[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 7, 1996
.1203 
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): I'll call this meeting to order. The purpose of the meeting is for the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-17.
[Translation]
I think there are no amendments, either from the Bloc or from the government.
One hon. member: The date is missing.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Does anybody have a specific question to ask the officials or the parliamentary secretary at this time? Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): I was questioning the lack of consent for people who were making their first appearance and being detained, and the video camera doing it by telecommunications. Could you explain again why you feel this is appropriate in the circumstances for first appearances?
Mr. Fred Bobiasz (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): The proposed amendment is to amend section 515, which is the provision that governs the process for considering issues of pre-trial detention and judicial interim release. The amendment would have the effect that provided there is a technical way to provide for video communications between the justice considering the matter and the person in detention, this could be done, providing the justice agrees.
.1205
Mr. Battista, the witness for the Barreau du Québec, was quite correct that consent would not be required. But I think where there may be a difference in opinion is his focusing his problem with regard to eliminating the traditional common law requirement, which was codified in the Criminal Code, to bring an accused person before a justice as quickly as possible, generally within 24 hours, or unless it's impractical under the circumstances.
That is not provided for or dealt with under section 515 in the Criminal Code. That's provided for in section 503, where for a person who is arrested, the police officer who arrests that person is under a duty to bring the accused before a justice within the 24-hour period. There has been no change to the Criminal Code to permit the satisfaction of that obligation by way of indirect appearance, by way either of telecommunications or video appearance.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Ms Cohen.
Ms Cohen (Windsor - St. Clair): The Reform Party takes the position that by hybridizing some offences, effectively what we're doing is lowering the penalties for them. I don't really need to hear from you on that, but the point I'd like you to respond to is it's my understanding...
Let me say for the record that the Reform Party also has taken the position in the past that the federal government should get out of the faces of the provinces and allow them to handle things more directly, because the provincial governments are closer to the people, and that sort of thing.
It's my understanding that virtually every attorney general in the country wants these amendments, and that there's in fact been great pressure on the minister and on other members of this committee to ensure that these amendments go through. I will say for the record that I have a letter, which I've tabled, from the Attorney General of New Brunswick saying that it's imperative to them for the administration of their justice.
Having said that, I wonder if you could tell me if you have support for these amendments from the attorneys general of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario.
Mr. Yvan Roy (Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): These amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice have received the support, to my knowledge, of every jurisdiction in the country. I will go one step further and state that they are not meant to reduce the sentences in any way, shape or form for those offences that have been hybridized. It is clear from my understanding and from the discussions we have had with prosecutors that it's going to be their instructions to seek sentences that are appropriate to the crime being committed, even though these offences will be prosecuted on summary conviction.
So it is our understanding, on this side of the table, that these will be more than well received, and it is only with a view to making the criminal justice system more efficient that these changes are being proposed by the government, and hopefully assented to by Parliament.
Ms Cohen: Thank you. Those are all my questions.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you very much.
We'll now proceed to the clause-by-clause.
Clauses 1 to 142 inclusive agreed to on division
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Is there a motion that the chair report the bill to the House as the fifth report of this committee?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): That's terrific. Thank you very much for your cooperation, and thank you to the witnesses.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): On a point of order.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Now we have a point of order from Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to bring up a very serious matter and I'd like to table a motion, a notice of motion for myself, having been duly substituted in.
I move that this committee consider and report to the House the recent improper conduct of the chairman of this committee. I would like to table that motion at this time.
.1210
The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): I've taken notice of the motion. Thank you.
I'll adjourn this committee now.