income support represents to them, to continue it for at least a year, and to use that year to create a real program which, this time, will reflect the reality of coastal communities. That is the answer I can give the hon. member for the moment.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question, but first, I have a few comments to make.

When we look at what happened with TAGS, does it not resemble what happened with employment insurance? The governments changed direction and paid out a lot of money to companies for technological change. Once the technological changes were made, people were laid off. People got laid off, and then there was the fisheries problem.

What happened to the employment insurance of people who were laid off? They were told the government did not want to pay employment insurance benefits any more, that no one was working, that their assistance was being cut and that the problem was that they did not want to work and were lazy. That is what the Liberal government said.

Now there are not enough fish, perhaps as a result of overfishing. Today the government is changing direction and doing the same thing again. Now it says it has no money, that this is not the way to do things, that it will cut off families and children and that they will no longer be entitled to eat. It is rather irresponsible on the part of the federal government, as my colleague was saying earlier, for it to sit for four years, rather than give the money immediately, and do nothing. At the end of the four years it then says it will be cutting off aid and has nothing for them. Is the government not being irresponsible? Is my colleague prepared to support me on this?

The hon. member said earlier, and I agree with him, that we have to keep giving money so these people can put food on the table, that we then have to find a solution to the problem instead of abandoning them. That is one of my questions.

I have another quick question. I would like him to be brief too in order to answer my two questions. He came to New Brunswick. What happened to the committee, which did not invite people—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am very sorry, but time has run out. The hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that we are coming to the end of the period set aside for debate. I think that, if we had the unanimous consent of the House, my NDP friend and I could debate this issue all evening.

To answer his question clearly and briefly, yes, he is right. No only did the Liberal government throw it together quickly, but it did an amateur job of it.

They thought about 20,000 to 25,000 people would be interested in this program when it was first created, but over 40,000 applied. That is why TAGS was turned into a passive program.

I think the NDP member is 100% right about this. I think the Bloc and the NDP will have to get together to shake some sense into the Liberals because, unless we do, there will never be any more Liberals in Quebec and in the maritimes.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am requesting unanimous consent to be able to speak as the mover for private member's Bill C-215. It is the bill of the member for Wild Rose, but he is caught in traffic.

He is trying to get to the House but cannot do so. The member for Wild Rose does not want this period of time to go to the bottom of the order, so I need the unanimous consent of the House to be able to speak on the bill as if it were my own.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the request of the member for New Westminister—Coquitlam—Burnaby. Is there agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Criminal Code

[Paul Forseth, Reform, for Mr. Myron Thompson]

moved that Bill C-215, an act to amend the Criminal Code (section 227), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing and perhaps even sad that Bill C-215 is necessary. There remains a badly flawed section of the Criminal Code which is section 227. In response to that, the private member's bill drafted by the member for Wild Rose in specific content says this: “The enactment provides that a person commits culpable homicide or the offence of causing the death of another person by criminal negligence or by means of the commission of offence under subsection 249(4) or 255(3) of the Criminal Code, regardless of the time within which death occurs at the time of the occurrence of the last event by means of which the person caused or contributed to the cause of death.”

That sounds like a convoluted phraseology but I will try to explain it.

The law says that an individual commits criminal negligence causing death, and if the individual then commits an assault, the person is in the hospital and dies after a period of time, the perpetrator is not culpable. The perpetrator cannot be charged because their victim took too long to die.

The ironic fact is that on September 4 the justice minister announced that she planned to introduce the exact same legislation as this bill. Why the Liberals would not support this proposed legislation is nothing short of political manoeuvring. Waiting for the government to draft new legislation has resulted in more time being wasted. It could have allowed another perpetrator to go free.

Bill C-215 called for the scrapping of section 227 of the Criminal Code because section 227 now states that no person can be convicted of a homicide if the death occurs more than a year and a day from the time of the offence. The private member's bill would have changed this in order to allow charges to be laid if the assault resulted in death, no matter how long the victim was able to hang on to life.

The reason for this bill stems from the death of Marvin Ward from Manitoba. This gentleman never regained consciousness following a savage baseball attack in May 1995. It took Mr. Ward 14 months to pass away and the suspects then could not be charged.

It is apparent from the cases such as this that section 227 of the Criminal Code does not recognize modern medicine's ability to keep people alive for an extended period of time. The private member's bill would allow for those to face charges if the assault resulted in death, no matter how long the victim is alive. There would be no time limits. If the bill were passed, it would ultimately have meant that Mr. Ward's death would not have been in vain. It would have proved that we as legislators can effectively change a badly flawed section of the Criminal Code.

The member for Wild Rose has followed this issue since last October and had this private member's bill drafted in March of this year. It was fortunate that it was picked in the draw for Private Members' Business but this is where the good fortune ended because the committee that looks at private members' bills did not deem it to be votable.

On September 4 the justice minister announced that she too was scrapping section 227 of the Criminal Code as early as this fall, fulfilling a promise made by the former justice minister in March. On this premise alone the private member's bill should have been made votable but perhaps we can let the media decide or those who follow these issues can have a conversation about that.

So we present the private member's bill in different manners. First of all I would like to present it in a way that is based on the criteria that the standing committee for Private Members' Business sets for the selection of votable items. Perhaps we can let the people who are listening today be the judge to see if this bill meets the guidelines and should have been made votable today.

There are 11 criteria that must be met in the selection of votable items. The first criteria is the private member's bill must be of national, regional or local significance. It cannot be highly contentious, controversial, trivial or insignificant. Certainly this bill would be considered to have national significance since it affects the Criminal Code of Canada and in no way is this bill contentious, controversial, trivial or insignificant. It involves the death of individuals and the consequences thereof. It is essential then to change the section of the Criminal Code and not allow perpetrators to go free.

Criteria number two, the bill must not appear to discriminate or favour for or against a certain area or region of the country. In no way does this bill discriminate in favour of a certain region or area of the country. This bill would be applicable right across the country. This is federal legislation.

Criteria number three, the bill cannot be with regard to electoral boundaries or constituency names. Obviously that category does not apply here.

Criteria number four, the bill should not require obvious amendment because it is substantially redundant with the law or is fundamentally ineffective to implement its own intent or is unclear in its meaning or is otherwise defective in its drafting. Bill C-215 is not redundant with the laws that already exist, nor is it ineffective in its intent and meaning. It is very clear. It is a very short bill. It has a simple concept and is not defective in its drafting.

Criteria number five, the subject of the bill should be different from specific matters already declared by the government to be on its legislative agenda. This bill does not affect the government's legislative agenda at all. That is the problem. This bill is here because the government is failing to act. It was drafted long before the government even talked about looking into the matter.

Criteria number six, depending on the context of political issues and events, the number of times a topic has appeared in the House may be of significance. This topic, as far as I know, has never appeared in the House of Commons before. However, it does not mean that it is not an issue of interest to Canadians and many of the victims' associations across the country.

Criteria number seven, all other factors being equal, lower priority should be given to motions which deal with matters which the House can address in some way other than through another procedure. All in all this bill should receive a high priority since this cannot be dealt with through another procedure. It is my opinion that it is essential that this bill be dealt with now as it already has let four killers go free and potentially more still exist because of the flaw in the Criminal Code.

Criteria number eight, motions couched in partisan terms should not be selected. There is really nothing partisan about this bill whatsoever.

Criteria number nine, bills will be set aside in this selection process if they are clearly unconstitutional in that they infringe upon provincial legislative authority, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other entrenched constitutional rules or if they impede or are contrary to normal federal, provincial or international relations. This is not the case either.

Criteria number ten, bills relating to a question that is substantially the same as a question already voted on by the House in the session should not be selected as votable items. This issue does not relate to any question that has been voted on by this House.

Criteria number eleven, items relating to a question that is substantially the same as a question contained in an item already selected as a votable item in the session should not be selected. Once again, no bills were selected as votable that appear the same as this one.

I hope that all can see how important this would have been in restoring the word justice to our justice system. Some say that we have merely a legal system in Canada rather than a justice system. We as legislators have the ability to change this flawed piece of legislation and Mr. Ward deserves to rest in peace knowing that the killers were paying their dues and not walking free due to a legislative loophole.

In researching this issue, we found that we were not the only ones who recognized the need for this legislation. Upon hearing of the subject of the private member's bill, we received a number of letters of support and I will highlight just two of these.

The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime is an organization dedicated to victims rights and public safety. They were pleased to support this bill and gave another example of how the Criminal Code has produced more victims.

Steve Sullivan, Executive Director, wrote:

I met a woman during the 1994 CAVEAT Safetynet conference whose brother was beaten so badly that he ended up in a coma. Almost two years later Rick Gall's family made the heartbreaking decision to remove his life support.

Kevin Fougere, the individual who beat Mr. Gall, could not be charged with the murder and was sentenced to 18 months for an assault related charge. Fougere was clearly responsible for Mr. Gall's death.

At that time, the justice minister said that he was not considering amending section 227. Earlier this year he made comments suggesting that he would amend it and those sentiments were recently repeated by the current justice minister.

They go on to say in writing:

Your bill would bring the law up to date with modern medical technology. It amends the section 227 so as to remove the requirement that the victim must die within one year and a day for homicide charges to be laid. It is simply a recognition that people must be held responsible for their actions and the consequences of them.

Please accept this letter of support for Bill 215. I hope that this bill is deemed votable and the government supports your initiative.

Victims of Violence also wrote to me, stating:

Please be advised that we strongly support your initiative with Bill C-215. For too long we have had to explain to families of homicide victims the stupidity of the law that allows killers to escape proper charges and sentencing even if the death of the victim occurs as a direct result of the criminal's act.

As you are no doubt aware, the Criminal Code has simply not kept up with modern medicine. Severely injured people are being kept alive for extended periods of time today with possible hopes of recovery. The families of these victims are sometimes faced with the dilemma of allowing life support to be continued at a cost of having the murderer walk free if their loved one lives beyond one year and a day but still dies as a direct result of the injury.

Bill C-215 is just a common sense bill to bring the Criminal Code in tune with the reality of modern medicine today. It will undoubtedly save the families of some murder victims additional grief and suffering. We commend you for this effort.

I think those are very clear sentiments. In view of the 11 criteria that I have laid out, I would like to move a motion to receive unanimous consent of the House that this bill be made votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby has asked the House for unanimous consent that this bill be made votable. Is there unanimous consent?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member has three minutes remaining. However, if he has completed we will then go to debate.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to congratulate the hon. member from Wild Rose for bringing in Bill C-215, to abolish the year and a day rule from the Criminal Code, and forward for discussion to the House.

I fully agree with him that it is opportune for this rule to be the subject of law reform. This issue has been of great interest to the Minister of Justice in Manitoba, his immediate predecessor and Canadians such as Mark Ward, whose brother Marvin was the unfortunate victim of a vicious assault in 1995 which put him in a coma and ultimately resulted in his death, but outside the year and a day time limit. They too have been arguing for reform.

Section 227 of the Criminal Code provides that no person commits culpable homicide or the offence of causing the death of a person by criminal negligence or by means of the commission of an offence under subsection 249(4) or subsection 255(3) unless the death occurs within one year and one day from the time of the occurrence of the last event by means of which the person caused or contributed to the cause of death.

Bill C-215 seeks to remove the time limit from section 227. In seeking to do so, it proposes to put in place a new section 227 in the Criminal Code.

The historic origins of the year and a day rule go all the way back to the Middle Ages in England. In those days, two distinct prosecutions could be brought with respect to a homicide: a private prosecution and a public one.

For the purpose of simplifying private prosecutions, the Statute of Gloucester, passed in 1278, provided clearly that prosecution for a serious act causing death could stand, if members of the family began proceedings at the latest a year and a day after the act suspected of having caused the death.

This simple statement of fact was subsequently interpreted, however, as limiting the right to prosecute.

Over time, prosecution for death was repealed and the year and a day rule became an irrefutable requirement in cases of homicide; if the Crown could not prove that death had taken place during this period, there could not be culpable homicide.

This ancient rule, an accident of history, survived the years, and was codified in Canada's first Criminal Code in 1892.

Over the years three arguments have been offered in support of the rule. One, a person should not remain almost indefinitely at risk of prosecution for murder or for another fatal offence. Two, if a person lives for a long time after the injury was sustained then it is more difficult to say that the injury caused the death. Three, even when the rule applies, the accused can usually be convicted of a serious offence.

There appears to be little current support for the continued existence of the year and a day rule, however. The following criticisms can and have been made. There is no statute of limitations for homicide in Canada and therefore a person can be subject to prosecution years after a killing has taken place.

Second, this is an arbitrary rule which prevents justice from being done in certain cases. Death may occur just outside the time limit and a causal link may be proven, yet in such a case there would be no culpable homicide.

Third, it can also prevent justice from being done in cases involving long term causes of death. Another argument is that with modern life supporting technology, persons can be kept alive longer, yet this ancient rule continues to operate. Modern science can also assist in the determination of the cause of death, even after the passage of a number of years, so the causation argument is not strong.

Experiences in jurisdictions which do not have this rule seem to indicate that criminal justice systems can operate fairly and effectively without the rule. Last but not least, juries can and do have to consider complex evidence as to the cause of death, and if the crown does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused caused the victim's death then the prosecution will fail.

In June 1987, in a document entitled Recodifying Criminal Law , the Law Reform Commission of Canada recommended that a new rule of causation be added to the Criminal Code to replace the specific provisions on causal link with respect to homicide, including the year and a day rule. In its working paper on homicide, the LRC took the following position:

Section 210—now section 227—which provides that no person commits culpable homicide unless the death occurs within a period of a year and a day seems highly anachronistic.

The purpose of this rule was undoubtedly to spare a jury from having to rule on cases where the link between the reprehensible act and the victim's death was difficult to establish.

Nowadays, however, its usefulness is highly disputable, in so far as this matter can be satisfactorily resolved through existing medical and scientific knowledge.

In June 1991 the federal-provincial working group on homicide recommended a rule of causation to replace sections 224 and 227 of the Criminal Code to read:

Everyone causes death, when their conduct significantly contributes to death, notwithstanding that there may be other significant contributing factors and that such conduct may not alone have caused death.

As well, the Department of Justice consulted on a possible general rule of causation for the Criminal Code as part of the consultations on the general part in 1994 and 1995, but to date a reform effort to codify a general rule of causation has not proceeded. In other jurisdictions change has already taken place.

In July 1994, the law commission of England published a consultation paper on the year and a day rule with respect to murder and other related offences.

The paper outlines six options: one, maintain the rule; two, make it a rebuttable presumption; three, amend the rule and extend the limitation; four, abolish the rule with respect to certain offences, but keep it for others; five, abolish the rule and replace it with a limitation regarding the prosecution of homicide offences; and six, abolish the rule.

The Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act passed by the U.K. in 1996 abolishes the year and a day rule, except in cases of acts or omissions that had taken place before the legislation took effect. The act provides that it is necessary to obtain the consent of the attorney general before instituting proceedings in respect of an offence when it is alleged that the injuries that caused death were sustained more than three years before death, or in cases where the accused has already been found guilty of an offence related to the death.

In June 1997 the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong issued its report on the year and a day rule in homicide. The commission concluded that the rule is no longer necessary or appropriate, having regard to the present state of modern medical knowledge and the availability of life support machines.

The commission recommended that the rule ought to be abolished in relation to all offences involving death and suicide. It considered whether there ought to be safeguards to protect against unfair or late prosecutions but ultimately decided that it was unnecessary.

In summary, while there can be little doubt that change ought to occur, it may be premature to support this bill at this time. I think we should look to see if there is any need for safeguards to be put in place, as has been done in England, for example.

Bill C-215 provides an excellent legislative prototype for what it is we ought to achieve and will be extremely useful for the government in its examination of this important issue.

The Minister of Justice is committed to bringing reform to this area of the law and the work of the hon. member for Wild Rose and other members of this House who will be supporting Bill C-215 has been important in achieving this objective.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too, as a representative of the Bloc Quebecois, would like to congratulate the Reform Party member on this bill.

It reflects a concern in his riding and throughout Canada as well, even in Quebec. However, I think that examining section 227 from this angle is not perhaps the best approach.

I will not give the historical context, as those who spoke before me have done, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, but it should be pointed out that section 227, as it stands, makes it easier for the crown to establish the link of causality. I do not want to go into great detail and give a lecture on law, but there are three things the crown must establish beyond a reasonable doubt when faced with an offence of this type or in any other legal case.

There is mens rea, actus reus and causal link. In the first two instances, I think that the crown, through witnesses, through various means, through factual elements, can establish proof. But without section 227, the crown would sometimes have trouble establishing the causal link.

Section 227 is, therefore, not necessarily there to protect the accused at all times, as the Reform side has said so often. Sometimes, in Canada's legal history, since section 227 has been in existence, it has helped the Crown to demonstrate a causal link, when death did not occur at the precise moment the offence was committed, but days, weeks or months later.

The amendment presented by the Reform Party would remove this prescriptive period that prevents the Crown from using this causal link to prove its case.

The bill is very clear, it removes all time limits. It states:

—regardless of the time within which the death occurs after the time of the occurrence of the last event by means of which the person caused or contributed to the cause of death.

With today's medical technology and everything else the health system has to offer, a person can last two, three, four or five years, hooked up to machines and all manner of other things.

If the Reform member's bill were passed, we would be left in a kind of legal vacuum with respect to the offence, because the individual can be charged with culpable homicide but also with other very serious offences under the Criminal Code.

This year and a half limit makes it possible for the Crown to take position and get its act together. If the person cannot be charged with culpable homicide, he will be charged with something else, as I said before, with very serious offences. But with this bill, we would be left hanging until the victim died or his condition stabilized, before we could institute legal proceedings. I do not think that is what the legal system wants.

I am not saying that there are not some very specific cases like those listed earlier, the revolting nature of which casts doubt on the entire system, but if one is going to question the system, the approach must be comprehensive. We must examine the system with experts and look at legal precedents. The approach must be one of comparative law, rather like what the parliamentary secretary has done.

We have a British tradition. What happens in Great Britain, for instance, with its far longer history in this connection? What about certain of the Commonwealth countries? What is happening in Europe? What is happening with the Americans, who are very much at the forefront in technological terms, perhaps more so than Canada? How do they operate?

Perhaps we will conclude that a longer period of time will have to be set. I would be surprised if we were to conclude that no time period need be set. We might even conclude that section 227 no longer serves a purpose. I do not know, but it is surely following an in-depth study that we could make our mark as legislators in this House.

In short, my conclusion is that we consider the rule provided in section 227 of the Criminal Code to serve a purpose at this time. In fact, establishing a time period enables us to determine whether there is indeed a causal link between the act of the accused and the death of the victim. This is why we oppose Bill C-215 as written, since it removes any time frame.

On the other hand, we must still take into account the social, economic and scientific realities in which the provisions of the Criminal Code must apply. It may be relevant, in the short or medium term, to look at the length of time currently provided, that is the period of one year and one day. Perhaps, in the not too distant future, we will consider new provisions to try to ensure greater fairness, and I am sure everyone is working toward the objective of making our system fair and just.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the debate before the House today on private member's Bill C-215.

There was one occasion here today where unanimous consent was sought. I think it is important for the people who may be watching the House to see some co-operation and how well sometimes that can work.

There was unanimous consent to allow a different member to move the bill because of the importance of the bill. I think all members who have spoken today recognize that.

There was not unanimous consent to allow the bill to become votable and I am a little puzzled by that. I will just comment a little on the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

What we have heard from the government is that this is an important piece of legislation, that this legislation has to be modified in some way to be brought up to modern realities.

We have also heard that there is a law reform commission study making recommendations and recommending changes to what was section 210 and what is now section 227 of the Criminal Code.

We have to ask with some real concern why the government has not brought forward changes, which Canadians appear to want and which I think form the subject of the hon. member's bill and why he has crafted it as a private members' bill. That being said, I do appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comments regarding the amount of study that has to go into this kind of a change.

My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois talked a little about some of the things I wanted to mention. When a crime is committed, the law requires first of all that there is a presumption of innocence, that the individual who is charged with the crime is innocent until proven guilty.

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the crown must establish two things. First is actus reus, which is the physical commission of the offence, the actual physical driving of the car in the case of negligence or impaired driving. The crown must also prove mens rea, which is the Latin phrase for the mental element for the commission of the crime.

As is indicated by the parliamentary secretary, one of the reasons we have a rule that derives from the English tradition that says one cannot be charged a year and a day later is precisely to ensure some security to the accused. How can the crown determine mens rea? How can an accused be expected to offer a defence after a prolonged period of time?

I am not saying that with today's technology that remains the only defence for this type of section, but it is worthy of study and it is something we have to look at.

The mover of the bill and I think all members here today talked about the desire on the part of Canadians to see some change. The mover of the bill talked about victims and the fact that he had received correspondence from victims saying that they wanted this change to ensure that the perpetrators of the crime were brought to justice. I think the quote the hon. member used was that the killers pay their dues instead of not doing so.

I am not sure if we do not amend this section of the code today that we deny justice. We have to examine what we mean when we talk about justice, what we mean when we talk about punishment and what we mean when we talk about closure for victims.

Whether or not extending the time period for prosecution to allow for a charge of homicide to be laid is the only way to bring closure for victims and to bring justice to society has to be questioned. Given the limitations that this section now provides, we can look to some alternate and perhaps more creative ways to determine what is justice for a family and indeed in this situation for a victim who may remain alive on a life support system.

If we look at the restorative justice models which call for a different type of punishment, a type of punishment that makes the perpetrator of the crime accountable to the victim and to the victim's family, we may find that even if we do not amend this section of the code, there are still ways to ensure that the perpetrator of the crime has to pay some penalty.

In the absence of legislation coming from the government, where I think it has recognized and admitted the need for change, and in the absence of this bill being a votable item, perhaps we can indicate to the crown attorneys across the country that there may be creative ways for them to look at laying charges even though those charges may be lesser charges than homicide.

That being said, I too congratulate the member for bringing forward this piece of legislation. It has encouraged some debate. I hope the government will take some direction from this House and from the hon. member that the legislation has to be changed. The government is taking some direction in that regard but perhaps not as quickly as we would like.

I compliment and commend the hon. member for bringing forward the legislation. It is worthy of debate and serious study as to the consequences in terms of the justice system, as to the consequences for both the crown and the accused, the conduct of a trial, the gathering of evidence, the maintaining of evidence and those types of things.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-215, an act to amend section 227 of the Criminal Code. This bill has the objective of replacing section 227 in order to deal with a person who commits a culpable homicide or the offence of causing the death of another person regardless of the time at which the death occurs. Right now the code says that for a person to be found guilty, the death must have occurred within a year.

People in Quebec would remember the case of a taxi driver who was beaten to death by police officers. The taxi driver was in a vegetative coma for many months and finally died more than a year after the incident took place. The police officers could not be charged with the culpable homicide because of the time that had elapsed between the time of the commission of the crime and the resulting death.

We all understand that the amendment proposed by my colleague would cover such very sad cases, but does this House want to completely open section 227 of the Criminal Code? Do we really want to not have any time limit imposed? This House should not say yes to these questions before it reflects on the consequences of such an amendment.

By having no time limit it would become much more difficult to establish the link between the cause and the effect of the death. If a crime occurs today but the death of the victim occurs five years later, how can our police and prosecutors really establish that it was the last event that caused the death and not something else? It could become a technical battle in court, a battle between lawyers needless to say. Furthermore it is impossible in Canadian law to prosecute the same person twice for the same act. It would be impossible to charge someone with aggravated assault only to later change the charge to culpable homicide.

With section 227 written as proposed in Bill C-215, how long would a crown prosecutor be forced to wait before pressing charges? If there is no time limit, the jobs of the crown and the police are made much more difficult.

There is a further example of consequences to this amendment to section 227. What about cases where victims are comatose and the family decides to pull the plug on the life support machine? Would that be considered death following the last event? These are all only small but important examples of the consequences to our criminal justice system of the amendments proposed by my colleague.

The Progressive Conservative Party believes that the Criminal Code should be revised, but we also believe that it should not be changed piece by piece. It has been many years since there was a complete revision of the Criminal Code as a whole, and maybe it is time to start thinking of doing it. Maybe this House through its standing committee on justice could begin such a revision.

It is our belief that Bill C-215 has touched on a good point and that the principle behind the amendment is a good one. But it is also our belief that while section 227 should be broadened, it should not be left wide open. We believe there should be a revision of the time limit between the moment an act has been committed and the time a death has occurred. We also believe there should be a reasonable cut off time in that limit.

For those reasons and the ones previously mentioned we cannot support Bill C-215.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Resuming debate. The Chair will recognize the member for Wild Rose but this will terminate the debate.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this bill. I should apologize to you and the House for not being able to be here at 5.30 p.m. to present it myself. However, I am living proof that a country boy should not dare rent a car in a big city because he will get lost, and he did. I was a little late getting here and I do apologize for that.

I thank my colleague from British Columbia for presenting this bill on my behalf. I do appreciate the interest that was shown in what we are attempting to do.

However I am a little dismayed. Once again we see a bill presented that completely meets the criteria to be votable. I am really wondering why we have in our procedure a committee whose purpose is to make certain that a bill meets the criteria before it can be declared votable. Once again, even though it met the criteria, a handful of MPs decided on behalf of all Canadians that this bill was not worth being voted on. Whether the bill is good or bad is beside the point. The point is that it should be debated fully and everyone should have an opportunity to vote on it.

I am disappointed that the governing body, the Liberals, would not allow this bill to be votable because the justice minister herself has been quoted a number of times from her speeches about the extreme need to take care of this section of the Criminal Code. I was surprised to even have the opportunity to bring this bill forward because according to all the news reports, this was something that was going to be accomplished by the justice minister in the fall. It should not surprise me. Surprise is the wrong word. It is no surprise when the Liberals decide to promise that something will be done and it does not happen. That is old stuff.

I have heard a lot of people say that we need to make certain we do not put legislation in place that would cause the justice system to crumble here or there. I would like to remind the House that we have to start listening to Canadians. We have to make changes to this legislation that reflect Canadians' description of a good justice system. That description today does not fit in the minds of a big majority of Canadians. They are an unhappy lot with the justice system. That is quite obvious and any members who would doubt that, I would challenge them to go to any street corner in their ridings and find out for themselves.

The system Canadians are looking for is one that would put a strong emphasis on meeting the needs of the victims and the victims' survivors. It is high time we had a system that said that the needs and rights of victims of crime are a little more important than the rights of the criminal and the perpetrators of the crime. That is what Canadians want to see. That is what I was attempting to do by introducing this bill. I want to see that the Canadian people, the ones who pay the bill for this justice system, get what they desire.

Even the governing body would have to admit that there is an unhappiness among Canadians. Otherwise we would not have CAVEAT, CRY and FACT and thousands of Canadians who belong to victims groups fighting for their rights to be recognized in a stronger way. That is what must begin to happen. Sooner or later it will have to start happening.

To deny this bill to be fully debated and voted on is wrong. To deny any bill that meets the criteria and tries to address the needs of victims is wrong.

The unfortunate part of this whole thing is that there are the Ward family and other families whose loved ones come under this section of the Criminal Code and therefore justice was never served. If there is one thing that victims deserve and survivors of victims deserve, it is the peace of mind that after the horrible tragedies that they have gone through that at least justice has been served. This government for many years now has failed to address that. It is time that we start doing it. It is long overdue.

Once again, I thank those who supported the idea that this should be discussed fully and debated. I for one will never ever forget the fact that there are two parties to every crime, the criminal and the victim. As for me, my support and my efforts will be to the benefit of the victim at every opportunity.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

As hon. members know, we have the late show tonight that starts in another 15 minutes. We have 15 minutes to wait until the participants arrived. We have a choice. We can suspend to the call of the Chair, or may we have a motion to see the clock as 6.30?

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

I so move.