Lost his last election, in 2015, with 20% of the vote.
Young Offenders April 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, we have implemented changes to the Young Offenders Act to stiffen the penalties in the most serious cases.
We continue to review the matter through the justice committee and we look forward to hearing the results of that report.
Young Offenders April 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As the hon. member is aware, the government has acted in relation to the Young Offenders Act already, increasing penalties for the most serious crimes and reversing the onus as to whether a youth case should be tried in adult court.
We are now engaged in a process in the justice committee to hear input on further possible changes. He is part of that committee and will sit with us as we-
Contraventions Act March 29th, 1996
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this amendment does not in any way change what is being proposed in the bill. It is merely a technical amendment to ensure that the English and French texts are equivalent.
(Amendment agreed to.)
(Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.)
(Clauses 8, 9 and 10 inclusive agreed to.)
Contraventions Act March 29th, 1996
That is correct.
Contraventions Act March 29th, 1996
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is to the English text as its meaning does not conform to the French text put forward.
I move:
That the English version of clause 7 of Bill C-16 be amended by striking out line 31 on page 3 and substituting the following: "menced under this act".
Contraventions Act March 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-16, an act to amend the Contraventions Act. The amendments to this act are the result of consultations and discussions with the provinces.
I would like to thank the critic for the Reform Party and the critic for the Bloc Quebecois for agreeing to expedite the proceedings of this bill and for treating it in a non-controversial fashion. I appreciate the co-operation. The end result will be an effective and harmonious contraventions system throughout Canada.
This bill is but another example which clearly demonstrates this government's willingness to work with its provincial partners and to avoid unnecessary duplication in federal and provincial activities.
To understand the bill, it is important to understand the act which it amends. The Contraventions Act was given royal assent in 1992 but it is not in force yet. It creates a contraventions scheme for federal offences. Currently those who are charged with an offence under federal statute or regulations are treated in the same way as those who are charged under the provisions of the Criminal Code.
The Contraventions Act provides for the establishment of a contraventions scheme as an alternative procedure to the Criminal Code. It will permit enforcement authorities to issue tickets to persons who are charged with an offence designated as a contravention under the act. Individuals who wish to plead guilty and pay a fine could do so, thus avoiding a formal court process and a formal court appearance.
There are three objectives to the contraventions scheme. The first is the decriminalization of certain federal offences. Decriminalization in effect means that a person convicted of a contravention will be subject to both civil and administrative sanctions without criminal stigma. Certain traditional criminal consequences of conviction such as finger printing, having a criminal record and being denied a passport will not apply.
The second objective is to ease the court's workload. The courts are presently administering all federal regulatory offences. Taking most of these cases out of the court system will reduce costs. The defendant will still have the option of taking the matter of contravention to trial for a hearing.
The final objective of the contraventions legislation is the improved enforcement of all federal regulations and legislation. It is much more efficient and effective to have enforcement authorities enforcing the law rather than spending a great deal of time testifying in courtrooms and getting ready for trial in order to bring a conviction.
The Contraventions Act is a great tool to achieve compliance with rules that protect Canadians. The act and amendments which are before us are designed to provide Canadians with a fairer, more
efficient and more practical process for federal offences. It will ease the workload of courts, prosecutors and enforcement officers.
Over the years the provinces have developed expertise in handling tickets for offences under provincial legislation. Some provinces have central agencies capable of dealing effectively and at a reasonable cost with a large number of tickets. Quebec and Ontario for example have central computerized systems that deal with all their provincial tickets. These systems will be able to handle the federal tickets issued on their territory.
Using the provincial systems would avoid the creation of a complex federal administrative structure. Also, the provinces have indicated they prefer that we use their respective offence schemes rather than establish a federal structure in duplication of their own. Indeed it is simpler for Canadians to know one system within a province.
The government is dedicated to finding solutions with its provincial partners. The current bill would allow us to accept the provincial offer and use their systems. This bill would allow federal contraventions to be dealt with under the ticketing procedure and process of each province.
In other words, the Ontario Provincial Offences Act, the Quebec Code de procédure pénale and the Manitoba Summary Convictions Act would apply to designated federal offences committed in their respective jurisdictions. Therefore an Alberta resident who has contravened federal regulations will face the same administrative and judicial system as if that resident had committed a provincial infraction.
It is important to note that fines levied for federal contraventions will be the same across Canada for the same offence. Some provinces impose court costs and administrative fees in addition to the fine. Bill C-16 would permit these provinces to continue to collect these costs and fees.
The bill would also authorize the Minister of Justice to enter into revenue sharing agreements with the provinces. Under these agreements part of the fine revenues collected by the provinces would be used to compensate provincial costs and efforts. This I believe is a very reasonable approach.
Some provinces are ready to proceed immediately with the implementation of the Contraventions Act while others would need more time. Bill C-16 would allow us to bring the legislation in force province by province and provide the flexibility required for the smooth implementation of the Contraventions Act across the country. Federal departments and enforcement authorities are waiting for these changes to help them with their workload.
This bill reflects our government's willingness to co-operate with our provincial partners. It demonstrates flexibility and understanding of the realities of Canadians and Canadian society. It has the support of the provinces and I would urge all members of the House to support this initiative.
Once again I would like to thank the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois for providing their assistance in expediting passage of this important bill.
Law Commission Of Canada Act March 27th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-9, an act respecting the Law Commission of Canada.
I would first like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for their work in reviewing and amending the bill in the previous session. The amendments adopted by the committee, incorporated in Bill C-9, will contribute positively to the implementation of the legislation.
The passage of the legislation fulfils an important commitment made by the government in the red book that we would restore at the national level an independent capacity for law reform.
Bill C-9 will achieve that goal and it will do it in keeping with the government policy of ensuring that advisory organizations provide essential services that are cost effective and efficient. It is part of a broader effort to establish a more efficient and effective legal system.
We have made every attempt to reflect the results of our nationwide consultations in the legislation before members today. The legislation proposes a lean commission, flexible in form, multidisciplinary and inclusive in function with an emphasis on streamlining the legal system.
The preamble provides a guiding framework, a philosophy by which the new commission would be governed. This framework takes the form of specific principles identified in the consultations including openness, inclusiveness, responsiveness, a multidisciplinary approach, innovation and cost effectiveness. The law commission visualized in Bill C-9 will be different from that of the
former commission in its attention to the process of reform and the stakeholders involved.
The commission's mandate will be to study and to keep under systematic review in a manner that reflects the concepts and institutions of the common law and the civil law systems the law of Canada and its effect with a view to providing independent advice on improvements, modernization and reform that will ensure a just legal system that meets the changing needs of Canadian society and of individuals in that society.
In exercising its mandate the commission will provide advice on the development of new approaches to the law; measures to make the legal system more efficient, economical and accessible; partnerships and co-operative arrangements with other communities in Canada to stimulate critical debate; the elimination of obsolete laws an anomalies in the law.
An important consideration underlying this legislation is the particular balance struck between the independence of the commission and the need for accountability.
The commission will be an independent arm's length body reporting through the Minister of Justice to Parliament and will set its own agenda. This independence would be balanced by a requirement in the legislation ensuring that the minister be consulted before the agenda is set.
The legislation provides for a ministerial reference power but also requires that the minister consult with the commission before making such a reference.
The commission, through the minister, would table study reports, agendas and annual reports before Parliament. Similarly, the minister would be required to respond to any report received from the commission.
The commission will consist of five commissioners, a small permanent secretariat, a volunteer advisory council and volunteer subject panels. The president will be full time while the other four commissioners will serve part time. Instead of retaining a large in house staff to conduct studies, the commission will contract for research from outside sources or enter into joint arrangements with existing institutions and agencies.
To provide the commission with the capacity to examine the law of Canada in a manner that reflects the concepts and institutions of the two juridical systems in Canada, common law and civil law, an amendment was introduced by the committee to require that members of the commission be chosen, taking into specific consideration the need for commissioners as a group to have knowledge of the two legal systems.
As an indication of the desire for the new commission to conduct business in an open and inclusive fashion, the advisory council will be established in legislation to provide advice on the strategic direction of the commission and to review its performance.
To further ensure that the commission will be provided with advice reflecting the principles enunciated in the legislation's preamble, the committee proposed that the same factors be taken into consideration when appointing members to the advisory council, as in appointing the commissioners.
Therefore although membership is not limited to the legal community, members should be broadly representative of the socioeconomic and cultural diversity of Canada, represent various disciplines and reflect knowledge of common and civil law systems. I believe this amendment enhances the legislation and the ability of the commission to fulfil its mandate.
I mention the amendment made to the mandate of the advisory council, clause 19. Rather than operating at the request of the commission, the advisory council will have an obligation to advise the commission in matters related to its strategic direction, program of studies and performance.
In other matters related to the purpose of the commission the advisory council will have discretion in exercising its advisory function. This amendment, introduced in committee, is critical to ensuring a transparent and inclusive process intended to be open and responsive to Canadian society. I strongly support this amendment.
The existence of the advisory council and the ability to create subject panels will be a significant departure from the structure of the former Law Commission of Canada. It is through these bodies that consultations will be institutionalized.
In addition, the commission will be designated a departmental corporation to enable it to receive funds from outside sources, from private and voluntary sectors and to generate revenues through the sale of annual reports and other publications.
In conclusion, the commission envisioned by the legislation represents and number of significant differences from the former Law Reform Commission of Canada. Its broadened approach to the process of law reform is to be inclusive, multi-disciplinary and open to all sectors of Canadian society. There will be greater emphasis on the efficiency and economy of the legal system. It will have a leaner budget and a structure employing part time commissioners, a small secretariat and the use of outside researchers optimizing joint arrangements, collaboration and partnerships, notably with the academic community. It will have a more inclusive manner of operating, using an advisory council and subject panels. Innovative approaches, including new information technol-
ogies, will support a commission which will approach its task with more vigilant attention to cost.
The purpose of the bill is to bring a wide ranging, integrated approach to the improvement, modernization and the reform of the law of Canada. The law is the infrastructure of our social and economic life and in this context, law reform is an essential ingredient to nation building.
I am confident that the Law Commission of Canada as proposed in Bill C-9 will make an important contribution to this vital enterprise. I urge the House to pass this bill.
Human Rights March 20th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the Minister of Justice continues consultations in this regard with different individuals and groups interested in this question.
He is reviewing this for possible legislative change. Certainly it is a very difficult issue. One must on one hand balance the rights of the accused to a full answer and defence while on the other hand ensure victims are properly protected in the trauma of trials they need to go through.
This is a matter under review. An answer will be forthcoming.
Human Rights March 20th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. This is an issue that has come before the courts in a number of court decisions.
The Minister of Justice in his capacity as attorney general has intervened on these issues. This is a matter now under consultation and review to see if legislative clarification is needed in light of Supreme Court decisions on these disclosures.
Criminal Code March 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member speaking is raising a question about the honesty of hon. members. There have been-