Lost her last election, in 2008, with 39% of the vote.
Consolidated Statutes Of Canada November 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, proposals to correct anomalies, contradictions or errors identified in the Statutes of Canada and to make other minor and non-controversial amendments, as well as to repeal certain legislation that no longer applies.
Criminal Code November 4th, 1998
There is no conspiracy, Peter.
Criminal Code November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 contains a number of changes that the government has identified as requiring fairly quick action, and we have acted. These changes would have normally been dealt with in the next major Criminal Code omnibus amendments, but the government wanted to deal with them sooner.
The Department of Justice also tracks technical problems with the Criminal Code. It produced a list of other amendments correcting legislative oversights and other minor problems to complete the package. Since this is an omnibus bill there is no common policy theme which connects the changes.
Parliament has the responsibility and the constitutional authority to pass laws on criminal matters, but the application of these laws is under provincial jurisdiction. We must therefore take into consideration what works and does not work, according to the provinces.
We meet regularly with the provinces and we take their expectations into account when we develop strategies in criminal law. Many of the proposed amendments to the law come out of this process. When these changes are considered, we must bear in mind that they arise from requests and proposals by the provinces, which play an important role in the application of criminal law in Canada.
A number of amendments are a direct product of provincial requests. For example, the changes to the gambling provisions originate from Quebec and Ontario. The changes to the child prostitution provisions originate from British Columbia and Alberta. The repeal of the year and a day rule responds to concerns from a number of sources, most recently from Manitoba.
Several provinces also asked to expand the ambit of non-communication orders to prevent persons charged with domestic violence offences from contacting victims or witnesses both before and after their bail hearing. The proposed legislation authorizes the first judge or justice before whom the accused appears to make such orders.
One of the cornerstones of the bill is the repeal of the year and a day rule in section 227 of the Criminal Code. Cases where it will apply are relatively rare but have been increasing in recent years because medical advances make it more likely that victims of assault will survive for extended periods. Forensic advances also make it possible to prove the causation of death in cases involving disease or environmental pollution where it would not have been possible a few years ago. I was pleased to note that members of all sides of the House support this amendment.
Another change which was a priority was the provision linking the new deceptive telemarketing offences proposed by the Minister of Industry in Bill C-20 with the Criminal Code proceeds of crime provisions.
When Bill C-20 was drafted and introduced it was not apparent that this was an important link. Competition Act offences are regulatory criminal law and the competition bureau would not usually consider it necessary to target proceeds from the other offences it enforces such as misleading advertising.
This is not the case with deceptive telemarketing. As we have seen both from our own examination of the problem and recent media coverage, telemarketing fraud and deceptive telemarketing are capable of generating large proceeds. They involve the use of telephone boiler rooms to contact large numbers of victims. Individual losses may be large or small, but if many victims are targeted the overall proceeds are often very large, marking confiscation a major deterrent and an important step toward compensating victims.
The proceeds are so large in some cases that this sort of crime has attracted the attention of more traditional organized crime groups in Canada, making the targeting of proceeds even more important.
Both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Industry take this matter very seriously. As soon as the need for this link was identified it was included in the bill. The offence of fraud already falls within the proceeds of crime scheme. The inclusion of deceptive telemarketing will help to ensure that criminals cannot hide their own considerable profits from forfeiture and restitution to their victims.
Another organized crime priority for both Quebec and the solicitor general was the exclusion of those convicted of organized crime offences from accelerated parole review. This proved to be a fairly straightforward amendment. It was proceeded with but concerns have been voiced that it does not go far enough.
As proposed, organized crime offenders would be excluded as long as the organized crime element is proven either on conviction or sentence. To go further than this and catch everything at conviction might require the restructuring of the money laundering offence. This would go beyond what is reasonable to attempt to do in an omnibus bill.
The solicitor general and the justice minister were anxious to proceed with this change quickly. The criminal organization offence was added to the Criminal Code less than two years ago by the government. Fairly quick action was needed on this issue before a significant number of cases arose.
Another important organized crime issue is the potential use of rough diamonds produced in Canada as a medium of exchange by organized crime. As members of the House will know, the first ever Canadian diamond mine began production in the Northwest Territories earlier this month. This represents an important and welcome source of economic development for Canada's north, but there are concerns that the high value of rough diamonds will attract thieves and organized crime interests.
For this reason the Minister of Justice wanted to move quickly to expand the Criminal Code offences dealing with precious metals to include valuable minerals other than gold, silver or platinum. This would ensure the law covers rough diamonds and any other gemstones or other similar minerals that might be discovered in Canada in the future.
In the case of international cruise ships, the amendments would allow Canadian registered cruise ships, which fall under Canadian law regardless of where they are, and foreign registered cruise ships in Canadian waters to offer gambling to passengers.
The changes will also allow cruise ships entering Canadian waters to import gambling equipment in their casinos without charge.
This is expected to provide direct benefits to the cruise industry itself and indirect benefits to tourism and other business in the ports where cruise ships call. Canadian registered cruise ships will be competitive while abroad and foreign registered ships will not be deterred from calling on Canadian ports.
The cruise industry is an important and rapidly growing part of regional economies, particularly in the St. Lawrence valley of Quebec and the coastal waters of British Columbia.
I am happy that we have proposed amendments that will address the concerns and interests of these provinces and their populations. I am convinced that the proposed amendments will not lead to a significant increase in overall gambling and will not conflict with provincially regulated gambling.
In Canadian waters, gambling will only be allowed on genuine international cruise ships during actual international cruises. No gambling will be permitted when ships stop over. I want to make this very clear.
The bill also contains a series of sentencing reforms. As with other amendments, the purpose is not to make fundamental changes to sentencing policy but to address certain specific concerns that have arisen with the sentencing reform bill, Bill C-41, which took effect in late 1996.
Bill C-41 created a number of general rules dealing with fines, conditional sentences and other measures. The application of the new general rules to specific provisions of the Criminal Code and other acts have had to be reconciled or adjusted in some cases as we begin to see how the various provisions are being applied by the courts. It is too early to consider any fundamental changes to the sentencing provisions but there are a number of areas that warrant refinement in our opinion.
For example the legislation will clarify the relationship between the new general rules governing fines and other specific punishments in the Criminal Code and other statutes. There has been some question about whether the fine provisions would have priority over punishment rules for specific offences. The proposed amendments will ensure that a specific fine imposed pursuant to a specific offence provision has priority over the general rules. They will also clarify that if there is a minimum jail or prison term, the fine options are not available as an alternative to it. In other words, the offender may be sentenced to a fine in addition to custody but not instead of it.
The most important sentencing changes deal with the enforcement of conditional sentences. They are designed to ensure that the enforcement of conditional sentence orders is effective and that offenders face appropriate consequences for breaches of their conditions. Offenders who breach the conditions of their sentences will no longer get credit for time spent while they were in breach. The running of their sentence will be held in abeyance until a court concludes an inquiry into the breach no matter how long that takes.
In light of the House standing committee's plan to study the whole issue of conditional sentencing as was requested by the Minister of Justice, we believe fundamental changes should not pre-empt its work. Furthermore a number of cases have been dealt with by appeal courts and several are pending before the Supreme Court of Canada. We believe we should allow the supreme court to render its decisions in these cases so that any further changes are predicated upon a solid legal foundation.
This bill consists of changes that will not revolutionize Canada's criminal justice system. They are not for the most part glamorous and they will not generate newspaper headlines, but they are important. They are important to the police community which seeks powers to target proceeds of crime. They are important to victims who are intimidated by assailants even when they are in custody. And they are important to our prosecutors and our courts that are charged with the weighty task of ensuring justice is both done and seen to be done on a daily basis.
I therefore ask that all members join the Minister of Justice, this government and me in supporting these amendments.
Greek Community October 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, last Sunday I attended two very important events in Montreal's Greek community.
The first commemorated October 28, 1940, known as OXI day, when the Greek government of the time stood up to the forces trying to divide and conquer Europe, and the second marked the liberation of Thessalonica on October 26, 1912.
The Prime Minister sent the Greek community a message, which I will read: “Canadians of Greek origin have every reason to be proud of their important contributions, past and present, to Canada's growth and prosperity”.
I am very proud that Canada has maintained the continuing tradition of recognizing contributions of Canadians of other origins.
Part of Canada's uniqueness besides its diversity is its tradition of democratic principles and rights, the same rights which were hard fought by the resistance forces in Greece in 1940. Tomorrow I join half a million Greeks across Canada in celebrating our continued fight to protect both our democratic—
Criminal Code October 20th, 1998
Madam Speaker, in our view the objectives of the private member's bill now before the House are already well served by the tools provided by common law principles of sentencing and the legislation currently in place.
Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code, makes it an indictable offence for a person to use a stolen motor vehicle while committing or attempting to commit an offence, or during flight after committing or attempting to commit an offence.
A person found guilty of this indictable offence must be sentenced to one year's imprisonment. This sentence must be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.
Two mechanisms are currently in place to deal with such a situation. The first is reflected in the common law principles that govern sentencing. On a daily basis judges across Canada impose sentences on offenders convicted of a wide variety of Criminal Code offences, including offences involving the use of a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence. The sentencing process has been repeatedly recognized as an individualized process by courts at all levels in Canada, including the Supreme Court of Canada.
This individualized sentencing process allows the tribunal to exercise its discretionary power based on the facts relating to each specific case. The sentences imposed by any tribunal show that the factors taken into account by the courts include aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the seriousness of the offence, the offender's responsibility and the sentences imposed on other persons for similar offences committed under similar circumstances.
The objectives judges seek to achieve through sentencing include: denouncing the illegal behaviour of offenders, deterring others from offending, recognizing the harm done to the victims and the community, isolating offenders from the rest of society if required, and providing compensation to the victims or community. In fact, it is difficult to determine generally what constitutes an appropriate sentence for a given type of criminal behaviour.
The second mechanism which can be used to deal with the situation described in Bill C-219 is legislation put in place by this government, something the hon. member consistently failed to recognize in his speech. Bill C-41, the Sentencing Reform Act, enacted in 1995, provides judges with the first ever statement of purpose and principles of sentencing in the Criminal Code. This statement provides direction to courts on the fundamental purpose of sentencing which is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. The sentencing amendments to the Criminal Code which came into force in September 1996 also identified the objectives which the sentencing of offenders is designed to achieve.
The provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing also set out a number of basic principles that should guide the courts in achieving sentencing objectives.
According to these principles, the sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender—the proportionality principle; the courts should take into account aggravating and mitigating circumstances and impose similar sentences for similar actions; excessively long or harsh sentences must be avoided—the totality principle; offenders should not be imprisoned if a more lenient sentence can be imposed; and the courts should consider every possible sentence besides imprisonment that may be justified under the circumstances.
It is within this statutory framework that a sentencing judge would determine the appropriate sanction to impose on an offender who had been charged and convicted of theft of a motor vehicle or who had been charged and convicted of another substantive Criminal Code offence which involved the use of a stolen motor vehicle in the commission, attempted commission or flight following commission of the offence. This statutory framework clearly enables and guides courts in tailoring sanctions appropriate to the conduct of the offender.
Where an offender used a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence, courts would consider this to be an aggravated factor in sentencing and one which would merit the application of the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence. If while in flight in a stolen motor vehicle following the commission of an offence the offender posed a danger to the lives or safety of others due to excessive speed, for example, this too would be considered an aggravating factor meriting a harsher sentence.
The sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code also allow the judge to exercise the discretionary power to impose consecutive sentences if necessary. We believe that the current sentencing process is comprehensive and gives all the flexibility required to adjust sentences to the circumstances surrounding each offender's behaviour.
The proposals contained in Bill C-219 are simply not required at this time to address the conduct of offenders using a stolen motor vehicle in the commission, attempted commission or flight following commission of an offence. We already have the tools at our disposal to deal with the situation.
The Late Right Hon. Brian Dickson October 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to speak in memory of one our most distinguished legal minds, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Brian Dickson, who passed away last Saturday, at the age of 82.
He sat on the Supreme Court of Canada from 1973 to 1990, and became chief justice in 1984, a position he held until 1990.
Before joining this country's highest court he sat on the Manitoba bench. He also served his country heroically in World War II. He made a lasting contribution to the law and played a critical role in developing jurisprudence under the charter of rights and freedoms.
He will be remembered as a jurist of keen intellect, discerning judgment and great integrity. He will be missed by all who had the honour of knowing and working with him. This is a sad loss for all Canadians.
I know all parliamentarians will join me and the government in extending condolences to his family and friends, and our respect for a great jurist and a war hero who served his country well.
Extradition Act October 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I remind the hon. member of the bill before the House, an extradition bill which has nothing to do with the Senate. He has not understood what extradition is all about. That is obvious from the rhetoric we have been hearing for the last 10 minutes.
I would like the member to stick to what we have before the House, Bill C-40, a bill on extradition of criminals and organized crime.
Extradition Act October 8th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-40.
The bill overhauls extradition laws in Canada and creates a modern, effective system for extradition appropriate for the 21st century. It will help us to better meet our international commitments and ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for criminals seeking to avoid justice.
The Extradition Act, which is of general application, and the Fugitive Offenders Act, which applies to the extradition process between Commonwealth countries referred to as rendition, both date from the late 1800s.
Aside from amendments to the extradition appeal process enacted in 1992, these statutes have remained essentially unchanged from the last century.
Extradition laws as they now stand cause serious problems, as we are unable to turn over criminals to countries with which we do not have extradition agreements or treaties; to entities other than a state, such as United Nations tribunals for war crimes; or to countries where extradition treaties are in force but where an outdated list of offences does not include modern offences like drug trafficking, money laundering and computer crimes.
The current extradition process places onerous evidentiary requirements on foreign states and the legislation does not set out clear and adequate procedural and human rights safeguards for persons whose extradition is being sought.
Given the increasing ease of international travel, the advancement of technology and the global economy, major crime and criminals are no longer local in nature.
Transnational crime and criminals are now the norm, not the exception. Canada's laws must be modernized in recognition of that reality.
We have seen in the last few years a number of cases where Canada's extradition laws have not been sufficient to enable Canada to fulfill its international obligation and expeditiously extradite fugitives to other countries in order to face justice. The problem has been most acute in respect of countries of a different legal tradition such as those in Europe.
In the case of a number of requests from countries other than the United States extradition proceedings cannot be instituted. In other instances states are so discouraged by the different hurdles imposed by our current extradition law that they do not even initiate an extradition request. The primary problem is that the current legislation mandates that the foreign states submit evidence in support of their request in a form which meets the complicated requirements of Canadian evidentiary rules.
For countries which do not have a common law system, and for which concepts such as hearsay are unknown, this requirement makes the preparation of a request for extradition a tremendously difficult task, and in some instances an impossible one. Even with countries with a similar legal tradition such as the United States, we have heard on numerous occasions how difficult it is to obtain extradition from Canada. In the context of our other common law jurisdictions such as Great Britain and Australia, Canada's system is viewed as one fraught with difficulties due to the antiquity of our legislation.
With global crime becoming a significant concern at home and internationally, we know that the deficiencies in our legislation will continue to be questioned. Within the G-7 P-8 forum for example, states have been requested to modernize their extradition laws in order to be responsive to the challenges of today's transnational crimes and criminals. All the fora which have considered the serious problem of transnational organized crime have identified extradition as a critical tool to combat this growing threat to world order. In the P-8, the United Nation and within the Commonwealth there have been calls for countries to put in place a comprehensive, effective and modern process for extradition.
In light of Canada's antiquated extradition laws and the magnitude of the changes necessary to modernize our current process for extradition, an entirely new proposed extradition act was drafted, amalgamating and substantially adding to the provisions of the current Extradition Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act.
An important feature of this bill is that it will allow for extradition not just to states but to the United Nations war crimes tribunal and any future entities of this nature, including the proposed international criminal court, the statute for which was recently adopted by the United Nations diplomatic conference in Rome.
This bill will enable us to fulfill our international obligations to comply with the United Nations security council resolution establishing the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. According to these resolutions we have to provide assistance and surrender fugitives to the tribunals if so requested.
As our law now stands, we could be in breach of our obligations as members of the United Nations if persons sought by either tribunal were located in Canada and we were not able to extradite.
In addition to allowing for extradition to the international criminal courts or tribunals, Bill C-40 will apply to all requests for extradition made to Canada. Unlike our current limited extradition regime, the new scheme allows for extradition on the basis of bilateral and multilateral treaties, or where the state or entity making the request is designated as an extradition partner in a schedule to the bill.
It also permits the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade to enter into a specific agreement for extradition with any state or entity on a case by case basis.
The bill will also apply to all requests for extradition made by Canada to a foreign state.
I would like to emphasize three particular aspects of the bill, as they mark the most significant step toward modernizing our extradition procedures.
As I said, one of the worst problems with the current extradition process in Canada has to do with the complexity of the evidentiary requirements imposed on foreign countries filing requests for extradition with Canada.
For many countries, especially those with a legal tradition different from ours, it is extremely difficult to collect all the extradition documents required under Canadian rules of evidence.
Under the new bill the legal standard for extradition would be retained. That is, a Canadian judge will still have to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence before her or him of the conduct underlying the request for extradition which, if it occurred in Canada, would justify a trial for a criminal offence. Lawyers like to refer to this as the prima facie test.
What would be modified is the form of evidence that could be presented to the extradition judge. This approach addresses the current difficult evidentiary requirement for first person affidavits devoid of hearsay, which is the main problem encountered by states requesting extradition from Canada.
Experience tells us that it is already extremely difficult for states to meet the prima facie case standard through the use of first person affidavits in relation to certain types of modern day crime; for example, complicated fraud. With the increasing complexity of transborder and international crime, it will be more so in the future.
As I have said earlier, under the current system some countries simply decide not to seek the extradition of fugitives because they cannot comply with our current legal requirements. Those fugitives, therefore, remain at large in our communities.
Under the new legislation the judge would admit into evidence documentation contained in a record of the case. The record would contain evidence gathered according to the rules and procedures followed in the requesting state. It may contain a summary of the evidence available prepared by the appropriate foreign judge or official. The evidence may not be in the form of an affidavit and may be unsworn. The objective is to accept the evidence in the form used by the foreign state, provided it is sufficient according to a Canadian extradition judge to demonstrate criminal conduct under Canadian law and to require a trial in the requesting state.
This record of the case would be certified by appropriate authorities in the requesting state and accompanied by certain assurances in relation to issues such as the availability of the evidence, its sufficiency for prosecution purposes or its accuracy.
The notion of a record of the case is consistent with the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on hearsay in which the supreme court abandoned the strict formalism of the hearsay rule to adopt a more flexible standard based on necessity and circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness.
In some respects, therefore, the existent evidentiary requirements for a Canadian extradition hearing are more formalistic and onerous than those for a Canadian trial.
Following a careful consideration of other options, we concluded that the record of the case should be available to all foreign states irrespective of their legal system. The minister believes that the “record of the case for all states option” is the best compromise between the present impractical evidentiary requirements and the absence of any judicial assessment of the evidence, as is presently the procedure followed in Australia and the United Kingdom in respect of its European partners.
With this option the legal test would not change. What would change, however, is the form in which that evidence would be acceptable in a Canadian court.
Bill C-40 also includes a number of improvements and safeguards.
First, when he submits an extradition request so that the person sought can be tried, the competent prosecutor will have to certify in Canada that the summarized evidence is available for the trial and is sufficient, in a common law system for example, for prosecution purposes in that country.
Second, the person sought will receive a summary of the case rather than just affidavits on particular elements. These will provide a clearer picture in our opinion of the evidence supporting the request.
Third, the Minister of Justice may decline to issue an authority to proceed with an extradition hearing if the minister is not satisfied with the content of the record.
Finally, as noted above, the extradition judge will order committal of the person into custody to await surrender only if evidence would justify committal for trial in Canada if the offence was committed here in Canada.
This brings me to the second important feature of this reform. The extradition law, as it currently stands, does not provide for a code of procedure. If one were to consult the Extradition Act or the Fugitive Offenders Act, one would be hard pressed to understand how proceedings commence, whether the fugitive is entitled to bail, how someone is to be arrested, how one can waive proceedings, whether temporary surrender is possible, et cetera. In other words, there is a clear need to spell out the procedure.
It is important at a time when transborder crime is becoming more prevalent to have an extradition process which is effective on a practical level.
At the same time, it is equally important that the process be a clear one and that the written statute detail the nature of that process and the protections accorded to those who are the subject of extradition proceedings. We simply cannot afford to be in the position where we will be criticized by Canadians for having let the country become a haven for criminals by not evolving with our times. Yet we must also produce a reform which addresses the basic procedural requirements needed for a fair extradition process in Canada.
Let me briefly go through the main procedural features included in the extradition law reform. The first point, which is clearly related to the evidentiary requirements that I just spoke about, concerns the respective roles of the courts and the executive branch in extradition cases.
The current two-track system will be maintained. The judicial track will continue to ensure that the underlying conduct would be criminal in Canada and there is a case against the person.
The Minister of Justice, on the other hand, will have the responsibility for assessing the foreign legal system to ensure that human rights are respected and a fair trial will be provided in the requesting state.
The bill outlines the mandatory and discretionary grounds for the refusal of surrender by the minister, such as political offence, lack of jurisdiction, death penalty, humanitarian considerations, previous acquittal or conviction and trial in absentia.
However, the Minister of Justice will continue to have discretion to decide in each particular case whether or not to seek assurances from the requesting state that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out.
It should be noted that under no circumstances shall the minister make a surrender order if he or she is satisfied that the surrender would be unjust or oppressive or that extradition has been sought for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person by reason of race, religion, sex or other similar grounds.
Where a person could face prosecution or punishment because of a prohibited ground of discrimination, the clause we chose was directly taken from the United Nations model treaty on extradition. The UN treaty provides greater protection than exists in most bilateral treaties.
However, I am aware that the list of grounds could be considered under-inclusive and, as a result, the minister is asking the committee to analyse this clause in particular.
Overall, the safeguards referred to in the legislation are provided in addition to any protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which the person sought may have.
As well, the decisions to be made by the extradition judge or by the Minister of Justice will be subject to appeal or review by provincial courts of appeal.
Finally, the proposed legislation also seeks to harmonize the extradition and refugee processes, as conflict may arise when someone subject to an extradition request makes a claim for refugee status.
Thus, Bill C-40 modifies the Extradition Act and the Immigration Act in order to avoid duplication of decision making and to limit delay in the extradition process. The legislation also provides a means for consultation between the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in such matters.
More specifically, the Immigration Act would be modified to provide that if extradition proceedings have been initiated for an offence punishable in Canada by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment or more and that person has claimed refugee status, a hearing by the convention refugee determination division of the Immigration and Refugee Board shall not be commenced or shall be adjourned until a final decision on extradition is rendered.
If the decision is made not to extradite the person, the convention refugee determination division hearing may commence or resume.
If the person is committed for extradition by an extradition judge and ordered surrendered by the Minister of Justice, the order of surrender is deemed to be a decision by the CRDD that the person is not a convention refugee because of the evidentiary grounds presented in the extradition case of a serious non-political offence.
This is in keeping with the exclusion on grounds of serious non-political crimes provided by article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention to which Canada is bound.
I cannot end my overview of Bill C-40 without mentioning the important modifications to the Criminal Code, the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and the Canada Evidence Act which allow for the use of video and audio-link technology to gather evidence and provide testimony from witnesses in Canada or abroad.
Although these modifications will contribute to a more efficient extradition process in specific cases, their aim is much broader as they will allow the use of such technology in criminal and other proceedings as well.
In an age of amazing technological development it is critical that our laws and justice system are flexible enough to permit the use of that technology where possible, appropriate and beneficial to proceedings.
When globalization of new technologies is expanding the reach of organized crime we must ensure that our justice system also uses new technologies to capture and prosecute criminals. Where witnesses cannot be brought before the court because they are outside Canada or they are in another part of Canada and circumstances preclude their attendance, the use of video or audio-link technology is a much better alternative than the written statement or the taking of evidence by a foreign court.
I believe that these modifications represent a major, possibly revolutionary, change in testimonial evidence which takes into account modern day realities and the rights of the accused.
The bill provides that, in respect of video and audio-link evidence from Canada to a foreign state, the laws relating to evidence and procedure of a foreign state would apply as though the person testifying in Canada was physically before the court outside Canada, but only if the evidence would not disclose information otherwise protected by the Canadian law of non-disclosure of information or privilege.
However, the bill also provides that the Canadian law relating to contempt of court, perjury and contradictory evidence would apply to these persons, parties or witnesses, whether they are testifying from Canada to a foreign state or from outside Canada to Canada.
In the case of evidence given by the video or audio-link in Canada by a witness elsewhere in Canada, the bill amends the Criminal Code so that the court could order that such evidence be provided by such means if it is appropriate considering all the circumstances.
The court shall receive evidence given by video-link by a witness outside of Canada unless one of the parties satisfies the court that the reception of such testimony would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice in this country. The court may receive evidence given by audio links from a witness outside Canada, if it would be appropriate considering all the circumstances.
In conclusion, I wish to once again stress the importance of that legislation for Canada and its partners. It brings about a comprehensive review of Canada's extradition provisions, so as to provide law enforcement authorities and prosecutors with the tools they need to co-operate with other states and entities, in order to counteract the threat of transborder crime and ensure that Canada never becomes a haven for fugitives.
Hom-Enet-Man October 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, today in parliament members of the House are invited to a reception in 200 West Block to commemorate the 80th international anniversary of Hom-enet-man, the largest benevolent sports and scouts organization in the Armenian Diaspora.
This non-profit organization's mission is to invest in young people and to develop their devotion and will. In addition, it encourages them to become good Canadians and law-abiding citizens. It provides them with a good physical and moral education, encourages them to think and helps them develop a team spirit.
I congratulate the Armenian community and the Hom-enet-man organization on its 80th anniversary. Organizations such as this one have a mandate to inspire young people and to strengthen such basic principles of life as courage, discipline, honour and perseverance. Their involvement with young people clearly shows their devotion to the community—
An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms October 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the bill seeks to elevate property rights protection in the Canadian bill of rights above that of any rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, let alone the bill of rights.
The government believes that property rights are important and deserving of protection, that they currently enjoy sufficient protection, and that there is no need for this private member's motion.
First I will address the protection already afforded to property rights and then why the proposals to codify further protections in the bill of rights and the Constitution are unnecessary and inappropriate.
Numerous statutes regulate and protect property in Canada. There are common law rules which govern the purchase and sale of land, for instance, or the taking of interest in mortgages or leases. Real and personal property laws govern the acquisition and sale of all property of this nature. There are also laws that protect the right to own various forms of property, from vehicles to copyright.
One of the fundamental rules of law respected by the drafters of bills in the Department of Justice is the principle that property may not be expropriated without compensation. This guiding principle is mentioned on the department's Internet site.
This right must be weighed against society's other values. For example, our thinking about property and the equitable protection to which people are entitled so that they are not deprived of their right to the enjoyment of property has evolved.
The federal Divorce Act and provincial and territorial family laws ensure that women are not deprived of their right to a fair share of matrimonial property, regardless of who has legal title.
Another source of protection of property rights is the direct declaration in the Canadian bill of rights. The Canadian bill of rights has quasi-constitutional status. A number of its provisions were repeated in specific provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the charter contains no specific clause on property rights, section 1 of the bill of rights would continue to protect property rights. It states:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.
Thus this clause protects property rights in that a person cannot be deprived of his rights except by regular application of the law.
The bill of rights requires the Minister of Justice to examine every bill before the House to ensure that it is consistent with the bill of rights and to report any inconsistency to the House. It is then up to hon. members, in accordance with the democratic process, to determine whether nevertheless to pass the bill.
One of our main concerns about Bill C-304 is that it would give property rights precedence over all other rights protected in the Bill of Rights, as well as in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As things now stand, Parliament cannot pass bills inconsistent with the charter or the bill of rights without including a notwithstanding clause. Clauses 3 and 5 of Bill C-304, which propose the addition of new paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2, as well as new section 6 to the bill of rights, would require the votes of at least two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons for these provisions to be amended or a notwithstanding clause to be passed.
In principle, our government is opposed to any more protection of property rights than is already provided for in the charter, such as the protection of rights flowing from the act or prohibiting discrimination against disabled persons. This is particularly true when we examine the evolving concepts of property and discrimination.
In a complex society with many interests and competing rights, we must recognize that rights are not absolute. We have and need laws to govern the use of property in the public interest. There is a network of laws not only at the federal level but also at the provincial and municipal levels.
Earlier I mentioned the federal Divorce Act and provincial and territorial laws which ensure that matrimonial property is equitably divided upon the breakup of a marriage. In addition, environmental legislation establishes a whole body of regulations governing everything from the disposal of hazardous waste to cutting down trees. There are also laws that govern ownership of shares of limited companies, bankruptcy, ownership of land by non-Canadians, land use and zoning in residential or farming areas.
In each of these cases and laws there are limitations on property, ownership and use. Everyone recognizes the need for these restrictions. If the government were to consider amending the bill of rights, sight should not be lost of the important limitations on the enjoyment of property.
We should also bear in mind that many of the laws are in the provincial realm, something the opposition often forgets. Under section 92 of the Constitution Act 1867 each province has exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights in the province. A good example is the recent adaptation by the Ontario Harris government of children under 12 years of age having the right to firearms, something that the opposition has not mentioned. Hunting is under provincial jurisdiction.
Since the new property rights protection program would be enshrined in the bill of rights instead of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it would apply only to Parliament, and not to provincial legislatures.
This government feels that the ensuing imbalance would do a disservice to federal-provincial relations. It would also be unfair to Canadians to subject them to two property rights protection programs, one at the provincial level and one at the federal level.
Last but not least, Bill C-304 would amend the Constitution Act of 1867 to allow for the adoption of the new section 6 of the Canadian Bill of Rights which, as already mentioned, would have the effect of increasing to two-thirds the percentage of votes required in the future to adopt laws that could undermine the new protection afforded property rights. The procedure for amending the Constitution is, as we all know, quite complex and time consuming, and the result is far from being guaranteed.
There are many existing protections for property rights in Canada in the Canadian bill of rights and other statutes and through common law. Canadians currently enjoy important protection of property rights.
I would like to address the firearms legislation. The hon. member took most of his time to state to the Canadian public some falsities which have been repeated consistently in the House.
First of all the firearms legislation does not talk about confiscation. It talks about registration. I remind hon. members that the House adopted that piece of legislation and it is in contempt of the House to constantly bring up the issue in my opinion. An election was won on that piece of legislation and a court challenge was won recently on that piece of legislation. Parliament has the right and hon. members of Her Majesty's Official Opposition consistently forget that fact and are in contempt of this parliament to constantly bring up the same piece of legislation. We fought the election. We won the election. It is a law of the land at the moment.
The notion of property is much broader than real property. Given how broad the concept of real property can be, we must be careful if we succeed in altering the existing protection for property rights in a quasi-constitutional document such as the Bill of Rights.