updated and corrections / mise à jour et corrections: 4 February / février 2010

by  / par ©François Lareau, 1999-, Ottawa, Canada

"Chronology  -  Towards a Modern
General Part of a New Canadian Criminal Code? and
other matters relating to Criminal Law"

« Le droit criminel, c’est le visage du droit réfléchissant l’individualité toute entière du peuple, sa pensée, ses sentiments, son caractère, ses passions, son degré de civilisation ou de barbarie, toute son âme, en un mot : c’est le peuple même.  L’histoire du droit criminel des peuples est un fragment de la psychologie de l’humanité ». (JHERING, R. von, Études complémentaires de l’esprit du droit romain : I.  De la faute en droit privé, traduction de O. de Meulenaere, Paris : A. Marescq, Aîné, 1880, p.3).

--------------------

"Who are the criminal code's intended readers?  The people governed by it - the public as Bentham thought?  Those who have to administer and explain it - the legal profession and the agencies of justice - as lawyers tend to think?  Those surveying its logic, coherence, and systematization - jurists and legal scientists?  Or since codes start life as bills, those who are asked to enact it - the legislators?   Or,  finally, some combination of the above?

Surely Bentham was right.  A country's law belongs not to its nation's judges, its lawyers, or its politicians but to all its inhabitants and citizens.  The latter are surely the prime addressees of codes, statutes, and other legislation.  This conclusion follows from the basic values and concepts of the common law itself."  (Patrick Fitzgerald, "Codes and Codifications: Interpretation, Structure, and Arrangement of Codes", (1990) 2 Criminal Law Forum 127-143 at 129-130).


See also / Voir aussi:
Digital Library -- Canadian Criminal Law /     -- click here
Bibliothèque digitale -- Droit pénal canadien



The English Influence of the XIXth Century

1877,  Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's publishes his first edition of A Digest of the Criminal Law (Crimes and Punishments).1   Stephen informs the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General. that his Digest could be transformed into a Draft Penal Code.2
 

May 14,  1878, first reading in the House of Commons of Bill 178  prepared by Stephen, A Bill to establish a Code of Indictable Offences, and the Procedure relating thereto.3
 

July, 1878, Stephen's explanations on Bill 178 are published.4   Bill 178 dies on the order paper.
 

August 17, 1878, a Royal Commission is appointed to consider Bill 178.  Lord Colin Baron Blackburn (Chairman), Mr. Justice Charles Barry (an Irish judge), Lord Robert Lush and Sir James Fitzjames are the commissioners.5
 

 • April 3, 1879,  first reading  of Bill 117, A Bill to establish a Code of Indictable Offences, and the Procedure thereto.6   Bill 117 is prepared by the Royal Commission7  appointed in August 1878 and Cross states that Bill 117  is identical8 to the Draft Code found in the Royal Commission's report of June 12, 1879.
 

 • April 7, 1879,  the House of Commons orders that a "Copy of Memorandum showing the principal Changes proposed to be made in the existing Law by the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill [Bill 117], as settled by the Criminal Code Commissioners" be published.9
 

 • May 12, 1879, after the second reading of Bill 117, a Committee of the House reports on it.  Its report is Bill 170, A Bill [As Amended in Committee] to establish a Code of Indictable Offences and is ordered to be printed on May 12, 1879.10   Bill 170 remains with 552 clauses, the same number as in Bill 117.  Bill 117 dies on the order paper.
 

June 12, 1879, the Royal Commission submits its report on Bill 178: Report of the Royal Commission Appointed to Consider the Law Relating to Indictable Offences: With an Appendix Containing a Draft Code Embodying the Suggestions of the Commissioners.   The draft code is  known today as the English Draft Code.11  The report is written by Stephen.12
 

June 16, 1879,  the House of Commons orders that  the letter of the Chief Justice of England, dated 12 June 1879, commenting negatively on the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill be published.13  Stephen replies subsequently in an article.14
 

February 6, 1880 first reading of Bill 2, A Bill to Establish a Code of Offences for England and Ireland and to prescribe the Procedure by Indictment for the Punishment of Offenders.15   Bill 2 dies on the order paper.
 

Canada, 1892-Today

Canada adopts a Criminal Code: first reading of Bill 7, The Criminal Code, 1892.16    According17  to the Hon. Sir John Thompson,  the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Code is based on four documents:  the English Draft Code of 1880,  Stephen's Digest of 1887,18   Burbidge's Digest19  and Canadian statutory law.20
 

July 1,  1893, The Criminal Code, 1892 of the Dominion of Canada comes into force.20a
 

1893, Taschereau publishes his annotated Criminal Code.21
 

1894, James Crankshaw publishes the first edition of his annotated Criminal Code.21a
 

11 August 1899, Parliament adopts the An Act to Provide for the Conditional Liberation of Convicts -- the Ticket of Leave Act (see http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/about/part1_e.htm (accessed on 27 December 2002).

"In Canada [before the 1899 enactment] release from penitentiaries and prisons is obtained under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy powers vested in the Governor General.
....
The legislation is patterned after the British Ticket-of-Leave Act. It set out conditions of release, with no defined criteria for eligibility and no provisions to ensure surveillance."
 (source: http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/about/annivers/tl-eng.shtml, accessed on 2 January 2010)

 

1902, W.J. Tremear publishes the first edition of his annotated Criminal Code.21aa
 

1908, The Young Offenders Act comes into effect.21b
 

1914,  The Chairman of the Royal Commission on Penttentiairies, George Milnes MacDonnell, submits its report -- Report of the Royal Commission on Penitentiaries, Ottawa : The Commission, 1914, 44 p.; / Commission royale sur les pénitenciers, Rapport de la Commission royale sur les pénitenciers, Ottawa: Imprim. du Roi, 1914, 49 p.;

January 1938, the Royal Commission to Investigate the Penal System of Canada publishes its report.21c

1948, Criminal sexual  psychopath legislation

•  The revision of the Criminal Code: February 22, 1952, the Royal Commission  on the Revision of the Criminal Code submits its report.22
 

April 1,  1955, the new Criminal Code comes into effect with some important changes, e.g. a definition of criminal negligence.23
 

1956, The Committee Appointed to Inquire into the Principles and procedures followed in the Remission Service of the Department of Justice of Canada submits its report.23a
 

 • June-July 1956, The Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons submits its report on Capital Punishment (on 27 June 1956) and on Corporal Punishment (July 11, 1956)
 

 • October 25, 1956,  the Royal Commission on the Law of Insanity as a Defence in Criminal Cases submits its report.24
 

1957: Irénée Lagarde publishes his first annotated Criminal Code.24a


1958: The Royal Commission on the Criminal Law Relating to Criminal Sexual Psychopaths publishes its report:: Report of the Royal Commission on the criminal law  relating to criminal sexual psychopaths, Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1958, 200 p. (Chairman: J.C. (James Chalmers) McRuer, 1890-1985);

February 15, 1959,  the Parole Act comes into force.24aa

"The Parole Act replaces the Ticket of Leave Act and creates the National Parole Board, under the Department of Justice, launching the modern era of conditional release in Canada.

The Board consists of five members situated in Ottawa, and field staff of the National Parole Service in regional offices in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Kingston, Montreal and Moncton. Concepts of reform and rehabilitation are incorporated into the law as statutory considerations." (source: http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/about/annivers/tl-eng.shtml, accessed on 2 January 2010)


1960,  the Canadian Bill of Rights comes into force.


1960, Dangerous sexual offender law


1961,  the Penitentiary Act is revised.

"The Penitentiary Act is revised to include two forms of remission of sentence: statutory and earned.

Through statutory remission, one quarter of the sentence is credited to the institutional behaviour. Earned remission provides, in addition to statutory remission, the opportunity for offenders to earn three days of remission for each month of good behaviour. Once earned, these additional days cannot be lost. In combination, statutory and earned remission can amount to about one-third of sentence. During the portion of the remitted sentence spent in the community, the offender is not supervised."  (source: http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/about/annivers/tl-eng.shtml, accessed on 2 January 2010)


1965,  the Department of Justice publishes Juvenile Delinquency in Canada: The Report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency


1966,  the Department of the Solicitor General is created.

"The federal government creates the Department of the Solicitor General, which includes the Canadian Penitentiary Service, the National Parole Board, and the RCMP."
(source: http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/about/annivers/tl-eng.shtml, accessed on 2 January 2010)


In 1968, an important provincial report is published: Commission d'enquête sur l'administration de la justice en matière criminelle et pénale au Québec, La société face au crime, [Québec] : Commission d'Enquête sur l'administrationde le Justice en matière criminelle et pénale au Québec, [1968?]. 5 v. dans 10 tome : ill. ; 25 cm.; Président : Bâtonnier Yves Prévost; also published in English/aussi publié en anglais: Commission of Enquiry into the Administration of Justice on Criminal and Penal Matters in Québec, Crime, justice and society, [Quebec : Official Publisher, 1968], 3 volumes, 1. Fundamental principles of a new social action programme --2. Legal security --3. Crime in Québec (3 parts); Chairman: Yves Prévost

The Liberals win the elections: June 25, 1968, the Liberal Party of Canada under the leadership of Pierre Elliott Trudeau with its theme of "Just Society" wins the election and forms a majority government.25
 

March 31, 1969, the Canadian Committee on Corrections recommends that "the Government of Canada establish in the near future a Committee or Royal Commission to examine the substantive criminal law".26 


1970, the Parole Act is modified.

"The Parole Act is amended to require that offenders be supervised during the remaining one-third of their sentence in the community.

This type of remission-based release becomes known as mandatory supervision. Under the revised Parole Act, the NPB is given authority to set conditions for release on mandatory supervision, and to revoke release for violation of these conditions." (source: http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/about/annivers/tl-eng.shtml, accessed on 2 January 2010)

 

1 June 1971, the Law Reform Commission of Canada is created.  The objects of the Commission are:

"11.  ...to study and keep under review on a continuing and systematic basis the statutes and other laws comprising the laws of Canada with a view to making recommendations for their improvement, modernization and reform...."27


October 30, 1972, the Liberal Party under the leadership of Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau wins the election and forms a minority government.28
 

August 1973, the Law Reform Commission of Canada writes in its Second Annual Report about general principles of Criminal Law:

"Review of the criminal law begins with general principles.  Here lie the deepest, most general and most urgent questions in our law.  What is the best test of liability?  Intention?  Recklessness?  Negligence?  Mistake of Law?  These questions go beyond mere legal technicalities and into the realm of morality, they relate not to this or that offence but to the whole of the criminal law, and they concern principles never yet fully codified in our law.
They call then for an approach as philosophical as it is practical.  So the Criminal Law Project, which is concerned both with general principles and with prohibited and regulated conduct, has made a study of the fundamental axioms of the existing criminal law.  Reflection on the law as it is reveals a cluster of implicit but inarticulated premises.  Our criminal law works by persuasion, not compulsion: instead of acting by constraint it appeals to reason and seeks to make crime an 'ill bargain' to the offender.  It is rooted in the notion of the moral worth of the individual and of personal responsibility.  And its sanctions aim at a variety of objectives.  It is only in the light and full understanding of such basic premises that there can be any adequate review of the general principles of criminal law". 28a


•  1974, the Law Reform Commission of Canada publishes The Meaning of Guilt: Strict Liability.29
 

July 8, 1974, the Liberal Party of Canada under the leadership of Mr. Trudeau wins the election to form a majority government.30
 

1975, the Law Reform Commission of Canada publishes the Limits of Criminal Law: Obscenity: a test case.31
 

1976, the Law Reform Commission of Canada publishes Our Criminal Law32  and  the Criminal Responsibility for Group Action.33
 

1976, the death penalty is officially abolished for civilians.


1976,  publication of the Federal-Provincial Task Force on Long-Terms Objectives in Corrections, The Long-Term Objectives and Administration of Corrections in Canada, Ottawa: Solicitor General, 1976, various pagings, Chairman: A.T. Wakabayashi; copy at the Solicitor General Library, HV 9308 F42 1976.
 

1977, Dangerous offender provisions under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code.

1978, Mewett and Manning publish the first textbook with a "detailed and critical examination of the criminal law of Canada".34    George P. Fletcher writes his influential book, Rethinking Criminal Law that introduces English readers to the German tripartite theory of offences with its fundamental distinction between justifications and excuses.35    The Supreme Court of Canada renders its decision in R. v. City of Sault Ste-Marie.36


1978, publication of the Federal-Provincial Steering Committee on the Split in Jurisdiction in Corrections, Final Report to the Continuing Conference of Ministers responsible for Criminal Justice, Ottawa: Solicitor General, 1978 (a verification of the AMICUS catalogue does not reveal any loca;tion, 31 December 2009)
 

May 22, 1979, the Progressive Conservative Party under the leadership of Mr. Joe Clark wins the election and forms a minority government.37
 

August 1979, at the Canadian Bar Association Annual Meeting, Senator Jacques Flynn, the federal justice minister,  states:

"...I believe that the time has come to undertake a fundamental review of the Criminal Code.  The Code has become unwieldy, very difficult to follow and outdated in many of its provisions.  It has come to deal with questions which, I believe , do not belong to criminal law.  We must be aware of the limits of the criminal law role in dealing with purely local or temporary problems.

The Law Reform Commission has, in many of its reports, urged that our criminal laws be modernized, that we stop tinkering with the Code.  Provincial Attorneys-General have urged that we develop a new Code.  I agree.  This is one of the key questions that I want to discuss with them when we meet in the Fall.

Indeed, the special role they play in the administration of criminal justice suggests to me that they must be closely involved in any work leading to a new Criminal Code.  Our discussions with the province in the Fall should tell how this can best be achieved.

But just as there is need for provincial involvement, there will have to be a place for a special contribution from the Law Reform Commission.  It already has done a great deal of work in the criminal justice field.  It has made many recommendations.  I believe it will be important to start there, build on what we already have, and decide whether the orientation the Commission had indicated to us is the one we want to propose to Canadians."37a


October 1979,  "the federal and provincial ministers responsible for criminal justice agreed that an accelerated review of criminal law encompassing substantive law and procedure be undertaken".38
 

November 1980: "The [federal]Minister of Justice announced that he was setting in place a mechanism for the review of the criminal Law that would expedite the enactment of a modern Canadian Criminal Code and amendments to related federal statutes."39
 

February 18, 1980, the Liberal Party of Canada under the leadership of Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau wins the election and forms a majority government.40
 

 • 1981: The Accelerated Criminal Law Review starts as a joint undertaking of the Department of Justice Canada, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Law Reform Commission of Canada.  It is scheduled to complete its work in October 1986.41   The work is to be done in three phases: Phase 1: the Law Reform Commission of Canada working paper and report; Phase 2: the Department of Justice Canada analysis of Law Reform Commission of Canada recommendations; Phase 3: "implementation stage", e.g. legislation by Parliament; these 3 phases would apply to each project.42    For example, the Law Reform Commission of Canada  would publish a working paper and a report on a particular topic,  followed by an analysis and further work by the government and legislation by Parliament.43   What were the objectives of that review?

"When the accelerated Criminal Law Review was begun in 1981, the operational objectives of the Review, as compared with its general intent, were not stated with precision.  The objectives of the Review, as stated in November 1980, were broad statements that provided little specific guidance to the parties involved.  The objective of the Review is defined only in so far as it will produce a substantive new Code comprising a general part (principles) and a special part.  This Code may have a procedural part, or there may be a separate procedural Code.  There may be other major pieces of law reform (in ‘corrections' or ‘clemency', or ‘sentencing',  for example) produced in association with the new Code."44


April 17, 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms comes into effect.45
 

August 1982, the Government of Canada publishes its policy paper on the purpose and principles of criminal law in the white paper, The Criminal Law in Canadian Society.46
 

1982, the Law Reform Commission of Canada publishes The General Part - Liability and Defences.47
 

July 18, 1983, Mr. Justice Allen M. Linden, Supreme Court of Ontario, is appointed President of the Law Reform Commission of Canada.48
 

November 3, 1983, Jacques Fortin, Professor of Law in the Faculty of Law at the University of Montreal  is appointed Vice-President of the Law Reform Commission of Canada.49 

 
1984, the Commissioner, Judge Stuart M. Leggatt,  submits the report of the Inquiry into Habitual Criminals in Canada -- The report of the Inquiry into Habitual Criminals in Canada, [Ottawa] : Government of Canada, [1984?], 125, 39 p.;


February 1984, the Government publishes its policy paper Sentencing.50   First Reading of Bill C-1951  which contains important proposals on sentencing.  The Bill dies on the order paper.
 

April 1984, the Young Offenders Act comes into effect.52
 

1984, the Law Reform Commission of Canada publishes their Working Papers on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction53 and Homicide.54
 

April 1-4,  1984, the Law Reform Commission of Canada organizes a seminar on "Codification".55   The Commission explains the purpose of the meeting as follows:

"In April 1984, the Commission sponsored a special meeting in Ottawa at which a preliminary outline of the new Code was discussed.  The Commission asked for advice about arrangement of the Code's provisions, the style of drafting, and strategy for implementation. Canadian government representatives, both federal and provincial, academics and lawyers attended.  Other participants included scholars of codification from other countries....Several criticisms of a constructive nature ...were made.  One of the most significant was the suggestion that the Commission alter slightly its usual manner of dealing with each specific topic.  Rather than proceeding from Study Paper to Working Paper to Report on every aspect of the Code, it was suggested that a more streamlined approach should be considered, that is, by preparing a draft Code."56


Summer 1984, the Law Reform Commission of Canada decides to publish a Draft Criminal Code.  Here is how Vincent Del Buono and the Law Reform Commission of Canada respectively explain the change of process:

[Del Buono]
"...it became obvious to Fortin [Professor Jacques Fortin, Vice-President of the Law Reform Commission of Canada supervising the Substantive Criminal Law  Project] and Linden [President of the Law Reform Commission of Canada] during the summer of 1984 that the Commission would not be able to complete its role in the Criminal Law Review on anything like the original timetable unless it changed the manner of reporting to Parliament.  Instead of the multitude of small individual reports to Parliament on discrete subjects, they decided that the Commission should consolidate its work into a new Draft Criminal Code to be tabled in Parliament as an entirety."57
 

[Law Reform Commission of Canada]
"The Substantive Criminal Law Project has, as its main object, the production of a new code of substantive criminal law for Canada.
.......
Rather than proceeding from Study Paper to Working Paper to Report on every aspect of the Code, it was suggested [at the April 1984 Seminar on Codification] that a more streamlined approach should be considered, that is, by preparing a draft Code.  The Commission has taken this suggestion to heart.  Although we shall continue to publish Working Papers on most areas, we shall expedite the process by producing three drafts of the new Code ...."58
 

September 4, 1984, the Progressive Conservative Party under the leadership of Mr. Brian Mulroney wins the election and forms a majority government.59
 

October 11, 1984, the Supreme Court of Canada judgment in Perka v. The Queen recognizes the common law defence of necessity and the theoretical distinction between justifications and excuses.60  As of December 2002, this defense remains uncodified in the Criminal Code!
 

1985, the Law Reform Commission of Canada publishes Omissions, negligence and endangering and Secondary Liability: Participation in Crime and Inchoate Offences.61
 

September, 1985, the Criminal Law Review Section of the Department of Justice Canada  publishes the Mental Disorder Project Criminal Law Review - Final Report.62
 

October, 1985, the Auditor General of Canada severely criticizes the Criminal Law Review process.63
 

December 19, 1985,  the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons discusses the Criminal Law Review.64
 

June 25, 1986, the Justice Minister, Mr. David Crosbie,  tables his draft bill on mental disorder.65
 

December 3, 1986, the Law Reform Commission of Canada publishes vol. 1 of its Draft Criminal Code on substantive law.66   The Code includes part of a General Part and part of a Special Part.
 

February 1987, the Canadian Sentencing Commission publishes its report, Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach, Report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1987, xl, 592 p., bibliography, ISSBN: 0660122456 (Chairman: J.R. Omer Archambault); available in English at http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pco-bcp/commissions-ef/archambault1987-eng/archambault1987-eng.htm (accessed on 17 February 2009); also published in French / aussi publié en français: Canada, Commission canadienne sur la détermination de la peine, Réformer la sentence: une approche canadienne -- Rapport de la Commission canadienne sur la détermination de la peine, Ottawa: Ministre des Approvisionnements et Services Canada, 1987, xlii, 651 p. (Président: J.R. Omer Archambault); disponible à .http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pco-bcp/commissions-ef/archambault1987-fra/archambault1987-fra.htm (vérifié le 17 février 2009). 

    The report ecommended that the "paramount principle governing the determination of a sentnce be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender for the offence".67  Unfortunately, the Commission did not elaborate on what it meant by "responsibility" nor did it discussed the draft criminal code of the Law Reform Commission.  The end result was a draft code without sentencing and sentencing recommendations without any position on responsibility.  As Professor Jodouin stated:

"[...] on voit mal comment on peut scinder la réforme des principes généraux de la responsabilité pénale de celle des peines, l'une étant logiquement tributaire de l'autre."67a


•  July 26-29, 1987 "Conference Reform of the Criminal Law, The Inns of Court, London, England".68    The Chairman of the Conference is Vincent Del Buono, Senior Counsel Department of Justice Canada.  The Conference Committee includes Prof. George Fletcher, the Hon. Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer, Prof. Alan W. Mewett, Mr. Michel Proulx, Mr. Edward L. Greenspan, and the Hon. Constance R. Glube.69
 

August 1987, the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs evaluates the Law Reform Commission of Canada Draft Code, vol. 1  (Report 30).70   The evaluation is subsequently submitted to the Minister of Justice Canada in September 1987.71
.

December 3, 1987, the Supreme Court of Canada renders the decision of  R. v. Vaillancourt dealing with murder and mens rea.72
 

January 1988, three government Working Groups submit three reports on  three chapters of the General Part of the Law Reform Commission of Canada Draft Criminal Code, vol. 1 (Report 30).73
 

January 1988, creation of the Society for the Reform of the Criminal Law with its head office in Ottawa and Mr. Vincent Del Buono as its first Chairman.74
 

May 19, 1988, the Law Reform Commission of Canada  publishes Recodifying Criminal Law (Revised and Enlarged Edition of Report 30).75 The draft still has an incomplete General Part (no sentencing provisions) and a partial Special Part.  It is of the utmost importance to realize that the Law Reform Commission of Canada General Part is fatally flawed as it does not deal with sentencing (in the General Part and with the proposed offences).  The Law Reform Commission pressed by time to meet its deadlines simply stated  that "Sentences have not been ascribed to the crimes, as that task has been performed by the sentencing Commission." (p. 3).   The Canadian Sentencing Commission which had tabled its report in February 1987 (see supra) does not link any of its work with the Draft Code of the Law Reform Commission.
 

August 1988, publication by the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General of its report on the review of sentencing, conditional release and related aspects of corrections: Taking Responsibility.76
 

October 1988, the Auditor General of Canada publishes in its report an update on the Law Reform Commission and the Criminal Law Review.77
 

October 14-16, 1988, the Canadian Association of Law Teachers, Criminal Law Section holds a conference on the Draft Code (Report 31) of the Law Reform Commission of Canada.78
 

November 21, 1988, the Progressive Conservative Party under the leadership of Mr. Brian Mulroney wins the election for a second mandate and forms a majority government.79
 

January 1990: the Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Doug Lewis,  states at a Conference in Washington: "In my opinion, reform of the General Part is the first priority in the reform of the Criminal Code."80
 

May 3, 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada renders the decision in R. v. Lavallee  dealing with the law of self-defence and battered women.81
 

May 28, 1990: The Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Kim Campbell,  asks Dr. Bob Horner, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Justice and the Solicitor General to review the General Part of the Criminal Code.  In her letter to the Chairman of the Standing Committee, the Honourable Campbell writes in part:

"Most of these provisions have come down to us virtually unchanged since 1892.  Although many of them have served us well over the years, the present Part I is, by the standards of modern criminal codes, at best incomplete.  To date, the case law has filled in those general principles which the Code lacks. These principles also contain important norms of social behaviour such as the degree of criminal responsibility for prohibited acts committed when drunk or on drugs.  These important norms, established through case law, have never been reviewed by Parliament.  Parliament has also yet to review Part I of the Code in light of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
......
The study which today I am asking you to undertake is an important one which will have an enormous impact on the development of our criminal law as well as the everyday lives of Canadians."82


June 1990, the Final Report of the Federal/Provincial Working Group on Homicide is written.  However, it is subsequently updated in April 1991 (see entry below).
 

July 6, 1990, in response to the 1987 Canadian Sentencing Commission's report and the 1988 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, the Government of Canada (the Department of Justice Canada and the Solicitor General Canada) publishes consultation papers on sentencing, corrections and conditional release.83
 

December 1990, officials of the Department of Justice Canada assisted by officials of the Law Reform Commission of Canada publish a Framework Document on the Proposed New General Part.84    Again, it is fundamental to understand the fatal flaw of  this document in that it does not deal with sentencing as an essential part of the General Part!  The paper simply states:

"WHAT IS A GENERAL PART
...The General Parts of some code, particularly those of Continental European or American origin also set out the possible sanctions which may be imposed following conviction"

......

"SENTENCING

"The issue of what aspects of sentencing should be dealt with in the General Part could be the subject of a general discussion or could be revisited at some future date.  For the moment, the entire question of sentencing is being dealt through a separate consultation process."84a


February 4,  1991, the provisions on mental disorder in the Criminal Code are amended.85
 

April 1991, publication of the updated Final Report of the Federal/Provincial Working Group on Homicide.86 The report includes such matters as causation, duties, defences, sentencing.
 

12 June 1991,  the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor is tabled in the House of Commons: Report on the Detention of the Parole Act (Bill C-67) / Rapport sur les dispositions relatives au maintien en incarcération dans a Loi sur la libération conditionnelle (Projet de Loi C-67).86a
 

March 25, 1992, the House of Commons Sub-Committee on the Recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the House of Commons  Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General begins its work.87
 

March 26-27, 1992 the Sub-Committee holds hearings (briefing sessions) in camera with two Department of Justice Canada witnesses.88
 

June 6, 1992, the Law reform Commission of Canada presents a brief to the Sub-Committte that modifies some of its recommendations made in their draft Code (Report 31).89
 

August 1992, The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) publishes Principles of Criminal Liability: Proposals for a New General Part of the Criminal Code.90  The proposals do not deal with sentencing.
 

August 1992, Mr. E.A. Tollefson, DPhil (Oxon) who for many years was in charge of the Criminal Law Reform Section at the Department of Justice made the folowing comments concerning "the politics of reform" for those having a law reform project:

First, do not assume that the truth and virtue of your proposals are self-evident.  You have to overcome the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" mentality.  This slogan is often used as a substitute for serious consideration of a proposed reform. Be ready to show how the law is broken and is in need of repair.  Explain how the proposals address the real problems and will improve the system or save time and money.  For this purpose try to get face to face meetings with the powers that be, for it is the minister who has to be convinced, and an answer to a letter addressed to the minister often represents the opinion of the bureaucrat who prepared it rather than the informed opinion of the minister.
Second, follow up your contact on a regular basis to make sure that it is not forgotten, and to determine whether there is anything further you can do to assist in advancing your project.
Third, get people involved in your project who are respected for their common sense and integrity, so that you will not be regarded as representing some impractical fringe group.
Finally, maintain your commitment and your efforts, whether you think you are winning or losing. Remember the words of that great American folk hero and philosopher, Yogi Berra: "It ain't over till its over!"90a


November 1992, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act  comes into force.90b  replacing the now-repealed Penitentiary Act and Parole Act.
 

February 1993, the House of Commons Sub-Committee on the Recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General publishes its report First Principles: Recodifying the General Part of the Criminal Code of Canada.91 It recommends that:

"...  a bill be presented to Parliament recodifying the General Part of the Criminal Code and that the General Part be adopted and come into force without delay.
... as a transitional measure the General Part contain a provision stating that in the event of inconsistency between the General and Special Parts the latter shall take precedence.
...amendments bringing the Special Part into line with a recodified General Part be introduced as soon as possible."92


The Department of Justice Canada begings consultations on the General Part:  June 28, 1993, the Minister of Justice of Canada, the Honourable Pierre Blais,  releases its white paper, Proposals to Amend the Criminal Code (general principles).93  The Minister states: "The 100th anniversary of the Criminal Code presents an opportunity to look beyond the many individual amendments that governments have made to update and improve the Code since its inception".94 This white paper is the government's response to the February 1993 report of the Sub-Committee.    The News Release explains that:

"The renewal of the Criminal Code rests on three major objectives:

•  modernize the fundamental principles found in the General Part of the Criminal Code in order to better reflect current social values;

•  clarify many legal principles and rules of behaviour to make the Criminal Code easier for Canadians to understand; and

•  comprehensively codify, in the General Part of the Criminal Code, the fundamental rules of criminal liability, including defences, many of which now exist only in the judge-made common law.
......
Clarifications to the General Part of the Criminal Code are required for many reasons.  First, since the common law is almost inaccessible, except to legal specialists, it is paramount that Canadians be able to understand criminal law principles and rules that govern them.  Second, general principles now contained only in the jurisprudence must be added to the General Part to better reflect the evolution of criminal law.  Finally, Parliament needs to review the Criminal Code to ensure that it respects the fundamental principles found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."95


October 25, 1993, the Liberal Party of Canada under the leadership of Mr. Jean Chrétien wins the federal election and forms a majority government.96
 

January 1994,  in what I consider to be the most ignored background document explaining the failure of the reform of the General Part, the Canadian Bar Association recommends in its "Submission to the Minister of Justice on the Proposals to Amend the Criminal Code (General Principles)"  that the Department of Justice Canada  not proceed with its June 1993 White Paper and that a small working group be created to draft the General Part:

"1. The Canadian Bar Association recommends that the Minister of Justice not proceed with the Proposals to amend the Criminal Code (general principles).
2. The Canadian Bar Association recommends that the Minister of Justice establish a working group, composed of members of the Bench and Bar and the Department of Justice, charged with redrafting a new General Part for the Criminal Code."97
In the second recommendation, the Canadian Bar Association suggests implicitely to that the Department of Justice would have a better product if the Department was to seek the assistance of "exterior" help.   The refusal of the Department to follow this recommendation shows a lack of democracy that is characteristic of an organization that views itself as the sole guardian of the law.
 

February 2, 1994, Mr. Paul Monty, Substitut en chef du procureur général et directeur des Affaires criminelles, Ministère de la Justice, Gouvernement du Québec writes a letter to Mr. R.G. Mosley, Department of Justice Canada on the June 28, 1993 white paper that reads in part as follows:
 

"Cher confrère,
Au nom de Me Michel Bouchard et en mon nom, J'accuse réception de votre lettre du 25 janvier 1994 accompagnée du livre blanc sur la réforme de la partie générale du Code criminel.
Comme je vous l'ai expliqué à Régina, il est de mon intention de renconter vos collaborateurs, en particulier Me Yvan Roy, avec quelques-uns de mes collègues du Québec sur ce livre blanc.  La partie générale du Code criminel qui codifierait la nature des infractions criminelles et les défenses aux infractions doit, selon moi, être accessible à l'ensemble de la population.  Elle doit, de plus, permettre d'identifier clairement l'orientation de la politique judiciare au Canada.  Comme les représentants du Québec l'ont déjà à plusieurs reprises mentionné, une codification ne doit pas être la transcription des jugements des tribunaux mais l'écriture de façon simple et concise de la volonté du législateur.  C'est dans cet esprit que les rencontres que j'aurai avec vos collaborateurs s'inscriront.
Veuillez agréer, Cher confrère, l'expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs.

[signature]
PAUL MONTY
Substitut en chef du procureur général
et directeur des Affaires criminelles

c.c. Me Michel Bouchard"97a
TRANSLATION  by François Lareau
"Mr. R.G. Mosley, Q.C.
Sector of Criminal and Social Policy
Department of Justice Canada
Ottawa, Canada
K1A 0H8
Dear Colleague:
On behalf of Me Michel Bouchard and in my personal capacity, I acknowledge receipt of your letter of January 25, 1994 with the white paper on the reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code.
As I have explained to you in Regina, it is my intention to meet on this white paper with your associates, in particular Me Yvan Roy, and a few of my colleagues from Quebec.  A General Part of a Criminal Code that would codify the nature of offences and the defences to offences must, in my opinion, be accessible to the general population.  It must also be able to identify clearly the orientation of the Canadian legal policy.  As the Quebec representatives have often stated, a codification must not be the transcription of court judgments but the simple and concise writing of the will of the legislator.  It is with this spirit, that the meetings with your associates will take place.
Yours sincerely,

[Signature]
PAUL MONTY
Chief Crown Prosecutor and
Director of the Department of Criminal Cases

c.c. Me Michel Bouchard"


17 March 1994, Professor Bruce Archibald, in a paper commenting part of the June 1993, Government's white paper, Proposals to Amend the Criminal Code (general principles) writes:

 
"...I think it important to state in conclusion that these proposals to codify a general part in our Criminal Code are the best effort in Canada to date.  Clearly the drafters have studied may of the problems raised by previous work, such as that of the Law Reform Commission of Canada and that of the Canadian Bar Association Task Force.  I do not agree with all of the White Paper proposals, and welcome the opportunity to provode constructive criticism.  However, I believe it important for the Government to accept the fact that there will never be a complete consensus in relation to all the sensitive policy and technical issues raised by the codification of the General Part of criminal law.  My advice is to refine these present proposals and then get them before Parliament in a non-partisan, all-party, co-operative procedure if that is at all possible.  Canadian tax payers have paid millions of dollars in this Criminal Code reform process.  The results are excellent.  They deserve to be brought into effect.  Let's get on with it."97b


March 1994, a two day meeting is held between officials of the Department of Justice Canada and scholars to discuss their 13 papers commenting upon the June 1993 Proposals to Amend the Criminal Code (general principles).98
 

April 1994, the REPEAL 43 Committee, Committee to Repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada, complained that consideration of s. 43 dealing with correction of children by force by parents and schoolteachers should not be considered in isolation from other provisions of the General Part:

Section 43 falls within the General Part of the Code along with other defences.  The 1993 Sub-Committee on Recodification of the General Part of the Code made recommendations respecting these other defences but was relunctant to make any recommandations on s. 43 because "there is a great deal of controversy" over the section and because of the "absence of testimony from experts in the area" (p. 74).  The Sub-Committee stated that it "would have liked to have heard a broader range of views on some of the challenging and fundamental issues contained in the General Part." (p. 5, our emphasis).

In June 1993, the then Minister of Justice distributed proposals to amend the General Part of the Code.  Section 43 is not referred to in these proposals, indicating that it would either remain unchanged or be considered after amendments to the rest of the General Part.  To our knowledge, these proposals were not distributed to organizations specifically concerned with child abuse, violence against women, or children's rights.

Section 43 should not be considered in isolation from other defences in the General Part.  If there is a need to clarify or strengthen these defences in connection with repealing s. 43, then all such defences should be considered and dealt with at the same time.98a


September 30,  1994, the Supreme Court of Canada renders its decision  in R. v. Daviault dealing with the defence of intoxication.99
 

November 12, 1994, at the Annual Meeting of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers Association and of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, the Minister of Justice Canada, the Honourable Allan Rock, releases a paper Reforming the General Part of the Criminal Code - A Consultation Paper100  and states:  "The release of this discussion paper is timely.  Reform of the General Part is a necessary first step in Comprehensive Criminal Code reform.  Recodifying it will make it more complete, more accessible to all Canadians and more reflective of current social values."101     The  Minister hopes with the feedback of the consultants  "to be in a position to introduce proposals for a new General part in this Parliament".102
 

December 1994, the Department of Justice Canada releases Toward a New General Part of the Criminal Code - Details on Reform Options,103an accompanying technical document to the 12 November 1994 document.  The paper gives "details on the issues and legal discussions on some of the options" presented in the November 1994 paper.104   The intent of the Department of Justice Canada is to consult on these two documents until 28 February 1995, to  analyze the results of the consultations and , after, start work "on drafting proposals which will be introduced in Parliament later in the year".104a
 

•  January 5, 1995, Michelle Fuerst, Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association wrote a letter to the Honourable Allan Rock, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, "Re: Self-Induced Intoxication", dated January 5, 1995.  The Department of Justice Canada was then conducting urgent consultations on the defence of intoxication (the Daviault decision); these consultations eventually led to Bill C-72, An Act to amend the Criminal Code [self-induced intoxication] /Parlement, Chambre des communes et le Sénat, Projet de loi C-72, Loi modifiant le Code criminel (intoxication volontaire), first read on 24 February 1995 (subsequently section 33.1 of the Criminal Code). Ms Fuerst's letter reads in part as follows:
 

The National Criminal Justice Section of the Canadian Bar Association would like to respond to your request for input regarding possible legislative changes dealing with the issue of criminal intoxication.

The Task Force on The Principles of Criminal Liability published in 1992 by the Canadian Bar Association recommended a comprehensive approach to creating a new General Part of the Criminal Code.  The National Criminal Justice Section remains convinced that it is preferable to deal with fundamental reform, rather than on a piecemeal basis as is proposed on the issue of criminal intoxication.104aa


•  January 17, 1995, Ms. Annie Chapados, counsel for the Service de recherche et législation (Research and Legislation Services) and on behalf of  the Comité permanent en droit criminel du Barreau du Québec (Standing Committee on criminal law of the Quebec Bar) writes a letter to Mr. Yvan Roy, Counsel Department of Justice Canada on the subject of "Intoxication volontaire / Position du  Comité permanent en droit criminel du Barreau du Québec" (Voluntary Intoxication / Position of the Standing Committee on criminal law of the Quebec Bar), 3 p.; the Department of Justice Canada was then conducting urgent consultations on the defence of intoxication (the Daviault decision); these consultations eventually led to Bill C-72, An Act to amend the Criminal Code [self-induced intoxication] /Parlement, Chambre des communes et le Sénat, Projet de loi C-72, Loi modifiant le Code criminel (intoxication volontaire), first read on 24 February 1995 (subsequently section 33.1 of the Criminal Code).  Part of the letter reads as follows:
 

[...] compte tenu des implications que revêterait l'adjonction d'une éventuelle infraction ayant trait à l'intoxication volontaire sur la Partie générale du Code criminel (certaines solutions pouvant par exemple nécessiter une exception constitutionnelle), les membres du Comité recommandent fortement que le Ministre ne dispose pas de cette question avant d'avoir procédé à la réforme de la Partie générale, à tout le moins d'en avoir déterminé les grandes lignes.  Plus particulièrement, l'examen de l'opportunité d'éliminer complètement la défense d'intoxication volontaire appellerait réflexion plus approndie.104b


•  The Supreme Court of Canada states that law on self-defence is "unbelievably confusing"! : February 23, 1995, Chief Justice Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada, sent a message a message to the Department of Justice and Parliament that the provisions of the General Part on self-defence were a mess!
 

As a preliminary comment, I would observe that ss. 34 and 35 of the Criminal Code are highly technical, excessively detailed provisions deserving of much criticism. These provisions overlap, and are internally inconsistent in certain respects. Moreover, their relationship to s. 37 (as discussed below) is unclear. It is to be expected that trial judges may encounter difficulties in explaining the provisions to a jury, and that jurors may find them confusing.  The case at bar demonstrates this.  During counsel's objections to his charge on ss. 34 and 35, the trial judge commented, "Well, it seems to me these sections of the Criminal Code are unbelievably confusing."  I agree with this observation. (R. v. McIntosh, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686, par.16)
------------------
À titre de commentaire préliminaire, je tiens à préciser que les art. 34 et 35 du Code criminel sont fort techniques, et sont des dispositions excessivement détaillées qui méritent d'être fortement critiquées. Ces dispositions se chevauchent et sont en soi incompatibles à certains égards. En outre, le lien entre ces dispositions et l'art. 37 (que, j'analyse ci-dessous) n'est pas clair. Il faut s'attendre à ce qu'un juge du procès ait des difficultés à expliquer ces dispositions au jury et à ce que les jurés puissent les trouver déroutantes. Le présent pourvoi le démontre bien. À la suite des objections que les avocats ont formulées relativement aux directives qu'il a données sur les art. 34 et 35, le juge du procès a affirmé: [TRADUCTION] «Bien, il me semble que ces dispositions du Code criminel sont incroyablement déroutantes.» Je suis d'accord avec cette observation. (R. c. McIntosh, [1995] 1 R.C.S. 686, par. 16)


February 27, 1995, Mr. Jean T. Fournier,  Deputy Solicitor General Canada wrote a letter to Mr. George Thomson, Deputy Minister and Deputy Attorney General, Justice Canada advising him that he agreed that "recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code should be a legislative priority":
 

"Dear George:
I am writing in response to Mr. Rock's letter of November, 1994, enclosing a consultation paper on options for revising the General Part of the Criminal Code.  I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the document on behalf of this Ministry.
While a number of urgent issues are facing the government, I agree that recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code should be a legislative priority.  Since the purpose of the General Part of the Code is to establish the general rules that reflect society's fundamental values, it is timely in view of the substantial case law under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which now defines important criminal law principles.  I believe that it is important to make every effort to ensure that the Criminal Code reflects contemporary society's fundamental values.  This is specially important where general rules and defences applicable to the rest of the Code are concerned.
The proposals set out in the paper have been reviewed by officials of this Ministry.  None of the proposals would have a direct or significant impact on the agencies within this department.  With respect to some of the specific issues, I would like to offer the following comments.

.......

I trust that my comments will be of assistance.
Yours sincerely,
[Signature]
Jean T. Fournier" 105


March 14, 1995, F. G. Palmer, Deputy Commissioner Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police wrote a letter to Mr. Rick Mosley, Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal and Social Policy Sector, Department of Justice Canada as a result of consultations on the November 1994 paper which reads in part as follows:
 

"Dear Mr. Mosley:

The consultation paper Reforming the General Part of the Criminal Code raises a number of issues with regards to the General Part of the Code needing revision.  This part of the codified law does not accurately reflect the values and concerns of our constantly evolving pluralistic society and the leading court decisions.  The specific issues raised in the paper are complex and deserve close attention.  We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this legislative initiative and our observations are offered as an invitation to develop the law in a general direction rather than specific recommendations for reform.  We would be supportive of legislative change which would simplify and rationalize the provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code, ensure equality before and under the law, and foster accountability of the individual for their criminal conduct."105a
 


April 6, 1995, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Honorable Allan Rock, stated before the House of Commmons Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs while appearing on the study on Bill C-72, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced intoxication):
 

"Last year at this time we were working at the Department of Justice on a discussion paper - you know we favour discussion papers - about the general part of the Criminal Code and what can be done with the general part of the Criminal Code to bring it up to date, strengthen it, and make sure it serves the justice system properly.
One aspect of the general part is the defences and what defences can be raised.  As part of looking at defences we looked at specific and general intention.  We identified specific and general intention as a very artificial sort of analysis that the courts have put together over the years.  We asked questions about whether it should be abolished, whether Parliament should legislate it away, and whether there is a better approach.  We also looked at the question of intoxication and how it ties into the formation of intention.  We asked some questions in the process of a discussion that continues to this day.
The idea had been to have a methodical, orderly discussion of these issues over the coming months, culminating in proposals for changes to the general part of the code.  The Daviault judgment and its effect in courts across Canada caused us to accelerate one part of that discussion - just one part of it - dealing with extreme intoxication as a defence to criminal charges involving acts of violence.  We have taken that one issue out of the context of the general review overall, including intention and intoxication in defences, and we are treating it separately.
...........
....The general part discussion was launched last November; we've encouraged responses in the period, which I think ended in February; we're now putting those responses together and considering them; and I think it will be this fall or maybe early next year before I shall have anything to put before the House.
But let me also observe that when I was in Victoria in January, my provincial and territorial counterparts expresed no enthousiasm at all for a general part review.  They did not see it as a matter of priority.  They said, 'We have many more pressing concerns, so don't try to take any of our time with that'.
I'm going to have to drive this forward and persuade the provinces that it is someworth doing, because I believe it is.  We'll do the best we can to get it brought forward for discussion at the earliest date, but I expect it will be late in the fall or early next year."105aa


June 6, 1995, the Canadian Bar Association (National Criminal Justice Section) appears before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Respecting: Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced intoxication).  In its brief, the National Criminal Justice Section writes:
 

The National Criminal Justice Section of the Canadian Bar Association has previously maintained that the issue of self-induced intoxication is best addressed within a comprehensive reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code.  The Section remains of the view that any change to the law relating to criminal intoxication should occur during the planned overall review of the principles underlying the General Part, rather than separately in a piecemeal fashion.105aaa


June 28, 1995, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Honorable Allan Rock, stated before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs while appearing on the study on Bill C-72, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced intoxication):
 

"The bill does not address all issues dealing with intoxication in the criminal law, for example, the long-standing question of whether the distinction between crimes of general and specific intent should be abolished.  That is not dealt with.  Nor are those cases where self-induced intoxication might lead to what might be judicially found to be temporary insanity or a mental disorder which could exonerate the person of criminal fault.
However, I remind the committee that the review of the general part of the Criminal Code, including those fundamental questions, is continuing.  It may be that with that review, we shall identify legislative responses to those questions in the fullness of time."105b


July 20, 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada renders its decision on the defence of duress in  R. v. Hibbert.106
 

The Department of Justice finds out what the consultations on the General said but does not inform Canadians! : August 1995, the Department of Justice Canada issues for internal use, three documents on the consultations of the General Part:
 

• Jarvis, Brian and Darren Littlejohn, Communications and Consultation Branch, Reforming the General Part of the Criminal Code: A Summary and Analysis of the Responses to the Consultation Paper, [Ottawa]: Department of Justice Canada, August 1995, 123 p.;
• Jarvis, Brian and Darren Littlejohn, Communications and Consultation Branch, Reforming the General Part of the Criminal Code - Analysis of Responses to the Consultation Paper, [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice Canada], August 1995, 51 p.;
• Jarvis, Brian and Darren Littlejohn, Communications and Consultation Branch, Analysis of Responses to the Consultation Paper on Reforming the General Part of the Criminal Code, [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice Canada], August 1995, 15 p.;


September 1995, the defence of intoxication is partly codified with s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code.107
 

October 4, 1995, the Solicitor General of Canada, Herb Gray,  and the Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, announce the appointment of Judge Lynn Ratushny to report among others on the possibility of reforming the provisions on self-defence.108 

 
 • March 1996, Consultation document published by the Department of Justice Canada:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040622204029/canada.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/uev/undue.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20040622203734/canada.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/uev/message.html
 
 http://web.archive.org/web/20040621203303/canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/cons/uev/message.html
 http://web.archive.org/web/20040611173449/canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/cons/uev/undue.html

 

•  March - April 1996, on the international stage, Canada takes an active part in the drafting of the General Principles of Criminal Law  that will be found in the 1998 Convwention, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.108a
 

New Criminal Code provisions on sentencing come into force:  September 3, 1996, new and important provisions on sentencing come into force (Part XXIII of the Criminal Code).109

 

September 17, 1996, the "The Government announces high-risk offenders initiative", at http://web.archive.bibalex.org/web/20010222021401/canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/1996/risque.html / "Le gouvernement annonce son programme concernant les délinquants à risque élevé", à http://web.archive.bibalex.org/web/20010224025700/canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/nouv/cp/1996/risque.html

Backgrounder - High-risk offenders /   Fiche - Délinquants à risque élevé
Backgrounder - Low-risk offenders /  Document d'information - Délinquants à risque faible

C-55
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (high risk offenders), the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,
 the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Department of the Solicitor General Act
 
Legislative Summary
First Reading
Reprinted as amended by the Standing Committee
As passed by the House of Commons
Royal Assent

C-55
Loi modifiant le Code criminel (délinquants présentant un risque élevé de récidive), la Loi sur le système
correctionnel et la mise en liberté sous condition, la Loi sur le casier judiciaire, la Loi sur les prisons et
les maisons de correction et la Loi sur le ministère du Solliciteur général
 
Résumé législatif
Première lecture
Réimprimé tel que modifié par le Comité permanent
Tel qu'adopté par la Chambre des communes
Sanction Royale


 

June 1997, the Liberal Party of Canada under the leadership of Jean Chrétien wins its second straight election and forms a majority government.110  on June 2, and Mrs Anne McLellan becomes the new Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada on June 11.
 

July 11,  1997, Judge Ratushny submits her report, Self Defence Review: Final Report Submitted to the Minister of Justice Canada and to the Solicitor General of Canada which recommends a "Model Self Defence Law".111
 

July 25, 1997, Stephen Bindman in an article, "Bureaucrats 'scorned' judge's  report",  affirms that Judge Ratushny who wrote the report, Self Defence Review: Final Report Submitted to the Minister of Justice Canada and to the Solicitor General of Canada wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada critizing senior bucreaucrta's attitudes towards her work:

    "Judge Lybn Ratushny of Ontario Court (provincial division) said she encountered a 'general attitude of resistance, distrust and antipathy' among senior officials during her recently completed review.
......

    In the letter, she cited several examples of resistance from officials that she fears will affect their advice on her recommendations to the new ministers:
...

•   Officials appeared to be more concerned about what provincial prosecutors thought of the self-defence claims than her own views. 'I find this apparent preference for the views of the prosecutors surprising' she commented."111a
 

August 1997, the Department of Justice Canada reports that the consultations on the reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code continue:
 
"REFORM OF THE GENERAL PART OF THE CRIMINAL CODE
The Department is reviewing the general rules of the principles of liability and defence to make them more complete and understandable to Canadians, to reflect modern societal values and court decisions, and to foster respect and confidence in the criminal justice system.

Consultations with provinces, the Canadian Bar Association, women's groups, police and other stakeholders will proceed throughout 1997."112


26 September 1997, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General state in  The Self-Defence Review: Overview and Next Steps, that they will consult on the recommendations of the Self Defence Review.113
 

• In letters of October 27,  1997December 26,  1997 and  February 10,  1998,  François Lareau asks the Minister of Justice Canada  about the status of the June 1993 Proposals to amend the Criminal Code (general principles) and of the the review of the General Part.114
 

16-20 December 1997, at an international conference in Italy, Daniel Préfontaine described the Canadian criminal justice system as follows:

"Persons working in the criminal justice system generally agree that the use of the word 'system' is in many respects a misnomer.  In fact, the system is characterized by a lack of a common agenda, insufficient communication of intent, and differing goals and capacity between the legislative, executive and judicial branches that share responsibility for the administration of justice.  Notwithstanding these realities, the expectation of the public is still that these various 'actors' in the system work closely together to achieve the broad social objective of justice, peace in the community and personal security.  In Canada, the pressures on the criminal justice system and management challenges are serious enough to warrant critical analysis, review, and change.

[...]

During the past 15 years the Canadian system of criminal justice has been subjected to unrelenting internal domestic pressures to respond to new public expectations and unprecedented technological  and social changes.  These new expectations and developments overburden an already overheated system.  In addition, external factors such as the globalization of crime and the resulting need for increased international cooperation to deal with the phenomenon continue to compound the problem and potentially threaten the integrity of the system."114a


3 March 1998, the Solicitor General Canada publishes the Consultation paper, Towards a Just, Peaceful Society: The Corrections and Conditional Release Act : Five Years Later.
"This paper has been prepared to provide you with background information about key aspects of the operation of the CCRA [Corrections and Conditional Release Act].  ...  In reviewing this material, it is useful to consider whether improvements that may be required are those in the statutory framework or are those which speak to implementation of those provisions. The CCRA has been amended twice since its creation (once in 1996 with comprehensive sentence calculation improvements ("C-45"), and again in 1997 with changes to day parole eligibility ("C-55")), and it remains open to positive and progressive improvements. Our common goal is just, peaceful and safe communities." (p. v)114b

March 1998, The Correctional Service of Canada, The Correctional Investigator, The National Parole Board, and The Department of the Solicitor General,
publish the Report on the provisions and operations of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, [Ottawa] : Solicitor General of Canada, available
at http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/sgc-sgc/consolidated_report-e/consolidated_report_e.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2009); also published in French/ aussi publié en français sous
le titre de Loi sur le système correctionnel et la mise en liberté sous condition, rapport sur les dispositions et l'application de la loi,et
disponible à http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/sgc-sgc/consolidated_report-f/consolidated_report_f.pdf (vérifié le 19 février 2009);


•  The Temporary Death of the Codification Movement: In reply to my letter of 27 October 1997,  in a  letter dated April 16,  1998, the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Anne McLellan, writes that she will not continue the work towards a comprehensive new General Part:
 

 "While the Department of Justice, at the direction of my predecessor, the Honourable Allan Rock, conducted consultations on the reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code, it is my not [sic] intention to undertake a comprehensive recodification of the General Part.  Instead, I propose to focus our energies in consulting on a limited number of issues of public concern and importance within the General Part.  I will soon be starting consultations on possible reforms to the law of self-defence, provocation and the defence of property, bearing in mind the recommendations for reform made in the Ratushny Report."115


•  In a February 23, 1998, a confidential briefing note "Reform of the Law of Self-Defence" reviewed and signed by Mr. Yvan Roy, Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada gives some reasons as to why the project of a comprehensive reform of the General Part has been "deferred" by the Department of Justice Canada:
 

"As a result of other legislative priorities, lack of resources and [s. 14(a)] work on the comprehensive reform of the General Part was deferred" [note: the exemption claimed under s. 14(a) of the Access to Information Act  is for federal-provincial affairs]115a


•  In June 1998, the Department of Justice Canada publishes Reforming Criminal Code Defences: Provocation, Self-Defence and Defence of Property A Consultation Paper.116
 

August, 1998, the Department of Justice reports that the June 1998 consultation paper "has been distributed to stakeholders for comment.  Further consultations will be held once detailed proposals for legislative change have been developed."117
 

August 20, 1998, I wrote a letter to  Mr. Alan D. Gold, President, Criminal Lawyers' Association but I have not received a reply to that letter. 120
 

September 8, 1998, a letter addressed to me by the Hon. Greg Byrne, Minister of Justice,  New Brunswick reads in part as follows:
 

"Dear Sir:
Thank you for your recent letter concerning reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code.  You have raised a number of very interesting issues and I Appreciate the detailed historical perspective that you have provided with regard to this matter.
We are actively participating in the Criminal Code reform process with the federal government.  Through federal/provincial/territorial meetings of officials.  Deputies and Attorneys General, we are continually providing input to reform process.  The pace of change can sometimes be frustrating.  However, significant enhancements have been achieved over the last few years through ongoing dialogue and review.  That can continue to happen.
I appreciate your concerns and your efforts in expressing you views on the future of criminal law reform in Canada.  I have forwarded copies of your letter to officials within my department who are directly involved in this reform process for their consideration.

Yours truly,

[signature]
Greg Byrne, Q.C.
Minister"121


September 8, 1998, a letter addressed to me by Mr. David B. Riley, Deputy Minister of Justice,  Prince Edward Island reads in part as follows:
 

"Dear Mr. Lareau:

Re: Reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code

This is in reply to your August 13, 1998, letter addressed to the Honourable Wes MacAleer.  Please be advised that Premier Pat Binns is now Attorney General.  Your letter has been referred to me for review and response.

Over the past few years, Prince Edward Island has had limited participation in various discussions at various levels in the matter of Criminal Code reform.  We are a very small jurisdiction with limited resources to engage in such discussions, which can be very complex and demanding.  It doesn't appear that there is any simple process to follow in the reform of the criminal law.  I agree that it would be helpful to have the criminal law modernized and put in language that could be more readily understood by the public.  As well, any changes in criminal law are of direct interest to the provinces who have responsibility for the administration of justice.

You may be aware that criminal law reform, in one form or another, is usually on the agenda of Federal/Provincial/Territorial meetings of Justice Ministers or their Deputies.  I expect this will continue to be the case with Criminal Code review, and reform being raised directly or indirectly.

Thank you for writing, sharing your views and providing background information.  Please note that I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, for his information.  I will also provide your information to appropriate officials in this Department who are involved in Federal/Provincial/Territorial discussions.

Yours very truly,
[signature]
David B. Riley
Deputy Minister

c. : Mr. Morris Rosenberg"122


September 10, 1998, a letter addressed to me by Irv Yaverbaum, Alberta Justice Criminal Law Policy and Special Projects, reads in part as follows:
 

"Dear Mr. Lareau:
RE:   REFORM OF THE GENERAL PART OF THE CRIMINAL CODE
        I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Honourable Jon Havelock, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Alberta with respect to your correspondence of August 12, 1998.  Your correspondence including the April 16, 1998 letter from Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, has been reviewed.
        In  reviewing the letter to you from the Federal Justice Minister, I note she has indicated that she does not intend to continue the position taken by her predecessor, the Honourable Allan Rock, that there should be a comprehensive recodification of the general part of the Criminal Code.  Alberta has concurred with this decision.
        It is the position of Alberta that it is more appropriate to focus our efforts and resources upon the reform of specific provisions of the Criminal Code, rather than undertaking a comprehensive recodification of the general part.
        I wish to thank you on behalf of the Minister for advising us of your views with respect to this issue.
                    Yours truly,
                    [signature]
                    Irv Yaverbaum"123


September 14, 1998, a letter addressed to me by Benoît Lauzon, avocat, conseiller politique, adjoint au directeur du Cabinet du ministère de la Justice, Procureur général et ministre responsable de l'application des lois professionnelles, Gouvernment du Québec, reads in part as follows:

"Monsieur,
        Au nom du ministre de la Justice, Procureur général et ministre responsable de l'application des lois professionnelles, monsieur Serge Ménard, j'accuse réception de votre correspondance du 10 août dernier par laquelle vous sollicitez son intervention afin que soit poursuivie la réforme de la partie générale du Code criminel, envisagée depuis plusieurs années par le gouvernment fédéral.
       Votre correspondance sera remise au ministre pour qu'il en prenne connaissance dès la première occasion.  Soyez assuré que le ministre Ménard partage avec vous l'importance de ce dossier et qu'il ne manquera pas de sensibiliser son homologue fédéral à ce sujet lors d'une prochaine rencontre fédérale-provincial-territoriale des ministres de la Justice.
        Je vous prie d'agréer, Monsieur, l'expression de mes meilleurs sentiments.
                                                           [signature]
                      BL/cc                           Benoît Lauzon, avocat
                                                          Conseiller politique
                                                          adjoint au directeur"124
September 17, 1998, a letter addressed to me by the Hon. John T. Nilson, Q.C.,  Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Province of Saskatchewan, reads in part as follows:
 
"Dear Mr. Lareau:

Thank you for your letter of August 13, 1998, received in my office August 19, 1998, regarding reform of the General part of the Criminal Code.

Significant work has been undertaken over the past decade involving reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code.  Most recently this work resulted in the document on 'Reforming Criminal Code Defences: Provocation, Self-Defence and Defence of Property - A Consultation' made in public July 1998.
I am advised that my predecessors and officials within Saskatchewan Justice have participated in discussions on various aspects of potential reform of the General part of the Criminal Code.  As you have indicated, the issues are of interest to provincial Attorneys General who have responsibility for the administration of justice within our jurisdictions.
Saskatchewan has not prepared a formal brief on these issues.

I support Ms. McLellan's position that, at this time, it is not appropriate to undertake a comprehensive recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code.  I note that many amendments have been made to the Criminal Code since this issue was first raised in 1986.  Much of this work, including the current consultation document on Provocation, Self-Defence and Defence of Property, deals  with specific issues to clarify the scope and practice of criminal law.

As the criminal law is constantly evolving, the priorities for reform evolve.  For example, significant work has been undertaken in the last year to deal with high risk offenders and sentencing reforms.  I note the work of the various bodies that you have referred to is somewhat dated now.

I believe that it would be more appropriate to continue targeted reform to the Criminal Code, rather than to engage in a process of comprehensive rewriting of the General Part.

I appreciate your interest in this area.

Yours sincerely,
[signature]
John T. Nilson, Q.C.
Minister of Justice
and Attorney General

cc: Honourable Anne McLellan"125


September 25, 1998, a letter addressed to me by Margo L. Nightingale, Senior Legal Policy Advisor, Northwest Territories Justice, reads in part as follows:

"Dear Sir:
Reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code
Thank you for your letter dated August 14, 1998, address to the Hon. Goo Arlooktoo, Minister of Justice for the Northwest Territories.  Mr. Arlooktoo has asked me to reply to you on his behalf.
Our Minister of Justice is aware of the federal Minister of Justice's decision not to pursue the reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code.  However, given the upcoming division of the Northwest Territories and the corresponding creation of Nunavut, the Minister of Justice, and this Department, have a number of other priorities in our jurisdiction taking precedence at this time over the reform of the General Part.
We appreciate that there has already been a considerable amount of work undertaken on this issue to date.  We are confident that none of this will be wasted.  Please be aware at this time there are other Criminal Code reform initiatives underway, like the reform of criminal procedure, which have a greater urgency for us at present.
As to your request for information about our involvement in the 1993-1194 consultation process, we did not prepare any written response.
                                      Sincerely,
                            [signature]
                                      Margo L. Nightinfgale
                                      Senior Legal Policy Advisor"126


October 7,  1998, the text of a letter addressed to me by Me Jacques Fournier, le bâtonnier du Québec, Barreau du Québec, reads in part as follows:
 

"OBJET:      Réforme de la partie générale du Code criminel
Cher confrère,

             Comme je vous l'indiquais dans ma lettre du 24 août dernier, les membres du Comité permanent en droit criminel se sont penchés sur votre requête relative à la réforme de la partie générale du Code criminel.

          C'est avec grand intérêt que les membres du Comité on pris connaissance de votre lettre et considèrent qu'elle est bien fondée. Le Comité m'a soumis son intention d'intégrer dans les mémoires à venir une mention à l'effet que la recodification serait nécessaire.  Il nous sera donc possible d'insister dans le sens de votre requête auprès de la Ministre dans les prochains mois.
          Si vous désirez des informations supplémentaires sur le sujet ou si vous avez besoin de documents particuliers, il vous sera toujours possible de contacter Me Carole Brosseau de notre service de recherche et de législation qui est en charge dudit dossier.
          En espérant le tout à votre entière satisfaction, veuillez agréer, Maître Lareau, l'expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs.
                                                                            Le bâtonnier du Québec,
                                                                            [signature]

                                                                            Jacques Fournier"127
 

October 16,  1998, a letter addressed to me by John T. Nilson, Q.C. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Province of Saskatchewan reads in part as follows:

"Dear Mr. Lareau:
Thank you for your letter of September 28, 1998, received in my office October 2, 1998, regarding reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code.
I appreciate your comments on the importance of a comprehensive and thoughtful review of the General Part of the Criminal Code.  As I stated in my previous letter, however, it is important to bear in mind the timing of, and resources involved in, such a general review, as well as the potential impact on the practice of criminal law before the courts.
I want to assure you that I am not offended by your frank discussion of your passion for reform.  I will keep your comments in mind during any further discussions on this issue.
Yours sincerely,
[signature]
John T. Nilson, Q.C.
Minister of Justice
and Attorney General"128


October 23, 1998,  a letter addressed to me by Lois Moorcroft, Minister of Justice Yukon  reads in part as follows:
 

"Dear Sir
Re:  Reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code
________________________________________
Thank you for your letter of October 14, 1998 and for the interest you have shown with respect to reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code. As you are probably aware, our government is particularly interested in reviewing suggested reforms in the are of self-defence and provocation.  That process is ongoing and the results of consultation with all interested parties will be taken into consideration in determining our  position on these and other suggested reforms.
Again, thank you for your interest in these matters.
Yours sincerely,
[signature]
Lois Moorcroft
Minister of Justice"129


November 1998,  the National Criminal Justice Section of the Canadian Bar Association states in their "Submission on Reforming Criminal Code Defences" to the Minister of Justice Canada that they are opposed to the piecemeal approach to law reform:
 

"The National Criminal Justice Section is strongly of the view that reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code should occur in a comprehensive and principled manner.  The Consultation Paper is focused solely on three problematic defences which it proposes be amended in the absence of tackling the broader problem of recodifying the General Part.  We are concerned that this type of incremental approach is inherently problematic.  It serves to perpetuate a Criminal Code which is archaic, incomplete, poorly organized and difficult to understand.  Piecemeal modifications undercut the pressure on the Federal Government to undertake this comprehensive reform.  That said, the National Criminal Justice Section understands that there are no plans to undertake comprehensive reform of the General Part at this time.  Our comments on the proposed options for reform of the Criminal Code defences should be understood within the context of our strong preference for comprehensive reform."130


November 2,  1998,  part of the text of a letter addressed to me from the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General reads as follows:

"Dear Mr. Lareau:

Thank you for your letter dated August 12, 1998 regarding the Criminal Code.

As you point out in your letter, the federal government is responsible for changes to the Criminal Code, a federal statute.  The provinces make recommendations on how the Criminal Code should be changed.

In recent years, it has been the consensus of the provinces that a comprehensive review of the entire General Part of the Criminal Code is not crucial.  Rather, certain sections of the General Part continue to be examined for reform as they arise on a priority basis.  I anticipate that the necessity for a comprehensive review of the General Part will be considered from time to time in the future.

Staff from the Crown Law Office Criminal belong to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial working group examining changes to the Code.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Earl Frutchman, Senior Counsel, Policy at (416) 326-4661.

Yours truly,

[signature illegible]
for Murray Segal
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Law Division"131


•  November 6-8,  1998, Professor Stuart, an active participant of the reform of the General Part, publishes a Canadian General Part!,  In Kingston, Ontario, at the conference Making Criminal Law Clear and Just: A Criminal Reports Forum", professor Don Stuart presents the text of a General Part.131a
 

November 12, 1998,  part of the text of a letter from Mr. Bryan McConnell, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) reads as follows:

"Dear Mr. Lareau

Re: Reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code of Canada

I am writing to you in reply to your letter with enclosures dated 18 September 1998.  In preparing this reply, I have consulted with the Law Amendments Committee of the CACP and have sought their input.
Although the CACP has never made a specific recommendation calling for reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code of Canada, the CACP was involved in consultations with the Department of Justice on this topic in the early 1990's.  At that time, there was little support for a wholesale review of the General Part.
The police were directly involved in changes to section of the Criminal Code of Canada introduced by Minister of Justice Kim Campbell and more recently to section 33 introduced by Minister Rock.  In recent years, there also have seen two Omnibus Bills passed and another before Parliament right now which, cumulatively, have created significant changes to the Criminal Code of Canada.  Last year, Parliament passed a series of Bills, in particular Bill C-55 and C-95, both of which were of special interest to the policing community and to this Association, in particular. In September of this year, Parliament passed Bill C-3, (DNA Data Bank), legislation which is extremely important to the police.
Therefore, while there are many matters involving criminal law that the CACP would like to see addressed by Parliament, we are satisfied that the Government has been responsive to the concerns of policing.
We are grateful for your interest in the CACP.
Sincerely
[signature]
Bryan McConnell
Executive Director"132


November 18, 1998,  part of the text of a letter received from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Nova Scotia:

"Dear Mr. Lareau:

RE: Reform of the General part of the Criminal Code

I have reviewed your letter dated August 13, 1998 in which you advocate reform of the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code.
While it is clear that the federal Minister of Justice does not intend to undertake a comprehensive recodification of the Criminal Code (General Part), she will continue to address specific areas of concern within the General Part.  To this end, the federal Justice Minister continues to involve her provincial and territorial counterparts through ongoing consultations and at our bi-annual meetings.   I am satisfied that these consultative mechanisms provide me with the opportunity to ensure that the interests and needs of the citizens of Nova Scotia, in the area of Criminal Law, are being met.
I do not believe that this Department submitted responses to the June 1993 and December 1994 documents which were mentioned in your letter.
Thank you for the interest you have shown in this important area of Canadian Law.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Dr. Jim Smith, MLA
Minister of Justice"133


December 1998,  the Government releases Victims' Rights -- A Voice, Not a Veto (Response to the Fourteenth Report of The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights), available at http://www.doj.ca/en/news/nr/1998/victimsrep.html  (accessed on 26 November 2006);


December 30, 1998, part of the text of a letter addressed to me from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Manitoba:

"Dear Mr. Lareau:
Thank you for your letter concerning reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code.
Our government has not  taken position on the questions raised in your letter.  However, as Mr. Finlayson indicated to you, Manitoba has been an active participant in an ongoing project to effect major reform in criminal procedure.  At the meeting of Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for Justice held in Regina on October 29 and 30, 1998, I urged the Federal Minister of Justice to bring forward legislation as quickly as possible.
Thank you for sharing your views with me.
Sincerely yours,
[signature]
V.E. Toews, Q.C.
Minister of Justice
Attorney General"134

January 6, 1999,  the Hon. Stéphane Dion, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs writes me a letter that reads in part as follows:

"Monsieur,
           En plus des lettres échangées récemment entre vous et le Barreau du Québec, j'ai bien reçu votre lettre du 28 octobre dernier dans laquelle vous réitérez vos préoccupations concernant la décision de la ministre de la Justice de ne pas entreprendre la recodification complète de la partie générale du Code criminel.

          Permettez-moi d'abord de préciser que je suis d'accord avec vous que le Code criminel et, à cet égard, l'ensemble du droit canadien, est «la pierre angulaire de la société canadienne».

           Toutefois, un gouvernement a aussi des choix à faire et, comme je vous l'ai indiqué dans ma lettre du 20 octobre, ma collègue, la ministre de la Justice, compte plutôt canaliser ses efforts et ceux de son ministère sur la réforme d'un nombre plus restreint de dossiers d'intérêt public et d'importance à l'intérieur de la partie générale du Code criminel.  Ces efforts porteront notamment sur un nombre de réformes touchant la loi de l'autodéfense, de la provocation et de la défense de la priorité [sic], qui, si j'ai bien compris, a été ciblée par les provinces comme étant prioritaire.  En fait, la décision de la ministre McLellan d'agir rapidement pour faire avancer ces priorités communes comme illustre bien que la fédération fonctionne et qu'il est possible de réaliser des ptrogrès graduels en travaillant en partenariat avec les provinces pour résoudre les préoccupations véritables des Canadiens."

           Comme vous le savez, le ministre de la Justice est responsable du Code criminel, et j'ai pris la liberté d'envoyer votre lettre et ma réponse à Mme McLellan.

        Encore une fois, je vous remercie de l'intérêt que vous portez à la réforme du Code criminel.

                         [signature]
                         Stéphane Dion
c.c.: L'honorable Anne McLellan"135


January 19, 1999, text of a letter from the Hon. Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada:
 

"Dear Mr. Lareau:
Thank you for your further correspondence of August 21 and October 26, 1998, concerning the need for a comprehensive recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code.  I apologize for the delay in responding.
I wish to assure you that I am committed to a modern Criminal Code in Canada.  To this end, efforts are constantly being made to update and improve the Criminal Code.  General Part reform issues are not being neglected.  As you know, consultations are underway with a view to reforming the law of self-defence, defence of property and provocation.  These are General Part issues that have a high priority and these initiatives have the support of my provincial counterparts.  Further reforms will, undoubtedly, take place in the future.
Thank you again for your interest in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
[signature]
A. Anne McLellan
c.c.: The Honourable John T. Nilson, Q.C., M.L.A.
       Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Saskatchewan"136


January 27, 1999, Mr. Murray Segal, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Law Division, Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario wrote a letter that reads:
 

"Dear Mr. Lareau
Thank you for your letter dated November 9, 1998 to the Honourable Charles Harnick regarding the General part of the Criminal Code.  I have been asked to respond on his behalf.
The Attorneys General across Canada arrived at the consensus that certain sections of the General part of the Code would continue to be examined for reform as they arose on a priority basis rather than examining the entire General Part.  It is anticipated that the necessity for a comprehensive review of the General part will be considered from time to time in the future.
As stated in my letter of November 2, 1998, staff from the Crown Law Office Criminal belong to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial working group examining changes to the Criminal Code.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Earl Fruchtman, Senior Counsel, Policy at (416) 326-4661.
Yours truly,
[signature]
Murray Segal
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Law Division
cc: Earl Fruchtman, Senior Counsel"137


January 29, 1999, in The Lawyers Weekly, we read on the criminal agenda of the Hon. McLellan:
 

"By when the long-awaited amendments to the Young Offenders Act are introduced and passed this year, along with a planned overhaul of criminal procedure later in 1999, 'much of the major infrastructure of the criminal justice system will have been reformed and will be in operation,' McLellan observed."138


February 10, 1999, Mr. Roderick A. Macdonald from the Law Commission of Canada wrote me a letter that reads:

"Dear Mr. Lareau,
I have read your letter of January 28 addressed to Bruno Bonneville, Executive Director of the Law Commission of Canada and faxed to all Commissioners.  In that letter you ask me to get back to you.
You will recall that once before I undertook to raise your concerns at a meeting of the Commissioners.  Following that meeting Mr. Bonneville wrote to you on October 9 to state "Commissioners unanimously concluded that reforming the General Part of the Criminal Code should not become a priority for the work of the Commission".
You then wrote back expressing your disagreement with that decision.  Because I felt that you were very concerned about that issue I invited you to meet with me, and I spent considerable time with you discussing those concerns.  I reviewed again how the Commission understand its mandate, what its research agenda is, and how it proposes to deal with questions not forming part of its agenda.  I said that the Commission would not be sending a letter to the Minister urging that she proceed with a comprehensive reform of the General part.  You reiterated your disagreement and said that you would get back to me, which you did on December 3, when you sent me a copy of the CBA submission in favour of the Minister doing so.
You then wrote on January 8.  Mr.  Bonneville was in the process of responding when you telephoned.  Since there was to be another meeting of Commissioners in early February, and since you had faxed your January 28 letter to Commissioners, I have delayed responding until I could again present your concerns to Commissioners.
After considering the matter carefully, the Commissioners have concluded once again that the Commission should not write to the Minister to urge her to proceed with the reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code.  Commissioners felt that it would be premature for the Commission to intervene publicly on the issue of the reform of the General Part since we have not yet done any research pertaining to this issue.
Yours truly,
[signature]
Roderick A. Macdonald
President"139


March 24, 1999, Mr. L. Denis Desautels, the Auditor General of Canada,  wrote me a letter that reads:
 

"Monsieur,
Je vous remercie de votre lettre du 16 mars 1999 au sujet de la nouvelle codification de la partie générale du Code criminel.
Nous avons lu soigneusement les renseignements que vous avez fait parvenir à notre bureau.  Je regrette de vous informer toutefois que nos priorités actuelles et nos ressources ne nous permettent pas d'examiner cette question pour le moment.  En revanche, nous convenons qu'il s'agit là d'une question importante et nous tiendrons compte de la nouvelle codification de la partie générale du Code criminel lors de l'établissement de nos prochains travaux de vérification.
En vous remerciant d'avoir porté cette question à mon attention, je vous prie d'agréer, Monsieur, l'expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs".

[signature]
L. Denis Desautels140


March 26, 1999, Mr. Colin J. Flynn, Q.C., Director of Public Prosecutions, Department of Justice, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador wrote me the following letter:
 

"Dear Sir:

          Letters to the Honourable Chris Decker, to the Honourable Brian Tobin and to the Honourable Paul Dicks have been referred to me for review.

          We do not intend to pursue the Federal Government on the issue of reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code.  Rather, if the Federal Government is indeed interested in pursuing this issue, we will be an active participant.

                                                                                         Yours sincerely,
                                                                                         [signature]
                                                                                         Colin J. Flynn, Q.C.
                                                                                         DIRECTOR OF
                                                                                         PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS"141


April 8, 1999, the Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP, Cleve Cooper wrote me a letter that reads:

"Dear Mr. Lareau:

Your letter to Commissioner Philip Murray dated March 8, 1999, has been referred to me for response.

The Comments made by Deputy Commissioner F.G. Palmer (Retired) on the consultation paper Reforming the General Part of the Criminal Code were the result of a Force-wide consultation and were forwarded to the Department of Justice during their review of the General Part of the Criminal Code in 1995.

The R.C.M.P. is supportative of legislative change which should simplify and rationalize the provisions of the General part of the Criminal Code, ensure equality before and under the law, and foster accountability of the individual for their criminal conduct.

I tank you for your interest and your expresses support for the RCMP's position in this matter.

Sincerely,
[signature]
Cleve Cooper, Assistant Commisoner
Director
Community, Contract and Aboriginal Policing Services"142
 

April 27, 1999, the Attorney General of  British Columbia, the Honourable Ujjal Dsanjh,  wrote me a letter that reads:
 
"Dear François Lareau:
Please accept my apology for the delay in my response to your letters and enclosures of August 12, September 14 and October 15, 1998, regarding reform of the general part of the Criminal Code, and the Federal/Provincial/Territorial discussions of the provocation defence.
In your letter of September 14, you request a copy of a discussion paper which was a working document and not available for circulation.  I have enclosed instead a copy of a document that was prepared for the Federal/Provincial/Territorial meeting of Ministers Responsible for Justice in December 1997: "Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Provocation Interim Report."
In your other letters, I note your comments regarding reform of the Criminal Code.  As you know, the Criminal Code is a federal responsibility.  The Province of British Columbia is interested in participating in initiatives to improve the Criminal Code and make it more comprehensive for both members of the public and the Bar.   In fact, ministry officials took an active role in discussions during the 1993 review.  Notwithstanding this effort, it appears that this initiative is not a priority of the federal justice ministry at this time.  I remain committed to reform of the Criminal Code should this initiative once more gain momentum.
I regret I cannot comply with your request that I write to the Honourable Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, urging her to continue this initiative.
The Ministry did not submit a brief in response to the June 1993 document, "Proposals to amend the Criminal Code (general principles)" but ministry officials who participated in this review are mindful of your concern that the work done on this issue not be wasted.
Thank you for taking the time to express your views.
Yours sincerely,

[signature]
Ujjal Dosanjh, Q.C.
Attorney General"143


May 11, 1999, the Deputy Solicitor General Canada, Mr. Jean T. Fournier, wrote me a letter that reads: :

"Dear Mr. Lareau:
Thank you for your letters dated March 25, 1999 and April 2, 1999, in which you seek information concerning the Department's views respecting the recodification of General Part of the Criminal Code.  I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.
As you are aware, public safety is the mission of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and it is fundamental to Canada's economic and social well being.  To support our mission, the Ministry has identified the following four strategic priorities to advance public safety in Canada into the 21st century:
• Combating organized crime
• Integrating justice information systems
• Promoting effective corrections
• Encouraging citizen engagement
These priorities are directly linked to the Government's commitments outlined in the Speech from the Throne.
The Department is constantly assessing ways in which to advance the public safety agenda, including the possibility of legislative changes to the Criminal Code of Canada.  As I noted in my February 25, 1995 correspondence to the Department of Justice, while a number of urgent issues are facing the government, I believe that recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code remains an important priority.
The Department of the Solicitor General works closely with other departments, including the Department of Justice to support the overall mission of public safety and the Government's commitment to building safer communities.  We will continue to work with all partners in the criminal justice system to achieve this important goal.
Sincerely,
[Signature]
Jean T. Fournier"144


June 25, 1999, Mr. Mario Tremblay, the Chief Crown Prosecutor of the Province of Québec wrote me the following letter:

«Sainte-Foy, le 25 juin 1999
Me François Lareau
58-890 Cahill Drive West
Ottawa, On.
K1V 9A4
Objet:   Réforme de la partie générale du Code criminel
Cher confrère,
J'ai pris connaissance avec grand intérêt de la correspondance que vous avez transmise à Madame Goupil en sa qualité de Ministre de la Justice du Québec.  Puisque vous y traitez de la réforme de la partie générale du Code criminel et qu'il s'agit d'un domaine du droit qui relève de la Direction générale des poursuites publiques, on m'a prié d'y donner suite.
Je trouve fort louable les efforts que vous faites en vue d'amener le législateur fédéral à réformer la partie générale du Code criminel.  Comme vous le savez, il s'agit d'un objectif que poursuivait l'ancienne Commission de réforme du droit du Canada auquel le ministère de la Justice du Québec a non seulement souscrit et encouragé mais aussi soutenu.   On me dit que vous y avez vous-mêmes grandement contribué alors que vous étiez à l'emploi du ministère fédéral de la Justice.
Par ailleurs, vous qui avez également contribué à la rédaction du Rapport final du groupe de travail fédéral-pecincial [sic] sur l'homicide, savez combien il est déjà difficile d'obtenir un consensus sur des modifications au Code criminel relativement à une infraction aussi importante que l'homicide.  Vous êtes donc en mesure de comprendre que le ministère de la Justice du Québec s'est désillusionné depuis plusieurs années après maints efforts pour convaincre les autorités fédérales de réformer la partie générale et la partie spéciale du Code criminel.
Voyez d'ailleurs combien il est difficile d'obtenir un consensus sur une réforme de l'enquête préliminaire alors que celle-ci est réclamée de tous les intervenants depuis plus de trente ans.
Nous nous sommes donc résignés à collaborer à un rapiéçage du Code criminel et nous vous souhaitons la meilleure des chances dans vos efforts de faire prioriser auprès des autorités fédérales la réforme de la partioe générale du Code criminel.
Veuillez agréer, Cher confrère, l'expression de mes meilleurs sentiments.
[signature]
Mario Tremblay
Substitut en chef du procureur général
Directeur du Bureau des affaires criminelles»145
 

Translation by François Lareau on 22 July 1999



June 25, 1999

François Lareau, Counsel
58-890 Cahill Drive West
Ottawa, ON
K1V 9A4

Dear colleague:

Subject: Reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code

I have read with great interest the correspondence you have sent to the Quebec Minister of Justice,  Mrs. Linda Goupil.  Since your letter deals with the reform of the General Part of the Criminal Code,  a matter of law for General Services Public Prosecutions, I have been asked to respond to it.

I find your efforts with a view of bringing the federal legislator to reform the General Part of the Criminal Code to be very commendable.  As you know, this was an objective pursued by the former Law Reform Commission of Canada and subscribed to, encouraged and supported by the Quebec Justice Department.  I am told that you personably greatly contributed to it while you were employed by the federal Department of Justice.

Moreover, since you who have also contributed to the drafting of the Final Report of the Federal / Provincial Working Group on Homicide, you know how much it is difficult to obtain a consensus on amendments to the Criminal Code relating to an offence as important as homicide.   You are thus able to understand that since several years, the Quebec Department of Justice has become disillusionized after many efforts to convince the federal authorities to reform the General  Part and the Special Part of the Criminal Code.

 Furthermore, see how difficult it is to obtain a consensus on a reform of the preliminary inquiry, while such a reform has been asked for by all interveners for more than thirty years.

We have thus resigned ourselves to a collaboration on patching up theCriminal Code and we wish you the best of luck in your efforts to have the federal authorities prioritize the reform of the General Part of the  Criminal Code.

Sincerely,

[signature]
Mario Tremblay
Chief Crown Prosecutor
Director of the Department of Criminal Cases"

The Minister of Justice announces a policy decision that is not kept: August 25, 1999, Part of the "Notes for an address by the Honourable Anne McLellan Minister of Justice, Attorney General of Canada and Member of Parliament for Edmonton West At The Canadian Bar Association Annual General Meeting, Edmonton, Alberta reads as follows:
 
In June 1998, I released a consultation document on reform to the laws of provocation and self-defence, as well as defense of property. Many stakeholders, including  Aboriginal groups, women’s groups and professionals within the criminal justice system have submitted thoughtful responses. We are currently analyzing these submissions and we will formulate detailed proposals for reform. I can assure all of you that I take the review of these defenses very seriously and I intend to take proposals to my provincial and territorial colleagues regarding these issues when I meet with them in Vancouver in December.146


29 November 1999, Department of Justice publishes a consultation document : Child Victims and the Criminal Justice System / Les enfants victimes et le système de justice pénale:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040603024724/canada.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/child/toc.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20040618122738/canada.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/child/index.html

 and in French/ en français
http://web.archive.org/web/20040428110147/canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/cons/child/index.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20040421202835/canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/cons/child/toc.html


29 May 2000, the House of Commons, Sub-committee on Corrections and Conditional Release Act of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights submits its report: A Work in Progress: The Corrections and Conditional Release Act.146a
 

1 June 2000, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights holds a one day preliminary meeting on the statutory review of certain provisions of the Criminal Code (available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/1/JURI/Meetings/Evidence/juriev147-e.htm#T1030 also published in French  / aussi publié en français: http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/1/JURI/Meetings/Evidence/juriev147-f.htm.  The review was supposed to start in February 1997!  As of 3 August 2001, no further hearings has been held by the Standing Committee!
 

22 June 2000, the  Honourable Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and the Honourable Lawrence MacAulay, Solicitor General of Canada, release a white paper,  Law Enforcement and Criminal Liability.147    The paper advances the idea that the police, in certain circumstances,  should be allowed to break the law.
 

October 2000, Ms Joanne Klineberg, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada,  in a memorandum prepared for the Minister of Justice, "Reform of the defence of provocation", addresses the criticism of the "ad hoc", "piecemeal" approach to the reform of the criminal law:

Most criminal law defences are based on similar or related underlying principles and have multiple common features.  Judicial commentary related to one defence provides relevant insight into the consideration of other defences [the next part is exempted under s. 19(1) and 21(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act]

Reform of the defences of duress and necessity, as well as self-defence and defence of property, was contemplated during the early 1990s as part of the initiative on recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code.  For various reasons, legislative reform never took place. [the next part is exempted under s. 21(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act]

In fact, numerous commentators from within the criminal justice system (in particular the Canadian Bar Assoiation) have criticized the government's ad hoc approach to reforming the criminal law and urged reform of all defences together in order to ensure consistency in approach.  Dealing with multiple defences together would avoid the criticism that piecemeal reforms are premature and an unsatisfactory approach to criminal law reform.147a


19 October 2000, the [Government's] Response to the Report of the Sub-Committee on Corrections and Condition Release Act of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights : A Work in Progress: The Corrections and Conditional Release Act is tabled in the House of Commons.147b
 

1 January 2001, Professor Don Stuart writes in the Preface of his 4th ed.of his book, Canadian Criminal Law:

This book demonstrates throughout that a General Part is urgently needed because:

1. Basic substantive principles, such as those respecting fault, voluntariness and omissions and the defences of duress and necessity, are missing from the Criminal Code which is the document most accessible to Canadians.
2. Although our courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, have tried hard to provide guidance, there is now considerable inconsistency and undue complexity in the law.
3. Our adversary system, which requires cases to be fairly put to impartial judges or juries, and the presumption of innocence, cannot work with legitimacy where there is confusion as to the applicable tests on even basic matters such as the fault requirement, or which self-defence rule applies.
4.  The law must be capable of being easily understood by counsel and judges of lesser experience and/or competence and not left to esoteric debates.
5. As a matter of efficiency and cost it makes little sense for so many appeals  and retrials to take place simply because the law is unclear.

A well drafted General Part will not miraculously clear up all these deficiencies.  It too would require interpretation and Charter review.  But it should surely go a long way to address them.148

21 March 2001, the Hon. Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada introduced  in the House of Commons Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other Acts.  The bill dealt in part with cruelty to animals.  At the time, I was so discouraged with the by criminal law policy priorities of the Justice Department that I wrote the following:
The Minister of Justice Prefers Animals to Human Beings!

The criminal law reform process in Canada is very politicized.  I am glad that the bill about animal cruelty will better protect animals.  However, the Hon. Anne McLellan, the Minister, should set her priorities for criminal law reform differently.  I suggest that the priority should have been to better protect human beings rather than animals!

In 1986, the Law Reform Commission of Canada (in its Draft Criminal Code) and in 1991, a Federal/Provincial Working Group (in their Report on Homicide)  recommended fundamental changes  to the law of homicide.  Charges of murder are among the most complex for judges to explain to juries.    Every  lawyer interested in criminal law knows that the law of homicide needs to be simplified -- except the Minister of Justice.   Yes for a Minister who says that she is concerned about victims of violent crimes and prevention of crime, she has it all wrong!   The human beings will have to wait their turn!

Why is it that the Department of Justice has its priorities all wrong?  In a reform on the law of homicide, the penalties would have to be reviewed and, of course, the government does not  want to debate again the death penalty!  Citizens, in Canada, don't think about a rational reform of the criminal law, think politics!  Murdered persons don't vote but animal lovers do!

There is also a more subtle reason.  A review of the law of homicide would force the government to realize the urgent need for a modern General Part, a part of the Criminal Code containing the basic principles of criminal liability.  I have concluded that  the Hon. McLellan and her senior advisors are not interested in informing the Canadians about the law.    She prefers the Charter of Rights decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada and XIXth century criminal law theory and values over legislation by Parliament!


28 March 2001, the Hon. Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, informs the House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, that "the YOA [Young Offenders Act] has resulted in the highest youth incarceration rate in the western world, including the United States."148a    Who has been formulating such "Crown oriented" policies for the government?
 

5 April 2001, first reading of Bill C-24 at the House of Commons, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.149  This Bill, inter alia, gives permission to certain policemen, in certain circumstances,  to break the law (a sort of defence of necessity limited to these policemen).   On May 30, the bill is amended by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.150   During the hearings of   the Committee, on May 8, Ms. Anne-Marie Boisvert, chairperson of the Barreau du Québec Criminal Law Committee stated:
 

[Translation]  The Barreau du Québec has already stated that it is against the basic principle in section 25.1 [the section giving certain policemen the power to break the law].  ....

I will not belabor the point that, as far as we are concerned, the traditional necessity defence and prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General were sufficient.151
_____________

Le Barreau du Québec s'est déjà prononcé contre le principe du paragraphe 25.1 [paragraphe donnant le droit à certains policiers de ne pas suivre la loi].

Je n'insisterai pas davantage sur le fait que, à notre point de vue, la défense traditionnelle de situation de nécessité ainsi que le pouvoir discrétionnaire traditionnel du procureur général dans l'exercice de la poursuite étaient suffisants.152
 

21 August 2001, the Solicitor General of Canada, the Hon. Lawrence, releases the report: National Consultation with Victims of Crime -- Highlights and Key Messages /Consultation nationale des victimes du crime: Points saillants et messages clés.
 

11 September 2001, the terrorist attack in New York prompts the Justice Department to enact new security legislation.  You may be interested to read how legislation was prepared, see "The race to develop anti-terrorism laws".152a
 

9-10 November 2001, at the Toronto Conference "The Security of Freedom", Mr. Richard Mosley, the top raking ranking official at the Department of Justice Canada for criminal law policy explains how criminal laws are made:

The way we normally work on criminal law reform projects is to develop options for consideration for Ministers and for consultation.  We take those options out to, as somebody mentioned this morning, the "usual suspects" -- groups, national associations, organizations, individuals that would have a particular interest in the subject matter -- and we consult on the nature, scope and effect of the proposals before they are finally drafted for introduction in Parliament.152aa


9-10 November 2001, at the same Toronto Conference "The Security of Freedom", Professor Stuart repeats his cry for a simplification of the criminal law:

In the last 20 years or so the Criminal Code is getting tougher and tougher and ever more complex.  Successive Ministers of Justice have been largely content to listen and respond to ad hoc pleas of police and prosecutors, victims associations and womens groups, that the government counteract Supreme Court rulings, respond more punitively to particular problems and/or remedy various law enforcement concerns.  Pleas for a more restrained principled approach or to make the criminal aw less complex and comprehensive have fallen on deaf ears.  There are no votes there.152b


December 2001-January 2002, Professor Stuart renews his message for codification in a legal article:

A POWERFUL ARGUMENT FOR A PRINCIPLED review can be based solely on the urgent need to make criminal law more clear and accessible.  Our Criminal Code, which addresses substantive law, procedure and sentencing, has grown enormously to become an unwieldy and inconsistent statute of 841 provisions, many with very complex subsections.  At the same time there has been a flood of rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada.  Decisions outlining Charter standards have been especially long and complex.  At a time when there are major cut-backs for legal aid across the country, there is a real danger that the law is becoming increasingly difficult to discover and less evident in trials.  The rule of law demands more.153


  January 17, 2002, the Ontario Court of Appeal renders its decision on section 43 of the Criminal Code on correction of children by force, a justification; see
Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General) (January 15, 2002);
 

  February 2002, the Law Commission of Canada is going to write a discussion paper --  What is a Crime? 154  It is expected that the paper will be released to the public at the end of January or beginning February 2003.  The Commission's consultant for this paper is Professor Wendy Chan, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University.
 

  February 19 2002, the Youth Criminal Justice Act [Bill C-7], Statutes of Canada, 2002, chapter 1 receives Royal Assent.155   It will come into force on 1 April 2003.
 

March 2002, the Department of Justice of Canada publishes a consultation paper on  Corporate Criminal Liability (also available in French/aussi disponible en français : Responsabilité criminelle des personnes morales)
 

  March 6, 2002, I wrote a letter to the Hon. Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice Canada, asking him for his policy position on the reform of the General Part.156
Mr. Cauchon has never replied to my letter.  Is there any truthfulness in the Department of Justice policy on consultations?
 

  March 13, 2002, the Standing Committee on Justice studies and reports on mental disorder. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of the House of Commons, after an intial briefing by the Department of Justice Canada on December 13, 2001, actively resumes its hearings on the revision of the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code, see the site of the proceedings of the Committee at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/infocom/CommitteeMinute.asp?Language=E&Parliament=8&Joint=0&CommitteeID=151
 

 • June 10, 2002: the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of the House of Commons, tables in the House of Commons its report: Review of the Mental Disorder Provisions of the Criminal Code English -- Examen des dispositions du Code criminel relatives aux troubles mentaux Français
 

A study of the voyeurism consultation paper will give you some insight on the meaning of "legal interest"

July 31, 2002: the Department of Justice Canada issues a consultation document on voyeurism --  Voyeurism as a Criminal Offence: A Consultation Paper.  Why is this document relevant to the General Part?  The consultation paper contains a suggested rationale for offences, an important aspect of criminal law theory.  There has been much discussion in Europe about the protection of legal interests (part of the definitional elements of an offence).
 
 

The Hon. Martin Cauchon ..."smoke in your eyes!"

August 12, 2002, The Justice Minister states that we need to look at the Criminal law as a whole!  The Minister of Justice, the Honourable Martin Cauchon, in a speech to the Canadian Bar Association, informed Canadians that there is need to look at the Criminal law as a whole; see "Notes for an address by the Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada before the Canadian Bar Association, London, Ontario, August 12, 2002 -- check against delivery" available at  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/sp/2002/doc_30664.html (viewed 29 September 2002); aussi disponible en français à http://canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/news/sp/2002/doc_30664.html (visionné le 29 septembre 2002);

"Year in and year out, the Department of Justice has been very active in the criminal-law field. Occasionally, however, there is a need for an opportunity to take stock on where we are going. I think the time may have come for such a stock-taking in relation to criminal law.

Twenty years ago, an ambitious document was published under the auspices of then-Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien. Criminal Law & Canadian Society outlined a bold vision of criminal-law reform. The paper argued that criminal law, as our most powerful instrument of social control, should be used only as a last resort.

Canadian society has experienced profound change during the past two decades, and I believe it is appropriate to ask ourselves whether we are satisfied with the overall functioning of our criminal-justice system.

We should ask ourselves the following questions:

1.  Are we really using criminal law as an instrument of social and economic policy? Do we use it too often?

2.  Could the criminal-justice system be more equitable? Could the problem of the disproportionate representation of Aboriginal people and people from other minority groups in the criminal justice system be partially corrected by reforms of the criminal justice system?

3.  Within our existing constitutional framework, what can be done about the increasing costs and complexity of the criminal justice system?

These are some of the questions we need to ask to spark a wider discussion about the fundamental elements of our criminal-justice system. To launch this discussion, I am pleased to announce I will be chairing a roundtable on these            issues in the fall, and I intend to hear the views of Canadian involved I various aspects of criminal justice.

I believe that a reformed criminal-justice system must be both accessible and inclusive to be effective.

In fact, accessibility and inclusiveness lie at the heart of our entire justice system. We expect our legal system to operate fairly, and we aim for the objective of equal access."


22 septembre 2002, bonne nouvelle ou faux espoir?  La journaliste Isabelle Rodrigue dans son article "Le ministre Cauchon s'attaque à une mise à jour du Code criminel" explique :

"Ne reculant devant rien, le ministre de la Justice, Martin Cauchon, veut entreprendre une grande réforme du Code criminel pour le mettre au diapason des valeurs actuelles de la société.  La réflexion débutera dès novembre, par l'entremise d'une série de tables rondes auprès d'avocats et d'académiciens. [...]

 «Ce que je répète depuis de nombreuses années, c'est que nous avons amendé le Code criminel à la pièce. Quand on le regarde maintenant, ça ressemble à un casse-tête», a  expliqué le ministre Cauchon [...].

Selon le ministre, les lois doivent refléter les valeurs de la société.

 «C'est également une question de valeurs. On verra s'il y a un besoin d'abord, et ensuite on décideraidera de la façon de procéder», a poursuivi M. Cauchon, qui veut donner plus de cohérence à l'ensemble de la justice pénale.

 «Il n'y a pas de principes directeurs dans le Code criminel, il n'y a pas de principes inscrits dans l'introduction du code non plus», a-t-il noté."156a


29 September 2002, good news or false hope?  Dan Gardner, a journalist from The Ottawa Citizen got a good scoop!  He announced in an article, "Solving the Criminal Code: The Justice minister faces a herculean task as he begins to overhaul a criminal law system that is rife with ambiguities, out of touch with modern reality and peppered with archaic and redundant laws and irrational penalties", The Ottawa Citizen, Sunday, September 29, 2002.  Here is some details from Mr. Gardner's article:

"Mr. Cauchon's office said he was unable to be interviewed for this article.  A departmental spokesperson says the minister has scheduled a roundtable for November to begin discussions on how the reforms should proceed.  The work is expected to take three to five years -- if the minister and the government don't lose their nerve."


1er octobre 2002, le criminaliste Jean-Claude Hébert écrit un article "Justice pénale :  l'urgence d'une réforme".  En voici un extrait:

"Au dernier congrès du Barreau québécois, l'actuel ministre de la Justice fit allusion à la réforme du Code criminel.  [...]  Gouverner, c'est décider de façon éclairée. Le dossier est complet; évitons l'écueil d'une nouvelle ronde de consultations. Le processus d'examen parlementaire d'un projet de loi permettrait démocratiquement aux personnes ou groupes intéressés de faire valoir leur point de vue au législateur.
[...]
En résumé, la respectabilité d'un système de justice pénale dépend de son acceptation par les citoyens, d'où la nécessité d'y avoir accès, de le connaître et d'en saisir la logique. À cette fin, les objectifs poursuivis, les principes généraux ainsi que les incriminations, moyens de défense ou excuses doivent être clairement et simplement énoncés."157


18 October 2002, the Canadian Bar Association National Criminal Justice Section informs Canadians that it is working on matters dealing with the General Part:

"The CBA's National Criminal Justice Section is currently dealing with three key issues; a response to the consultation document Voyeurism as a Criminal Offence, a roundtable to discuss an overall reform of the Criminal Code, and feedback to the  Department's 11 papers that address sentencing initiatives."157a


November1,  2002, a first round-table organised by the Department of Justice Canada on the Criminal Code (see entries of 22 and 29 September 2002, above).  About 30 academics and criminal law lawyers hold a meeting in Toronto.  The Minister of Justice, the Hon. Martin Cauchon, is present.  Here are the main activities that were on the agenda:

"Crime trends, demographics and public perceptions -- presentation by Steve Mihoean, Justice Canada

Values and principles of the criminal law

. Are these principles still valid and relevant?
.  Are they reflected in current reforms?
.  Can they guide future reforms?
Criminal law reform priorities for the next five years"158


November 6, 2002, at the meeting of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers responsible for Justice, a report recommends that "the Federal Department of Justice re-open discussions based on its 1998 consultation document entitled Reforming Criminal Code Defences: Provocation, Self-Defence, and Defence of Property".

The Ministers of Justice ask themselves how to make the justice system more efficient

November 6, 2002, at the meeting of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers responsible for Justice, the following item was discussed by the Ministers:
 

"Streamlining the Justice System

A theme that ran throughout the meeting was the need to achieve greater efficiencies within the justice system, to reduce costs and delays and better respect victims and witnesses and to better protect children.

Ministers agreed to hold further and more detailed discussions to examine ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of and access to the justice systems, including structural and administrative reform." (source: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2002/doc_30710.html, accessed on 11 November 2002)


For the proceedings, see, infra,
 
 
 

The Department of Justice Canada deals with mental disorder and automatism.

7 November 2002, the Department of Justice Canada publishes its Response to the 14th Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights : Review of the Mental Disorder Provisions of the Criminal Code, [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice Canada], November 2002, 36 p., available at  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/tm_md/index.html (accessed on 8 November 2002); also published in French/aussi publié en français: Ministère de la Justice Canada, Réponse au 14e rapport du Comité permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne: Examen des dispositions du Code criminel relatives aux troubles mentaux, [Ottawa]: [Ministère de la Justice Canada], Novembre 2002, 41 p., disponible à  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/dept/pub/tm_md/index.html (visionné le 8 novembre 2002).

Any reforms regarding automatism should be considered only as part of a comprehensive review of the General Part of the Criminal Code to ensure a principled and consistent approach to defences. (p. 3)

-----------

La réforme éventuelle de l'automatisme doit passer par l'examen global de la partie générale du Code criminel de façon à élaborer une théorie des moyens de défense qui soit cohérente et fondée sur des principes solides. (p. 4)


The same day, the Department of Justice Canada decides to proceed in a piecemeal fashion with corporate liability!

7 November 2002, the Department of Justice Canada publishes the Government Response to the Fifteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights: Corporate Liability, [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice Canada]¸ November 2002, 18 p., available at  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/ccl_rpm/  with a backgrounder available at  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2002/doc_30718.html and the fifteenth report of the Committee available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Studies/Reports/JUSTRP15-E.htm (accessed on 8 November 2002); also published in French /aussi publié en français, MINISTÈRE DE LA JUSTICE CANADA, Réponse du gouvernement au quinzième rapport du Comité permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne: Responsabilité des personnes morales, [Ottawa]: [Ministère de la Justice Canada], Novembre 2002, 20 p., disponible à  Réponse du gouvernement au quinzième rapport du Comité, voir aussi la fiche documentaire disponible à http://canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/news/nr/2002/doc_30718.html (visionné le 8 novembre 2002), enfin le quinzième rapport est disponible à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Studies/Reports/JUSTRP15-E.htm.
 

Studying sentencing (ad hoc approach again)

25 November 2002, the House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, begins its study on conditional sentencing, a matter referred to the Committee by the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Martin Cauchon. (see  http://www.parl.gc.ca/infocom/CommitteeEvidence.asp?Language=E&Parliament=9&Joint=0&CommitteeID=287 )
 

A Report Reveals How the Department of Justice Canada Manages its Criminal Law Projects

3 December 2002, the Auditor General reports on  the Department of Justice -- Costs of Implementing the Canadian Firearms Programs (see chapter 10 in the Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons for the year ended December 31, 2001), available at  http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/02menu_e.html  (chapter 10).
 

Another letter to Mr. Cauchon

10 December 2002, I write another letter to the Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice Canada about the General Part -- "Réflexion sur le processus pénal -- Partie générale" (http://home.achilles.net/~flareau/cauchon_3.html).
 

The  Firearms Center tells police officers to consider what can be interpreted as a defence of  ignorance of law

27 December 2002,  the Firearms Centers tells police officers that they may consider honest ignorance of law:

"Compliance Scenarios Relating to Licensing and Registration as of January 1, 2003
...
Scenario 3 – "I Didn't Know I Had To Apply"
Despite the efforts of the CFC to advise the public of the legal requirement to apply for a licence by the end of the year 2000, AND for a registration certificate by the end of the year 2002, there may be some people who may have never become aware of this requirement. It will be up to you to decide if a person's saying they were unaware of the licensing and registration deadlines is credible or not."159


Professor Stuart carries the flag again!

February 2003 (circa), Professor Stuart critizes the Department of Justice criminal law policy, the complexity of the criminal law and the lack of legislative action  for self-defence:

"Although Parliament enacted our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, which set out new protection for those accused of crime, politicians of all stripes have been unable to resist the lure of courting votes by being tough on crime.  In the last 20 years or so the Criminal Code is getting ever more punitive and ever more complex.  Successive Ministers of Justice have been largely content to listen and respond to ad hoc pleas of police and prosecutors, victims associations and women's groups, that the Government counteract Supreme Court rulings, respond more punitively to particular problems and/or remedy various enforcement concerns.

    Constructive and detailed pleas for a more restrained principled approach or to make the criminal law less complex and comprehensible have fallen on deaf ears.  There are no votes there.  Consider this example. For the last 25 years it has been clear that the law of self-defence is in an imcomprehensive mess.  Every criminal lawyer and judge knows that.  Calls for reform by the Law Reform Commission, judges including former Chief Justice Lamer, the Ratushny Inquiry and many academic writings have not produced a Criminal Code amendment.  There is time to draft many omnibus Criminal Code amendments and this mammoth  bill [Bill C-36] but there is no interest in any agenda that is not law and order."160


The Honourable Martin Cauchon realizes that the Criminal Code is based on incremental and piecemeal amendments

20 March  2003, the Minister of Justice, after more than a year in office, is able to articulate a basic point about the state of the criminal law in Canada:

"It is remarkable to me that, since Confederation, every Parliamentary session has debated criminal law bills. It means our criminal law has been built piece by piece. It is important to take stock and to ask ourselves whether the various   amendments brought over the years still hold together as a comprehensive code."161


The Law Commission of Canada publishes a discussion paper on criminal law

On 28 March 2003, the Law Commission publishes its paper: What is a Crime?: Challenges and Alternatives (available at  http://www.lcc.gc.ca/en/themes/crime/discussion_paper/toc.asp)  /  Qu’est-ce qu’un crime? : Des défis et des choix(disponible à  http://www.lcc.gc.ca/fr/themes/crime/discussion_paper/toc.asp).
 

Another article on the use of force, just to make matters more complex!

On 11 April 2003, the Hon. Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice introduces in the House of Commons, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts.  Bill C-32 proposes a new section for the Criminal Code on the use of force on aircrafts:

"[Use of force on board an aircraft]
27.1 (1) Every person on an aircraft in flight is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary to prevent the commission of an offence against this Act or another Act of Parliament that the person believes on reasonable grounds, if it were committed, would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the aircraft or to any person or property therein.

[Application of this section]
(2) This section applies in respect of any aircraft in flight in Canadian airspace and in respect of any aircraft                         registered in Canada in accordance with the regulations made under the Aeronautics Act in flight outside                         Canadian airspace. [available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/PDF/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-32_1.pdf , accessed on 15 April 2003]

  The Minister explained the necessity of such a provision as follows:
"Authorized use of force on aircraft:

Currently, Canadian law recognizes that anyone can use a reasonable amount f force to prevent someone from committing an indictable offence (a serious crime). The same law applies on board aircraft in flight in Canadian airspace.

The bill will amend the Criminal Code to explicitly recognize that everyone on board any aircraft in Canadian airspace is justified in using reasonable force when he or she believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to use force to prevent the commission of a criminal act that could endanger the safety of the aircraft or of someone on board. The bill will also clarify that this justification also applies on board Canadian-registered aircraft in flight outside Canadian airspace.

This amendment will ensure the full effect to the Tokyo Convention On Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed On Board Aircraft."


Les choses n'ont pas changés au Canada

Aujourd'hui, le 15 avril 2003, je viens de lire un texte du cours du professeur Ortolan, écrit il y a plus de 150 ans.  Si on substitut les mots "articles du Code criminel" pour le mot "statuts" apparaissant au texte ci-dessous, nos lecteurs francophones du Canada s'amuseront de l'analyse intellectuelle brillante du professeur:

"Droit pénal en Angleterre au XVIIIe siècle.

Elle [l'Angleterre] a, en outre, une physionomie à elle, une physionomie ingulière qu'il importe de faire ressortir.  C'est la  spécialité minitueuse des statuts et de la common-law dans le détail des faits incriminés; et l'esprit de subtilité qui en résulte pour l'application.

Les statuts, nombreux, incohérents, prolixes et superposés les uns sur les autres, ne procèdent pas par la détermination du délit au moyen de la défintion et de l'indication de ses caractères, au moyen de principes généraux et régulateurs; mais ils spécifient, ils énumèrent un à un, chaque acte particulier qu'ils veulent frapper.

La législation pénale de l'Angleterre est une législation casuiste.

Nous voudrions pouvoir suivre le professeur [Ortolan] dans le développement des dispositions mêmes de cette législation, et dans l'exposé de ses bizarreries.  Il est diffcille d'imaginer jusqu'à quel point ce ystème y est poussé.

On comprend, après une pareille étude, pourquoi l'amélioration de ce droit criminel est une oeuvre incessante et sans fin.  On a corrigé les dispositions de tels et de tels statuts; c'est avoir rectifié quelques cas; il en reste mille autres et mille autres encore.  La tâche est toujours à reprendre, à moins qu'on ne rejette le tout, et qu'on n'y substitue un ensemble harmonique et général de dispositions pénales."162


Six months to tell us what we have known for at least 17 years!

1 May 2003, the Department of Justice releases its Report of Minister's Roundtable on Criminal Law, Nocvember 1, 2002 (soon to be published at www.canada.justice.gc.ca).  In summary all the participants want reform but the officials say, it is important to get the support of the Provinces.

"Restraint
Several principles of criminal law were discussed but one was emphasized repeatedly -- restraint.  Several participants noted that the criminal law is increasingly being used to attempt to solve a host of social and economic problems.  It was suggested that 'the criminal net is being cast too wide' and that the criminal justice system is 'the pot into which we dump every social problem.'  By making more and more acts criminal, participants said Canadians are getting a false sense of security.  The criminal law should be restricted to behavior that is truly criminal and several participants wanted restraint in the criminal law to be a key priority in any reform project.  Said one: 'we've spent 20 years criminalizing everything.  We have to stop.  We have to acknowledge we have a crisis.'  Politicians must resist the temptation to create a new offence every time there is a crisis.  It was also noted that there is an inequality in the application of the criminal law -- white-colar and economic crimes are not pursued with as much vigilance as other types of wrongs.

Clarity?
Many participants remarked that the Criminal Code has become virtually unmanageable, as more and more offences have been added over the past 20 years.  In fact, one participant noted that the Code is now so complex and disorganized, it is no longer actually a coherent Code.  Another said that "Martin's pocket criminal code' is so large, it no longer fits in a pocket. One described the Code as 'an ugly mess'.  The criminal law has become so complex, it was noted, it is even difficult to explain it to participants in the system, such as police and lawyers.

Several participants suggested that if nothing else is done, at a minimum the existing Code should be restructured and reorganized, 'made more sensible and understandable' by eliminating outdated offences (such as alarming the Queen) and provisions which have been struck down by the courts, and putting all related sections together.

Minorities
Several participants emphasized that any proposed reforms of the criminal law should be reviewed through an anti-racism and anti-discrimination lens.  As the trends presentation indicated, participants noted the demographic makeup of the country is changing and the criminal justice system must reflect this new reality.  If the justice system is going to have legitimacy, it must meet the needs of visible minorities.  Several participants referred to the over-representation of Aboriginals and some racialized communities in the criminal justice system as critical issues that must be addressed.  The issue of racial profiling was also commented on.  As one important step, the federal government was urged to appoint some minorities as judges so the bench will better reflect the society in which it operates.  Some emphasized that the key principles that must guide criminal law reform are equality, fairness and access to justice.

How?
Much of the day's discussions focused on how major reform of the criminal law could be successfully undertaken.  Several of the participants had lived through -- and participated in -- the former Law Reform Commission's (LRC) lengthy, and ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to rewrite the Criminal Code.  'We don't need another 17-year process,' noted one LRC veteran.

It was recognized that any reform must take into account the capacity of Parliament -- and indeed the Department of Justice -- to carry out the work.  Many participants agreed Parliament does not have the capacity to deal with an entire new Code.  There was much discussion about whether there was political will to undertake such work.  One suggested that the Code is in the shape it is today because politicians have abdicated their responsibility to take leadership and left it to the judges to decide what the criminal law should be.  'Why do we have to wait until the Supreme Court tells us what the law is?' he asked.

Although crime is inherently poltical -- 'if it bleeds it leads' as one described it -- participants said the process of reform should be depoliticized as much as possible.  While there are likely to be few hot-button issues, participants said there is likely to be much consensus on most reform issues.

There was consensus that comprehensive reform was unlikely to be achieved all at once but should be done in 'manageable chunks.'  This was the way the Quebce Civil Code was eventually rewritten -- in stages.  'If you try to do it all at once it will surely fail,' said one participant.  Another compared criminal law reform to the Meech Lake Accord -- it tried to do too much and different people opposed different parts and eventually it collapsed.

Differing views were expressed on what the priorities for reform should be, although many said any reform should be based on fundamental principles (such as restraint and clarity) rather than just 'putting out fires.'  There was support from some participants for reform of the General part and defences, even a suggestion that there should be two Codes -- one on procedure and one on evidence.

Participants also suggested that any future reform should build on existing work, such as previous efforts at reforming the General part.  It was also noted that the Law Commission of Canada is already engaged in a process to determine what is a crime and that work should be integrated.

It was also recognized by participants that any reform cannot just be left to experts and exclude ordinary Canadians.  Ways must be found to engage Canadians in such work.  One participant said we should not assume the public can't understand or won't agree with proposals for reform -- the public is remarkably sensible about these things as long as there is a process to explain in a reasonably way what is being discussed.

As well, the provinces and territories, which administer the criminal law, and the police, which enforece it, must be involve.  There must be a strategy to get these interests on side otherwise reform will be very difficult to achieve.

One suggestion that received support from a number of the participants was to set up several working groups of experts to bring forward proposals for reform in specified areas of criminal law.  These working groups would need to be funded, work within tight deadlines and include broad public consultations.  This type of process would require the Minister to provide guiding principles for the work.

Reasonable expectations
Some participants agreed with the suggestion that there is now a 'crisis of confidence and legitimacy' in the criminal law, while others said Canada still has one of the best justice systems in the world, despite its problems.

Although it may be an 'overwhelming' job to revise the Code, many participants said it is doable and in fact must be done.  'The status quo is not on' said one. Another suggested using the language of revising the criminal law, rather than reforming it.  The key, suggested another, is political leadership by the Minister of Justice and reasonable expectations.  The government should be 'modest and honest' about what it is attempting to accomplish and not suggest that it will somehow reduce crime.

Conclusion
In their brief concluding remarks, the Minister, Deputy Minister and the Assistant Deputy Minister thanked the participants for taking time out of their busy schedules to participate in the Roundtable.  The ADM stressed the importance of having the provinces and territories on side for reforms or revisions to the Criminal Code.

The Deputy noted much of the day's discussion focused on 'governance' or how to actually succeed in undertaking criminal law reform and said there is probably no more contentious issue than what the criminal law should look like.  He suggested there may be lessons to be learned from other jurisdictions that have already undertaken major reforms and said while legislation is important, there must also be links to other policy instruments and other government departments and initiatives.  The Deputy also cautioned that police and provincial attorneys general, who did not take part in the Roundtable, might have a very different perspective on the issues discussed.

The Minister thanked every person for his or her participation and for sharing his or her insights with the Department.  He encouraged everyone to refer to the speech he made to the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) in August 2002, where he indicated his strong commitment to reform of the criminal justice system.  He noted that given the number of topics referred to the House of Commons Justice Committee, the number of private member's bills that are introduced and the daily questions during question period, there is no doubt that Parliament is interested in justice issues.  He noted the many challenges of reforming the criminal law and emphasized the need to take on small manageable areas.  He agreed that whatever is undertaken must have tangible results, be credible and be delivered in a reasonable, responsible and timely way.  Reform of the Code must also be accompanied by appropriate social and economic intervention and community capacity building.  He stressed the importance of talking to a broad range of stakeholders but also the need to have public education, as reform also presents communication challenges.  He supported the need to st out values to guide reform.  He too emphasized that only part of the justice community was represented at the roundtable and said discussions must also take place with law enforcement and the judiciary, as well as provinces and territories given their important roles in the criminal law.

The Minister stated his commitment to following up on his speech to the CBA and exploring options for reform." (pp. 3-7) (available at http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/roundtable/nov102/toc.html, accessed on 4 July 2003; also available at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20060209203546/http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/roundtable/nov102/toc.html and http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20060209163004/http://www.justice.gc.ca/fr/cons/roundtable/nov102/toc.html, accessed on 28 September 2009; also available at http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/jus-jus/report_ministers_roundtable-e/index.html  and http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/jus-jus/summary_submissions-f/index.html, accessed on 28 September 2009)
 

Professor Stuart makes us think about the role of Parliament

12 May 2003, could professor Stuart be right about Canadian politics and how Parliament views criminal law?

" 'Every around knows there have been strip-search issues in Canada for years and Parliament has not been acting,' says Stuart.  'And Parliament is not going to act because to do so would be pro-accused so, of course, the Supreme Court should come in and do something.' "163


After a long delay, I eventually get a polite reply from the Department of Justice

20 May 2003, the Department of Justice Canada wrote me a polite letter of acknowledgement for my letters:

20 mai 2003

Maître François Lareau
55-890, promenade Cahill Ouest
Ottawa (Ontario) K1V 9A4

Maître,

Au nom de l'honorable Martin Cauchon, ministre de la Justice et procureur général du Canada, j'accuse réception de vos lettres au sujet de la Partie générale du Code criminel.  Je regrette de ne pas avoir été en mesure de vous répondre plus tôt.

Le ministre vous est reconnaissant de lui avoir fait parvenir votre point de vue.  Soyez assuré que le Ministère en tiendra compte.

Veuillez agréer, Maître, l'expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs.

Johanne Curodeau
Gestionnaire
Unité de la correspondance ministérielle"

------------

[Translation]

May 20, 2003

Maître François Lareau
55-890, promenade Cahill Ouest
Ottawa (Ontario) K1V 9A4

Maître :

On behalf of the Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada, I acknowledge receipt of your letters on the subject of the General Part of the Criminal Code.  I regret that I was not able to reply before today.

The Minister is grateful that you have sent him your point of view.  Be assured that the Minister will take it into consideration.

Sincerely,

Johanne Curodeau
Administrator
Minister's Corresponding Unit"
 

Some provinces decide not to enforce the federal registry law on firearms!

4 June 2003, the Department of Justice Canada has to take responsibility for having made flawed criminal legislation!  In an article by April Lindgren and Tim Naumetz, "Ontario defies gun registry law : 5 provinces now refuse to 'persecute' gun owners", The Ottawa Citizen, 4 June 2003, pp. A1 and A2, the authors write:

"The Ontario government is joining Nova Scotia and three western provinces in refusing to prosecute people who have not registered rifles or shotguns by July as required by the federal government's controversial firearms registry law.

'We just view this as another area where they should take responsibility for a badly flawed piece of legislation which persecutes the wrong people... Ontario Attorney General Norm Sterling said yesterday." (p. A1)


12 June 2003, the minister of Justice introduces a bill to reform the law of corporate liability,  see Parliament, House of Commons, Bill C-45, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal liability of organizations), First reading, June 12, 2003, available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-45/C-45_1/C-45_cover-E.html (accessed on 13 June 2003);  also published in French /aussi publié en français, CANADA, Parlement, Chambre des communes, Projet de loi C-45, Loi modifiant le Code criminel (responsabilité pénale des organisations), première lecture, le 12 juin 2003, disponible à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-45/C-45_1/C-45_cover-F.html (visionné le 13 juin 2003).164
 

July 2003, Morris Manning publishes an article on criminal law reform, "Rethinking Criminal Law in the Age of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: The Necessity for a 21st Century Criminal Code", (July 2003) 47(4) The Criminal Law Quarterly 406-437 (also published in (2002) 21 Windsor Year Book Access Justice 455-478).
 

1 October 2003, in the news release of the "Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meeting of Ministers responsible for Justice  La Malbaie, Quebec - October 1, 2003", Canadians are informed about two items relevant to the reform of the General Part: conditional sentences and victims of crime;

CONDITIONAL SENTENCES

Ministers discussed an issues paper prepared by Alberta and endorsed by several other provinces respecting the use of conditional sentences.

The Federal Minister of Justice welcomed the paper as a constructive addition to the debate and undertook to ask the Chair of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Justice and Human Rights to complete their study of conditional sentences early as possible.
....

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Ministers endorsed the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, 2003 that modernizes that statement of principle issued at their 1988 FPT Meeting. The 2003 declaration is attached to this communiqué.
(available at the Department of Justice Canada web site:  http://www.scics.gc.ca/cinfo03/830806004_e.html, accessed on 24 February 2004, Department of Justice Web site, news release, reference 830-806/004);
 

Mr. Mosley leaves the Department of Justice Canada
5 November 2003, Mr. Mosley becomes a judge to the Federal Court.  Mr. Mosley was the top federal policy advisor on criminal law.  Will there be a change in policy orientation?
At the time of his appointment, he was Assistant Deputy Minister at the Department of Justice Canada, responsible for Criminal Law Policy and Community Justice. He has held several positions at the department, including Chief Policy Counsel and Senior General Counsel in the areas of criminal and family law. Prior to his work at the Department of Justice Canada, he was an Assistant Crown Attorney and a Lecturer at Carleton University. (source:  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/ja/2003/doc_31038.html , accessed on 24 February 2004)


• 6 November 2003, The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, tables its 10th Report on the Review of the Seized Property Management Act, in the House of Commons.  In the report (available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/infocom/PubDocument.asp?FileID=65907&Language=E , accessed on 25 November 2003), the Committee recommends that "The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights should consider undertaking a comprehensive study of the proceeds of crime provisions of the Criminal Code".
 

7 November 2003, Bill C-45, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal liability of organizations), receives Royal Assent on 7 November 2003 (Statutes of Canada 2003, chapter 21).  The Act is not in force (as of 21 November 2003).  The Bill was amended by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on 22 October 2003.  The only witnesses heard at that Committee and at the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on 30 October 2003 are Department of Justice Canada officials!165 IF YOU ARE NOT CONVINCED ABOUT THE NEED OF CODIFICATION BY THIS TIME, read the Act and the necessity of having "A Plain Language Guide Bill C-45 -- Amendments to the Criminal Code Affecting the Criminal Liability of Organizations", available at http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/c45/index.html (accessed on 9 November 2003).


 • 22  November 2003, Mr. Don Piragoff, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice Canada, attends and presents a paper in Ireland : "Recodification of Canadian Criminal Law: A View from Inside the Department of Justice".  In this paper, he writes:

Thus, by the early 1990s, the movement towards general codification of criminal law and evidence had ground (sic) to a halt.  A major, though not exclusive reason, for the demise of wholesale reform of criminal law and evidence was that provincial Attorneys General became concerned about the potential increase of costs to litigate new terminology in a new Criminal Code or new Evidence Act.
...

In June 1993, the then Minister of Justice, Pierre Blais, produced a White Paper on the renewal of the General Part entitled '"Proposals to Amend the Criminal Code: General Principles."

However, on October 25, 1993, the Conservative Government of Kim Campbell was swept aside in a general election and a new Liberal Government came to power.  Although the new government gave some initial support to the idea of reforming the general Part of the Code, that support soon faded.

Recodification of the General Part was now stalled.
...

If there is one thing my years with the Department of Justice can attest to, it is that a codification is not quick, easy or cheap.  Codification requires a significant infusion of financial and human resources, a reasonably long-term timetable, and highly skilled individuals.
....

Let me conclude by saying that in Canada, we have experienced it all; codification, grand recodification projects, smaller recodification efforts, piece-meal reform, and constitutionalization of basic principles of criminal law.  I hope that some of the insights and experiences I have shared with you today will serve Ireland, and others, well.  If I could sum up my advice it would be to have a long-range plan for codification, codify in manageable chunks, consult with the public and affected populations, find a way to excite your politicians and keep them committed to tackling some very controversial topics of social concern.  Good luck!

(undated paper, 46 p., at pp. 13-15, 32, and 45-46; paper obtained by François Lareau, on 23 February 2006, Access to Information Act request number A-2005-00204/ok; on the Irish conference, see  EXPERT GROUP ON CODIFICATION, Codifying the Criminal Law, Report of the Expert Group on the Codification of the Criminal Law, Dublin: Stationary Office, November 2004, viii, 132 p., ISBN: 0755770005; available at  http://www.justice.ie/80256E010039C5AF/vWeb/flJUSQ678F22-en/$File/CodifyingCrimLaw.pdf  (accessed on 20 January 2006); )


17 December  2003... 11 years, 10 months and 13 days later -- Martin and Cotler beware— bureaucrats are superior than Parliament!

It is said that Paul Martin "plans to restore power to Parliament" (The Ottawa Citizen, December 17, 2003, p. A-14).  The Hon.Cotler is described at the Department of Justice website as an "international human rights lawyer".

Maybe the Hon. Cotler can do something for people suffering from mental disorder.  On February 4, 1992, several amendments to the Criminal Code for persons suffering from mental disorder came into force except provisions on hospiral orders, capping and dangerous mentally disordered accused.  The executive (the government or bureaucrats, tell me) has still not decided to put these provisions into force.  It is obvious that the will of Parliament has not been followed in this case.  If repeal is in order, a bill should be tabled to that effect.  The sooner, the better! (see infra, 29 March 2004)
 

30 January 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada decides in Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), available in English / disponible en français:  http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/index.html that section 43 of the Criminal Code (correction of child by force) is constitutional.
 

29 March 2004, the Government of Canada introduces in the House of Commons Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, First Reading, 29 March 2004, available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-29/C-29_1/C-29_cover-E.html (accessed on 30 March 2004); also published in French/aussi publié en français: Projet de loi C-29,  Loi modifiant le Code criminel (troubles mentaux) et modifiant d'autres lois en conséquence (disponible à http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-29/C-29_1/C-29_cover-E.html (visionné le 30 mars 2004);

For details, see:

Department of Justice of Canada Information / Renseignements du ministère de la Justice Canada

• News Room, "Minister of Justice Introduces Measures to Modernize Mental Disorder Provisions", 29 March 2004, available at  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2004/doc_31144.html (accessed on 30 March 2004); and Backgrounder, "Measures to Modernize the Mental Disorder Provisions of the Criminal Code", March 2004, available at  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2004/doc_31146.html (accessed on 30 March 2004); also published in French/aussi publié en français: Salle de nouvelles, "Le ministre de la Justice présente des mesures visant à moderniser les dispositions sur les troubles mentaux", 29 mars 2004, disponible à  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/news/nr/2004/doc_31144.html (visionné le 30 mars 2004); et Feuillet doccumentaire, "Mesures visant à moderniser les dispositions du Code criminel relatives aux troubles mentaux", Mars 2004, disponible à  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/news/nr/2004/doc_31146.html (visionné le 30 mars 2004);


 • 31 March 2004, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal liability of organizations), Chapter 21 of the Statutes of Canada, 2003 [Bill C-45], comes into force, see SI/2004-0022, available at http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2004/20040225/pdf/g2-13804.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2004);
 

Professor Friedland thinks that it is time to get back to serious criminal law reform

May 2004, in his article "Criminal Justice in Canada Revisited", Professor Friedland thinks that it is time for a new criminal Code and a fundamental review of criminal law:

"The federal government should again take the initiative and take up the task of producing a new code of criminal law and procedure.  The Supreme Court should encourage the government to do so.  A well developed code, sensitive to the decisions of the court, would likely survive Charter challenges.  The court would probably respect the choices made by Parliament as part of a comprehensive criminal code."166
Chief Justice thinks that future lawyers should study social sciences and humanities
4 May 2004, in Cristin Schmitz's in "Judges not properly trained for role as society's 'new priests, jurist says -- Charter of Rights has 'tremendously' changed types of cases, decisions", The Ottawa Citizen, 4 May 2004, p. A18 quotes the Quebec Chief Justice Michel Robert as saying:
    "We [Judges] are defining the fundamental socio-economic values of the society and I don't think this will change (but)...it will have to change the training of lawyers in the faculties of law" he argued.

    Chief Justice Robert suggested that before being admitted to law school, university students should be required to study the social sciences and humanities, such as sociology, psychology, political science and philosophy.  Law faculties should also put more emphasis on teaching Supreme Court of Canada Charter jurisprudence, he said.

A new General Part would reflect the fundamental values of a Canadian society.  Why is it then that policy makers at the Department of Justice Canada are hesitating in recommending to the Minister a new General Part?
 

The Minister of Justice, the Honourable Irwin Cotler will not deal with the reform of the General Part
25 August 2004.  Once a year the Canadian Minister of federal justice speaks to the Canadian Bar Association.  It gives you a preview of the upcoming legislation.  No General Part reform is on the menu!167
 

The Solicitor General thinks that the parole system needs to be reviewed!
27 August 2004.  The Honourable Anne McLellan, the Solicitor General "styled" as the  Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, informs the Canadian Professional Police Association that the parole needs to be looked at.168
 

The Government introduces amendments to the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code
8 October 2004.  The government tabled in the House of Commons: Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (First  Session, Thirty-eight Parliament, also published in French/aussi publié en français: CANADA, Parlement - Projet de Loi C-10, Loi modifiant le Code criminel (troubles mentaux) et modifiant d'autres lois en conséquence (Première session. Trente-huitième législature):

News Room, "Government Moves to Modernize Mental Disorder Provisions in the Criminal Code", 8 October 2004, available at http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2004/doc_31250.html (accessed on 9 October 2004); and Backgrounder, "Measures to Modernize the Mental Disorder Provisions of the Criminal Code", October 2004, available at  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2004/doc_31252.html  (accessed on 9 October 2004); also published in French/aussi publié en français: Salle de nouvelles, "Le gouvernement présente des mesures visant à moderniser les dispositions du Code criminel sur les troubles mentaux", 8 octobre 2004, disponible à  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/news/nr/2004/doc_31250.html  (visionné le 9 octobre 2004); et Feuillet doccumentaire, "Mesures visant à moderniser les dispositions du Code criminel relatives aux troubles mentaux", octobre 2004, disponible à  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/news/nr/2004/doc_31252.html (visionné le 9 octobre 2004);


The Criminal Code Law enforcement "justification" provisions
5 November 2004.  The government tabled in the House of Commons — the Annual  Report on the RCMP's Use of the Law Enforcement Justification Provisions, 6 p., [undated], pursuant to  Section 25.1 to 25.4 of the Criminal Code.

"From February 1, 2003 to January 31, 2004, the RCMP reports that six authorizations were granted, for directing another person to commit a justified act or omission that would otherwise constitute an offence." (p. 5; sessional paper number of the House of Commons, 8525-381-04)


Here we go again on the issue of mercy killings!
18  November 2004.  The title of today's article in the newspaper summarizes it all: "Minister wants debate on mercy killings.  Recent high-profile cases suggest ban on assisted suicides outdated, Cotler says", The Ottawa Citizen, Thursday, November 18, 2004, at pp. A1 and A12.


Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meeting of Ministers responsible for Justice
Whitehorse, Yukon

•  24-25 January 2005, the News Release gives details:

"Correctional and Sentencing Issues:
While affirming that conditional sentences are an appropriate sentencing tool in many cases, Ministers expressed the need for timely reforms to identify appropriate limits to the use of such sentences, particularly in regards to serious and violent offences. Ministers all agreed that the appropriate use of these sentences will strengthen confidence in the justice system. As agreed, the federal Justice Minister will renew the reference to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. In addition, FPT officials will report on the results of their consideration of reform options at the meeting of Deputy Ministers in June 2005.

Ministers discussed the need to strengthen partnerships among governments to reduce the number of conditionally released offenders who have evaded authorities, and to more effectively supervise those offenders with a community sentence or conditional release.

The sentencing practice of giving credit for time spent in custody before trial was raised. Ministers agreed the issue should be fully canvassed, including the implications for the administration of justice and the impact on the remand population.

Ministers discussed a wide range of issues related to sentencing, including the effective management of high-risk offenders, chronic reoffenders and the impact of recent case law regarding the current legislation governing dangerous and long-term offenders.

Ministers referred these and related issues to FPT officials to develop proposals for reform. They also noted the need to ensure that victims continue to be considered in the development of any correctional and sentencing reforms." (News Release, 25 Januray 2005, available at http://www.scics.gc.ca/cinfo05/830838004_e.htm, accessed on 26 November 2006)


Proposed legislation on the Corrections and Conditional Release Act 
•  20 April 2005, legislation is introduced in the House of Commons to amend the the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, see Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.  The Bill dies on the Order Paper, see LEGISinfo (accessed on 16 November 2006).


Parliament wants to change Conditional Sentencing
•  4 May 2005,  the Minister of Justice Canada introduces legislation to amend conditional sentencing,  see:  Bill C-9 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment.  See LEGISinfo for the evolution of the legislation.


The Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges still support the reform of the General Part
21-25 August 2005,  the following resolution is passed  at the 2005, Uniform Law Conference, St. John's, Newfoundland  & Labrador :

Carried: 11-8-3

Saskatchewan - Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges - 01

That Justice Canada initiate or resume work on re-codification of the General Part of the Criminal Code.
(see  http://www.ulcc.ca/en/poam2/index.cfm?sec=2005&sub=2005d, accessed on 16 February 2009)


Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meeting of Ministers responsible for Justice
Whitehorse, Yukon

•  8-9 November 2005, the News Release gives details:

"Conditional Sentences
Ministers acknowledged as a significant step forward the recent introduction of federal legislation (Bill C-70), which responds to their concerns about the need to limit the use of conditional sentencing for serious and violent offences. All Ministers expressed hope that the Bill would be adopted quickly and said that they would closely monitor the reforms once in force. ...

Mandatory Minimums
Ministers talked about ways to increase the effectiveness of sentencing with particular attention given to a discussion of the use of mandatory minimum sentences.

Dangerous and Long-Term Offenders
Ministers endorsed recommendations from FPT officials on ways to strengthen how the criminal justice system deals with dangerous and long-term offenders, and agreed to begin work on implementation as appropriate. The FPT High-Risk Offender Working group reported to Ministers on a number of reforms that will, in particular, target high-risk violent and sexual offenders. There was support for several recommendations that call for continued investment in programs, communication, research studies and community collaboration, as well as amendments to the Part XXIV Dangerous Offender provisions. Officials were also asked to study the issue of those offenders who do not meet the criteria for dangerous or long-term offender designation but still pose a significant threat to public safety. ...

Two-Year Rule in Sentencing
Some Ministers raised the issue of exploring options for an integrated correctional delivery service between federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Jurisdictions must first be further surveyed to determine if sufficient interest exists. Challenges, goals and expectations would then need to be well defined." (New Release, http://www.saic.gouv.qc.ca/conferences_intergouvernementales/conferences_2005_en.htm, accessed on 26 November 2006);


William Trudell speaks out!
June 2006, Mr. William Trudell, CCCDL Corner "Highway to Hell!", (June 2006) 27(3) For the Defence 41-42 critizes the government (Conservative minority) criminal justice policy:

    "A principled approach to Criminal Justice reform has been detoured in search of an expressway to a majority government.

    Many may suggest that nothing has really changed in Ottawa.  Legislation is drafted and introduced to satisfy emotional contagion and score politicxal points.  However, I sense that something indeed has changed.  Consultation has been replaced by confrontation.  Honourable Allan Rock, Anne McLellan, Irwin Cotler and indeed Kim Campbell consulted with all of us.  Whether they listened is another story but wide ranging consultations and working papers preceded the introduction of major legislation that fundamentally changed the law.  The road is different now.  There was no consultations on Bills C-9 and C-10 and C-19.

    This is unacceptable to defence Counsel, Judges and Crown Counsel.  It must be unacceptable to Parliamentarians and the public they represent." (p. 41)

Parliament's review of sections 25.1 to 25.4 of the Criminal Code
June 26, 2006,  the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights submits its Interim Report on the Review of Sections 25.1 to 25.4 of the Criminal Code (protection of persons administering and enforcing the law) -- see my bibliography  on this subject.


A call to review the law of self-defence
12-13 October 2006, at the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meeting of Ministers responsible for Justice, at Corner Brook, Newfoundland, the ministers decided to review the law of self-defence.

"Self Defence Provisions in the Criminal Code
Ministers agreed it was time to review the self-defence sections of the Criminal Code and directed officials to examine proposals to clarify the law and bring back recommendations." (source: http://www.scics.gc.ca/cinfo06/830890004_e.html, accessed on 14 November 2006)


Making it easier to have convicts declared dangerous offenders
17 October 2006, the Minister of Justice tables in the House of Commons, Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).  Follow what is happening to this legislation with LEGISinfo (accessed on 14 November 2006)


The Review of the Anti-Terrorism Act by the House of Commons
27 March 2007: House of Commons, Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Rights, Limits, Security: A Comprehensive Review of the Anti-Terrorism Act and Related Issues -- Final Report of the Standing Committee on Public safety and National Security [and] Subcommitte on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act, March 2007, xvi, 131 p;, and see "The Definition of 'Terrorist Activity'", at pp. 6-8, available at http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/391/secu/reports/rp2798914/391_SECU_Rpt07_PDF/391_SECU_Rpt07-e.pdf (accessed on 28 March 2007); also published in French / aussi publié en français:   Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale, Droits, restrictions et sécurité: un examen complet de la loi antiterroriste et des questions connexes -- Rapport final du Comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale [et du] Sous-comit/ sur la revue de la Loi antiterroriste, 2007, xvi, 149 p., et voir "La définition d''activité terroriste'", aux pp. 8-10, disponible à http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/391/secu/reports/rp2798914/391_SECU_Rpt07_PDF/391_SECU_Rpt07-f.pdf (site visité le 28 mars 2007);


A Synopsis
June 2007: Eileen Skinnider writes "A Review of Selected Trends and Topics Regarding Criminal Law Reform in Canada", available at http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/china_ccprcp/files/Presentations%20and%20Publications/07%20A%20Review%20of%20Selected%20Trends_English.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2009)

Mr. Mosley gives his views of the events...
12 September 2008: Mr. Richard G. Mosley explains the failure of the reform of the General Part at the National Conference of the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice Conference "Who really writes the law?":

    Coming back to the reformist drive that was underway at the beginning of the 1980s, what happened? I think it is arguable that it was supplanted, to a considerable extent, by a new focus on the courts as the means to achieve substantive and procedural change and the exchanges that ensued between the courts and the legislatures. Clearly, governments lost interest in funding fundamental law reform activities. The Law Reform Commission of Canada, for example, was killed as a budgetary measure without prior notice to the Minister of Justice of the day. Similar reductions took place in the provinces.

    Some law reform efforts struggled on. At the federal level, we continued until the mid-nineties to attempt to have a new general part of the Criminal Code enacted to rationalize the principles of liability and exculpation applicable to all offences. Those efforts failed largely because of the opposition of various groups including the Provincial attorneys general. They had lost their appetite for the fundamental review which they had launched in 1978 with Sen. Jacques Flynn, Minister of Justice during the Clark government.

    At the last federal provincial and territorial meeting of attorneys general and ministers of justice at which recodification was raised the Attorney General of a certain Western province declared “I thought we had whacked that Gopher back into its hole.” When the laughter died down, it was clear that was to be the last of those efforts. That view of the reformist efforts was also frequently encountered from senior members of the judiciary with whom we consulted in the early ‘90s. A certain provincial Chief Justice was fond of reciting this prayer whenever I raised the subject of law reform with him: “God protect us from the reformers. Things are bad enough.”  (Richard G. Mosley, "From Drafting Instructions to Judicial Decisions and Back Again", pp. 1-14, at p. 5; available at http://www.ciaj-icaj.ca/english/publications/LD148Mosley-CIAJ%20Sept%2012%20%202008%20_revised%20Dec15_.FORMATTED.pd, accessed on 16 February 2009)


Professor Stuart is back!.

March 2009: Professor Stuart publishes "A Case for a General Part: Lessons from Canada's Experience with Stephen's Code Since 1892 and Entranched Charter Standards Since 1982", (2009) 20(1) Criminal Law Forum 113-137; note: paper presented at The International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, Codifying the Criminal Law: Modern Initiatives, Dublin Castle, July 11-15, 2008, see http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/2008/Stuart.pdf, accessed on 3 March 2009);

---------------

  Notes

1.  James Fitzjames Stephen, A Digest of the Criminal Law (Crimes and Punishments), 1st ed., London: Macmillan, 1877, lxxxii, 411 p.  On Stephen, see Leon Radzinowicz, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen 1829-1894  and his Contribution to the Development of Criminal Law, London: Bernard Quaritch, 1957, 69 p. (Note: Selden Society Lecture delivered in the Senate House of the University of London 30 th July 1957 during the 80th Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association).
 

2.  James Fitzjames Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law, vol. 1, London: Macmillan, 1883, xv, 576 p. at p. vi (also in reprint: Buffalo (New York): William S. Hein, no date, ISBN: 0930342 for the set of three volumes) and Sir Rupert Cross, "The Making of English Criminal Law - (6) James Fitzjames Stephen", [1978] Criminal Law Review 652-661, at 656-657.
 

3.  House of Commons,  Bill 178, Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill, 1878 in  Sessional Papers [British Parliamentary Papers] (1878), vol. 2, pp. 5-249. The short title of the proposed Act is the "Criminal Code (Indictable Offences), 1878" (see clause 1).
 

4.  House of Commons, "Memorandum [by Sir James Stephen] 'Showing the ALTERATIONS proposed to be made in the existing Law by the CRIMINAL CODE (INDICTABLE OFFENCES) Bill [Bill 178], if Amended, as proposed by the Attorney General'", number 276 in Sessional Papers[British Parliamentary Papers] (1878), vol. 63, pp. 159-175.   Number 276 stands for the command publication number.
 

5.  Criminal Code Bill Commission, Report of the Royal Commission Appointed to Consider the Law Relating to Indictable Offences: With an Appendix Containing a Draft Code Embodying the Suggestions of the Commissioners, Command number 2345 in Sessional Papers[British Parliamentary Papers] (1878-79), vol. 20, pp. 169-378 at p. 170 (Chairperson: C.B. Blackburn); also published in Irish University Press Series of British Parliamentary Papers: Royal Commission Select Committee and Other Reports on the Criminal Law with Proceedings Minutes of Evidence Appendix and Index 1847-79, vol. 6, Legal Administration Criminal Law, Dublin: Shannon University Press, 1971, pp. 369-579, ISBN: 0716511428.
 

6.  House of Commons,  Bill 117, Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill, 1879 in  Sessional Papers [British Parliamentary Papers] (1878-79), vol. 2, pp. 175-426.   The short title of the proposed Act is the "the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences), 1879" (see clause 1).
 

7.  Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3rd ser., 41 Vict., 1879, vol. 245, cols. 313-314, April 3, 1879 (Sir John Holker, the Attorney General).  See also  Cross, supra, note 2, at p. 657.
 

8.  Cross, ibid. (supra, note 2) at p. 657.
 

9.  Command number 140 in Sessional Papers [British Parliamentary Papers] (1878-79), vol.59, pp. 225-230.
 

10.  Sessional Papers [British Parliamentary Papers] (1878-79), vol. 2, pp. 427-678.  The short title of the proposed Act is the "the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences), 1879" (see clause 1).
 

11.  Supra, note 5.
 

12.   Leslie Stephen,  The Life of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen Bart., K.C.S.I.:  A Judge of the High Court of Justice, 2nd ed., London: Smith, Elder, 1895, x, 504 p. at p. 380 (also in reprint: Westmead (Farnborough, Hants, England): Gregg International Publishers, 1971, ISBN: 0576021350).  Leslie was James'  brother.
 

13.  A.E. Cockburn (Lord Chief Justice of England), "Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill - Copy of 'Letter from the Lord Chief Justice of England, dated the 12th day of June 1879, containing Comments and Suggestions in relation to the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill'",  Command number 232, in Sessional Papers [British Parliamentary Papers] (1878-79), vol. 59, pp. 233-252.
 

14.  James Fitzjames Stephen, "The Criminal Code (1879)", The Nineteenth Century - A Monthly Review, vol. vii, January-June 1880 at pp. 136-160  (London:  Kegan Paul & Co.).
 

15.  Sessional Papers [British Parliamentary Papers] (1880), vol. 2,  pp. 1-222.  The short title of the proposed Act is the Criminal Code, 1880,  (see clause 1). Sir John Holker, the Attorney General, "had submitted to the [Royal] Commissioners from time to time the drafts which were prepared, and he had obtained from them their approval of the great bulk of the alterations that had been made", see Hansard's Parliamentary Papers, 3rd ser., 43 Vict., 1880, vol. 250, cols. 1241, February 23. 1880.  The Hansard also reports that Sir Holker had been authorized by the Commissioners to "state explicitly that the Bill was still in substance their measure, and that they thought that it might be introduced into the House as such", ibid.
 

16.  Desmond H. Brown, The Genesis of the Canadian Criminal Code of 1892, Toronto: University of Toronto Press (published for the Osgoode Society), 1989, ISBN: 0802058337, 253 p. at p. 131; see also: Desmond H. Brown, ed.,  The Birth of a Criminal Code: The Evolution of Canada's Justice System, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995, xxxvii, 505 p., ISBN: 0802034721; R.C. MacLeod, "The Shaping of Canadian Criminal Law", in Historical Papers, A Selection from the Papers Presented at the Annual Meeting Held at London 1978, Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, 1978, 257 p. at  pp. 64-75; Graham Parker, "The Origins of the Criminal Code" in D.H. Flaherty, ed., Essays in the History of Canadian Law, vol. 1, Toronto: Osgoode Society (published by University of Toronto Press), 1981, at pp. 249-280;
 

17.  Official Debates of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, Second Session 1892, vol. 1, col. 1321, April 12, 1892, col. 1312.
 

18.  James Fitzjames Stephen,  A Digest of the Criminal Law (Crimes and Punishments), 4th ed., London: MacMillan, 1887, xl, 441 p.
 

19.  George Wheelock Burbidge, A Digest of the Criminal Law of Canada (Crimes and Punishments) Founded By Permission on Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law, Toronto: Carswell, 1890, lxii, 588 p. (also in reprint:  Toronto: Carswell Company, 1980, ISBN: 0459329804).
 

20.  See Acts of the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada Relating to Criminal Law, to Procedure in Criminal Cases and to Evidence, Compiled from the Revised Statutes of Canada, which were issued under Authority of the Act 49 Vict., Chap. 4, and Brought into Force on 1st March, 1887, under Proclamation Dated 24th January, 1887; With Marginal References to Corresponding Imperial Acts,  Ottawa: Brown Chamberlin [Queen's Printer], 1887, viii, 439, 18, lii p.;  see also Henri Elzéar Taschereau, The Criminal Statute Law of the Dominion of Canada, Relating to Indictable Offences, With Full Text as Revised in 1886, and Put Into Force By Royal Proclamation on the 1st Day of March, 1887, and Cases, Notes, Commentaries, Forms, etc., etc., 2nd ed., Toronto: Carswell, 1888, liii, 1155 p.
 

20a.   The Criminal Code,  1892, S.C. 1892 (55 & 56 Vict.), c. 29.
 

21.  TASCHEREAU, H.E., The Criminal Code of the Dominion of Canada As Amended in 1893 With Commentaries, Annotations, Precedents of Indictments, &, &, Toronto, Carswell, 1893, xcvii, 1080 p.; commented upon in: (1893) 16 Legal News 215-216; (1983) 13 Canadian Laws Times 182, (1893) 4 Western Law Times 100;

21a.  CRANKSHAW, James, 1844-1921, The Criminal Code of Canada and the Canada Evidence Act, 1893 With an Extra Appendix Containing the Extradition Act, the Extradition Convention with the United States, The Fugitive Offender's Act, and the House of Commons Debates on the Code and an Analytical Index, Montreal: Whiteford & Theoret, 1894, lxxxviii, 976 p., 25 cm; the University of Ottawa has a copy of this first edition, KE 8804.5 C73 1894; other editions have followed: 2nd (1902), 3rd (1910), 4th (1915), 5th (1924), 6th (1935), 7th (1959) and 8th (1979-, looseleaf).
 

21aa  TREMEEAR, W.J., 1864-1926, The Criminal Code and the Law of Criminal Evidence in Canada being an annotation of the Criminal Code of Canada and of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893, as amended to 1902 inclusive, with special reference to the law of evidence and the procedure in criminal courts, including the practice before justices and on certiorari and habeas corpus, Toronto: Canada Law Book, 1902, xxxix, 934 p., 24.5 cm; other editions  followed: 2nd (1908), 3rd (1919), 4th (1929), 5th (1944), 6th (1964), 6th (update, 1964-1970), 6th (update, 1971-1986), 6th (update, 1987-88).
 

21b. Statutes of Canada, 1908, chapter 40.
 

21c.  CANADA, Royal Commission to Investigate the Penal System of Canada, Report of the Royal Commission to Investigate the Penal System of Canada, Ottawa, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, 1938, vi, 418 p. (Chairman: Judge Joseph Archambault); also published in French /aussi publié en français: Commission royale d'enquête sur le système pénal du Canada, Rapport de la Commission royale d'enquête sur le système pénal du Canada, Imprimeur de Sa Très Excellente Majesté Le Roi, 1938 (Président: juge Joseph Archambault); see  http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/about/part2_e.htm (accessed on 27 December 2002).
 

22.  Royal Commission on the Revision of the Criminal Code, Report of Royal Commission on the Revision of Criminal Code, Ottawa: Edmond Cloutier Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery, 1954, 45 p., (Chairman: William Milville Martin); also published in Senate of Canada, Official Report of Debates 1952, Ottawa: Edmond Cloutier Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery, 1952, pp. 226-268, 14 May 1952.  On the work of the revision of the Code, see: the three articles by  A.J. MacLeod and J.C. Martin, "The Revision of the Criminal Code", (1955) 33 Canadian Bar Review at pp. 3-19;  "Offences and Punishments under the New Criminal Code" at pp. 20-40; and "Procedure under the New Criminal Code" at pp. 41-62; see also Joseph Sedwick, "The New Criminal Code: Comments and Criticisms", (1955) 33 Canadian Bar Review 63-73; and The Criminal Code of Canada With Annotations and Notes by J.C. Martin [commonly referred to by lawyers as "Martin's Criminal Code 1955"], Toronto: Cartwright, 1955, lxxxiii, 1206 p.
 

23a.  CANADA, Committee Appointed to Inquire into the Principles and procedures followed in the Remission Service of the Department of Justice of Canada, Report of a Committee Appointed to Inquire into the Principles and procedures followed in the Remission Service of the Department of Justice of Canada, Ottawa, Queen's Printer, 1956, iii, 162 p. (Chairman: Gerald Fauteux);  also published in French / aussi publié en français: CANADA, Comité d'enquête sur les principes et les méthodes suivies au service des pardons du ministère de la justice du Canada, Rapport d'un comité d'enquête sur les principes et les méthodes suivies au service des pardons du ministère de la justice du Canada, Ottawa: Imprimeur de la Reine, 1956, iii, 170 p. (Président: Gerald Fauteux);
 

23.  Criminal Code, S.C. 1953-54, c. 51.  The definition of criminal negligence is found at s. 191.  See the Supreme Court of Canada decision of R. v. Tutton, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1392-1435 on that concept.
 

24.  Royal Commission on the Law of Insanity as a Defence in Criminal Cases, Report of the Royal Commission on the Law of Insanity as a Defence in Criminal Cases, Hull: Queen's Printer, 1956, 73 p. (Chairperson: J.C. McRuer).
 

24a. Lagarde, Irénée, 1904-, Nouveau Code criminel annoté, Montréal: Wilson et Lafleur, 1957, cxxv, 1358 p.; followed by Droit pénal canadien, Montréal,  Wilson et Lafleur,  1962, ccxv, 1884 p. (with 1st Supplment in 1967 and 2nd Supplement in 1970); and Droit pénal canadien, 2nd ed., 3 vol., Montréal: Wilson & Lafleur, 1974- (lloseleaf).
 

24aa. S.C. 1958, c. 38 replacing the Ticket of Leave Act of 1899.
 

25.  Liberal Party of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada: Philosophy, History and Structure, [Ottawa]: Liberal Party of Canada, [1997?], 27 p. at p. 12.
 

26.  Canadian Committee on Corrections, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections - Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections, March 31, 1969, Ottawa: The Queen's Printer, 1969, xi, 505 p., at p. 15 (Chairman: Roger Ouimet, 1908-, ).
 

27.  Law Reform Commission Act, S.C. 1969-70, c. 64, s. 11.  The Act came into force on that date.
 

28.  Liberal Party of Canada, supra, note 25, p. 13.
 

28a.  Law Reform Commission of Canada, Second Annual Report 1972-73, Ottawa: Information Canada, 1973, v, 37 p., at p. 17 (Chairman: E. Patrick Hartt).
 

29.  Law Reform Commission of Canada, The Meaning of Guilt: Strict Liability, Ottawa: Information Canada, 1974, viii, 38 p. (series; Working Paper, number 2).
 

30.  Liberal Party of Canada, supra, note 25, p. 14.
 

31.  Law Reform Commission of Canada, Limits of criminal law: obscenity: a test case, Ottawa: Information Canada, 1975, vii, 49 p.(series; Working Paper, number 10).
 

32.  Law Reform Commission of Canada, Our Criminal Law, [Ottawa]: Minister of Supply and Services, 1976, [x], 42 p., (series; Report, number 3), ISBN: 0662007395.
 

33.  Law Reform Commission of Canada, Criminal responsibility for group action, Ottawa: Information Canada, 1976, x, 68 p., (series; Working Paper, number 16).
 

34.  Allan W. Mewett and Morris Manning, Criminal Law, Toronto: Butterworths, 1978, xliii, 577 p., at p. v (series; Canadian criminal law series), ISBN: 0409849219.  The importance of this book is pointed out in Vincent M. Del Buono, "Toward a New Criminal Code for Canada"  (1985-86) 28 Criminal Law Quarterly 370-389 at p. 374.
 

35.  George P. Fletcher, Rethinking Criminal Law, Boston: Little, Brown, 1978, xxviii, 898 p.  The importance of Fletcher's book is indicated by Del Buono, ibid (note 34).
 

36.  R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie,  [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299-1332.   The importance of that decision is pointed out by Del Buono, ibid., (supra, note 34 ).
 

37.  Liberal Party of Canada, supra, note 25, p. 16.
 

37a.  The 1979 Year Book of The Canadian Bar Association and the Minutes of Proceedings of its Sixty-first Annual Meeting held at Calgary, Alberta, August 27 th to August 30 th, 1979, Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association, 1979, pp. 119-120.
 

38.  Auditor General of Canada, Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons - Fiscal Year Ended 31 March 1985, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1985, paragraph 10.38, ISBN: 0660119307.
 

39.  Ibid. (note 38).
 

40.  Liberal Party of Canada, supra, note 25, p. 17.
 

41.  Auditor General of Canada, supra, note 38, paragraphs 10.39 and 10.42.
 

42.  Ibid. (supra, note 38) paragraphs 10.46 to 10.49; see also: Del Buono, supra, note 34;  Allen M. Linden, "Recodifying Criminal Law", (1989) 14 Queen's Law Journal 3-30;  and the Law Reform Commission of Canada Annual Reports for the relevant years.
 

43.  As an example, the criminal law review project on mental disorder.
 

44.  Auditor General of Canada, supra, note 38, paragraph 10.42.
 

45.  Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982 being Schedule B of the Canada Act, 1982, U.K. Statutes 1982, c. 11.
 

46.  Government of Canada, The Criminal Law in Canadian Society, Ottawa:  [Department of Justice], August 1982, [6], 123 p., ISBN: 0662120833.  The preface is signed by the Honourable Jean Chrétien, Minister of Justice.
 

47.  Law Reform Commission of Canada, The General Part - Liability and Defences, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1982, [10], 204 p., (series; Working Paper, number 29), ISBN: 0662514297.
 

48.  Law Reform Commission of Canada, Thirteenth Annual Report 1983-1984, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1984, [iv], 44 p. at p. [iii].
 

49.  Ibid.  Jacques Fortin died in January 1985.  On Jacques Fortin, a driving force at the Commission, see  Patrick Fitzgerald, ed., Crime, Justice & Codification: Essays in commemoration of Jacques Fortin, Toronto: Carswell, 1986, [xii], 196 p., ISBN: 0459388800.
 

50.  Government of Canada, Sentencing, Ottawa, [Minister of Supply and Services? or Department of Justice Canada?], February 1984, [iv], 72 p.  The preface is written by Mark MacGuigan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
 

51.  The House of Commons of Canada, Bill C-19, the Criminal Law Reform Act, 1984, First reading, February 7, 1984 (Second Session, Thirty-second Parliament, 32-33 Elizabeth II, 1983-84).
 

52. Young Offenders Act, S.C. 1980-81-82, c. 110 and repealing the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908.
 

53.  Law Reform Commission of Canada, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1984, [viii], 210 p., (series; Working Paper number 37), ISBN: 0662136039.
 

54.  Law Reform Commission of Canada, Homicide, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1984, [10], 117 p. (series; Working Paper number 33), ISBN: 0662529871.
 

55. Law Reform Commission of Canada, Codification - Seminar - Towards a new Criminal Code for Canada, Westin Hotel Ottawa 1-2-3/4/1984, [Ottawa]: [Law Reform Commission of Canada], [1984], 133 p.
 

56.  Law Reform Commission of Canada, Thirteenth Annual Report 1983-1984, supra, note 48, p. 15.
 

57.  Del Buono, supra, note 34 at pp. 376-377.
 

58.  Law Reform Commission of Canada, Thirteenth Annual Report 1983-1984, supra, note 48, pp. 14-15.
 

59.  Liberal Party of Canada, supra, note 25, p. 18.
 

60.  Perka v. The Queen, [1984] 2  S.C.R. 232-279.
 

61.  Law Reform Commission of Canada, Omissions, negligence and endangering, Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1985, [8], 42 p. (series; Working Paper number 46),  ISBN: 0662540824; Secondary Liability: Participation in Crime and Inchoate Offences, Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1985, xii, 53 p., ISBN: 0662537491.
 

62.  Department of Justice, Mental Disorder Project Criminal Law Review - Final Report, [Ottawa]: Department of Justice, September 1985, iv, 106 p. (Project Chief: Gilbert Sharpe). Previously, the Mental Disorder Project, Criminal Law Review  had published: Discussion Paper [Ottawa]: Department of Justice, September 1983, xii, 421 p; and  Draft Report, Ottawa: Department of Justice, May 1984, iv, 95 p. (Project Chief: Gilbert Sharpe and Project Co-ordinator: Judi Richter).  On these three documents, see Edwin A. Tollefson and Bernard Starkman, Mental Disorder in Criminal Proceedings, Scarborough: Carswell (Thomson Professional Publishing), 1993, xx, 223 p. at pp. 3-4, ISBN: 0459551981.
 

63.  Auditor General of Canada, supra, note 38, paragraphs 10.1 to 10.74; available at  http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/8510ce.html.
 

64.  House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada, available from the Canadian Government Publishing Center, Supply and Services Canada, Issue No. 28. December 19, 1985, 57, 14 p.  (Chairman: Aideen Nicholson).  The witnesses were: Mr. Raymond Dublois, Deputy Auditor General, Audit Operations Branch, Office of the Auditor General of Canada; Mr. Justice Allen M. Linden, President, Law Reform Commission of Canada; and D.C. Préfontaine, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Programs and Research, Department of Justice Canada.
 

65.  See Tollefson, supra, note 62, p. 4.
 

66.  Law Reform Commission of Canada, Recodifying Criminal Law, vol. 1, Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1986, [14], 117 p., ISBN: 0662547322 (series; Report; number 30);
 

67.  CANADA, Canadian Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach, Report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1987, xl, 592 p., at p. 154, ISSBN: 0660122456 (Chairman: J.R. Omer Archambault); also published in French / aussi publié en français: Canada, Commission canadienne sur la détermination de la peine, Réformer la sentence: une approche canadienne -- Rapport de la Commission canadienne sur la détermination de la peine, Ottawa: Ministre des Approvisionnements et Services Canada, 1987, xlii, 651 p. (Président: J.R. Omer Archambault).
 

67a.  André Jodouin, "La légitimité des sources du droit pénal (réflexions d'un agnostique sur les certitudes fondamentales du droit répressif)" dans Ejan Mackaay, sous la direction de, Les certitudes du droit = Certainty and the Law, Montréal: Les Éditions Thémis, 2000, [xxvii], 278 p.,  pp. 115-150, à la p. 125, ISBN: 2894001266.
 

68.  See the "[Conference Report] Reform of the Criminal Law, The Inns of Court, London, England, July 26-29, 1987", (1989) 1 Criminal Law Forum 91-98.
 

69.  Letter from the Chairman of the Conference, Mr. Vince Del Buono, to the participants, May 15, 1987.
 

70.  The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, An Evaluation of Volume I of  Report 30 Published by the Law Reform Commission Canada and Titled "Recodifying Criminal Law" for The Hon. Ray HNATYSHYN Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, [Ottawa?]: The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, August 1987, 112 p.
 

71.  Letter from Thomas G. Flanagan, Deputy Chief of Police, Chairman, Law Amendments Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to The Honourable Ray Hnatyshyn, Minister of Justice, September 14, 1987.
 

72.  R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636-666.
 

73.  Canada/Provinces, Report of the Working Group on Chapter 2 of the Law Reform Commission of Canada Report 30 "Recodifying Criminal Law", [Ottawa]; [Department of Justice Canada], January 1988, v, 118 p.; Research Notes: Chapter 2 of report 30  is entitled "Principles of Liability" and  includes proposals on mens rea.  Members of the Working Group were from: the Department of Justice Canada, and from the following provincial Attorney General departments or Ministries/Departments of Justice: Ontario, Québec, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and  British Columbia. This report is available from the Department of Justice Canada.  It was obtained by François Lareau in 1998 under Access to Information Act Request number A98-00184; Report of the Working Group on Chapter 3 of the Law Reform Commission of Canada Report 30, Vol. 1,  "Recodifying Criminal Law", [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice Canada], December 1987, vii, 80 p.; Research Notes: Chapter 3 of report 30  is entitled "Defences".  Members of the Working Group were from: the Department of Justice Canada, and from the following provincial Attorney General departments or Ministries/Departments of Justice: Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and  British Columbia. This report is available from the Department of Justice Canada.  It was obtained by François Lareau in 1998 under Access to Information Act Request number A98-00185; Report of the Working Group on Chapter 4 of the Law Reform Commission of Canada Report 30, Vol. 1 "Recodifying Criminal Law", January 1988; Research Notes:  Chapter 4 of report 30 is entitled "Involvement in Crime".  Members of the Working Group were from the Department of Justice Canada, and from the following provincial Attorney General departments or Ministries/Departments of Justice: Ontario, Québec, British Columbia.
 

74.  "[Conference Report] Reform of the Criminal Law, The Inns of Court, London, England, July 26-29, 1987", supra, note 68 at pp. 92 and 98.  See also the "Members of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law 1989" at ibid., pp. [215-221], and  p. [216] for Mr. Del Buono.
 

75.  Law Reform Commission of Canada, Recodifying Criminal Law (Revised and Enlarged Edition of Report 30),  Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1987, [16], 213 p., (series; Report 31), ISBN:0662547578
 

76.  Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, Taking Responsibility: Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General on its Review of Sentencing, Conditional Release and Related Aspects of Corrections (Chairman: David Daubney) in House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing Center, Supply and Services Center, 1988, issue number 65, August 16-17, 1988, 300 p.
 

77.  Auditor General of Canada, Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons - Fiscal Year Ended 31 March 1988, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1988,  paragraphs 20.1 to 20. 3 and 20.64 to 20.70, ISBN: 0662165020.
 

78.  Some of the articles presented at that conference are found in (1989) 14(1)Queen's Law Journal 1-151.
 

79.  Liberal Party of Canada, supra, note 25, p. 20.
 

80.  Doug Lewis, "An Address by The Honourable Doug Lewis, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to a conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law on Criminal Code Reform, The Canadian Embassy Washington, D.C., January 24, 1990", [Ottawa]: The Society for the Reform of the Criminal Law, [1990?].
 

81.   R. v. Lavallee , [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852-900.
 

82.  In Sub-Committee on the recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, First Principles: Recodifying the General Part of the Criminal Code of Canada: Report of the Sub-Committee on the Recodification of the General part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General in House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Sub-Committee on the recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, [Ottawa]: Queen's Printer for Canada, 1993, issue number 11 (December 10, 1992; February 2, 4 and 16, 1993), xi, 99 p. at Appendix A, "Letter of the Hon. Kim Campbell Then Minister of Justice and Attorney General to the Chairman of the Standing Committee",  pp. 81-82 (Chairperson: Blaine Thacker).
 

83.  Three papers are released: the main document is: Government of Canada, A Framework for Sentencing, Corrections and Conditional Release - Directions for Reform, Ottawa, Minister of Supply and Services, 1990, vii, 32 p., ISBN: 0662575741, note: the main entry under title in the Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data is: A Framework for reform of sentencing, corrections and conditional release);  the first accompanying paper is [Department of Justice Canada], Sentencing: Directions for Reform, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1990, [vi], 68 p., ISBN: 0662575733, note: the main entry under title in the Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data is: Directions for reform in sentencing; the second accompanying paper is Solicitor Genera Canada, Corrections and Conditional Release: Directions for Reform, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1990, [vi], 74 p., note: the  main entry under title in the Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data is: Directions for reform in corrections and conditional release.
 

84.  Canada, Officials of the Department of Justice Canada and Members of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, Toward a New General Part for the Criminal Code of Canada: A Framework Document on the Proposed New General Part of the Criminal Code for the Consideration of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice Canada], [1990], 137 p.
 

84a.  Ibid., at pp. 10 and 136.
 

85.   An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to amend the National Defence Act and the Young Offenders Act in consequence thereof, 1991, S.C. 1991, c. 43.
 

86.  Provincial Working Group on Homicide, Final Report of the Federal/Provincial Working Group on Homicide, [Ottawa], [Department of Justice Canada?], June 1990, updated April 1991, xii, 170 p. (Co-Chairmen: Howard F. Morton and Jean-François Dionne).    I obtained a copy of this report under an Access to Information Act request response dated November 9, 1998, file A-98-00183.  The report at p. xii explains why the report was updated in 1991:
 

"Our report was completed in June, 1990.  Once printed it was submitted to Ministers of Justice and Attorneys General in August of that year.  Subsequently numerous word processing errors were discovered and it was decided to correct these errors and reprint the Report.  On September 13, 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada released its judgments in R. v. MartineauR. v. Logan, R. v. Arkell, R. v. J(J.T.), and R. v. Luxton.  Since these judgments were released prior to reprinting the Report and because they confirmed that the principles of fundamental justice require that conviction for murder be based upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of subjective foresight of death, certain references to these cases were added as addendums to the Report."


86a.  in Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, issue number 3, 11 June 1991, 49 p.; dans Procès-verbaux et témoignages du Comité permanent de la Justice et du Solliciteur général, fascicule numéro 3, 11 juin 1991.
 

87.  Canada, House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Sub-Committee on the recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, [Ottawa]: Queen's Printer for Canada, 1992-1993, 11 Issues:  no. 1: 25, 26, 30 March  1992, 12 May and  8 June 1992 (Witnesses: March 26 and 30, 1992: from the Department of Justice: David Daubney, General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; and Heather Holmes, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; May 12, 1992: Hon. Kim Campbell, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; June 8, 1992: From the Law REform Commission: The Hon. Mr. Justice Gilles Létourneau, Chairman; Professor Patrick Fitzgerald, Coordinator of the Substantive Criminal Law Project and from the Criminal Law Reform Society: Vincent Del Buono, President) ; no. 2: 15 June 1992 (Witnesses: From the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law: Sharon Nicklas, Orlando Da Silva, and Professor Martin Friedland); no. 3: 16 June 1992 (Witnesses: From the Canadian Police Association: James Kingston, Chief Executive Officer; Robert Brennan, Editor); no. 4: 16 June 1992 (Witnesses: From the Barreau du Québec: Me Louise Viau, President of the Committee concerning a new Codification of the General Part of the Criminal Code; Me Josée-Anne Simard, Research Director); From METRAC (Metro Action Committee on Public  Violence against Women and Children): N. Jane Pepino, President; Susan McCree Vander Voet, Executive Director) ; no. 5: 2 and 18 November. 1992 (Witnesses: From the Criminal Code Recodification Task Force of the Canadian Bar Association: Richard C.C. Peck, (Vancouver), Chair; Sheldon Pinx, (Winnipeg), Member; Michelle K. Fuerst (Toronto),  Member; Professor Gerry Ferguson, University of Victoria; on mental disorder: Professor Gerry Ferguson, University of Victoria); no. 6: 19 November 1992 (From the Canadian Psychiatric Association: Dr. Maralyn J. MacKay, Board of Directors and Chair-Elect, Section on Women's Issues; Dr. Nizar Ladha, Provincial Director representing Newfoundland and Chair, Section on Forensic Psychiatry.  From the Canadian Police Association: Neal Jessop, President and Chairman of the Legislation Committee; Scott Newark, Legal Counsel; James M. Kinsgston, Chief Executive Officer); no. 7: 23 November 1992 (Witnesses: From Dying with Dignity: Marilynne Seguin, Executive Director; Martin Campbell, Barrister & Solicitor); no. 8: 24 November 1992 (Witnesses: From the Canadian Medical Association: Dr. Ronald F. Whelan, President; Dr. J. Noel Doig, Chairman, Ethics Committee; Dr. John R. Williams, Ph.D., Director, Ethics and Legal Affairs; Carole Lucock, Assistant Director, Ethics and Legal Affairs.  From The Right to Die Society of Canada: John Hofsess, Executive Director; Christopher Considine, Barrister & Solicitor.  From Compassionate Heathcare Network: Cheryl Eckstein, Chief Executive Officer); no. 9: 26 November. 1992 (Witnesses: Jessie Horner, Lawyer; Don Stuart, Faculty of Law, Queen's University; Professor Patrick Healy, Faculty of Law, McGill University; Anne Stalker, Associate Professor of Law, University of Calgary); no. 10: 8 December  1992 (Witnesses: From the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: Chief Tom Flanagan, Ottawa Police Force; Superintendent John Lindsay, Edmonton Police Force.  From the Criminal Trial Lawyers Association of Alberta: Marilena Carminati); no. 11: 10 December 1992 and  2, 4, and 16 February 1993 (the 11th issue consists of the report; for information on the report, see the entry for February 1993).
 

88.  Ibid., issue no. 1, at p. 1:5.
 

89.  Law Reform Commission of Canada, "A New General Part for the Criminal Code Brief from the Law Reform Commission of Canada to the Subcommittee on the General Part" in Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Sub-Committee on the recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, ibid., issue no. 1, pp. 1A:1 to 1A:28.
 

90.  Canadian Bar Association, Criminal Recodification Task Force, Principles of Criminal Liability: Proposals for a New General Part of the Criminal Code - Report of the Criminal Recodification Task Force,  Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association, [1992],  x, 190 p., ISBN: 0920742335; Research Notes: This book is also published in CANADA, House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Sub-Committee on the Recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, supra, note 87, issue 5 of November 2 and 18, 1992 at pp. 5A:1-5A:194.  On these proposals, see  "Criminal Code Recodification Task Force Report" presented by Mr. R. Peck, Criminal Code Recodification Task Force Chairman,  in The 1992 Year Book of The Canadian Bar Association and the Minutes of Proceedings of its Seventy-fourth Annual Meeting held in Halifax, Nova Scotia August 23-26, 1992, Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association, 1992 at pp. 13-15 (series; CBA Proceedings 1992, vol. 75), ISSN: 0318-4935.  The summary of the recommendations made by the  Canadian Bar Association, Criminal Recodification Task Force in  Principles of Criminal Liability: Proposals for a New General Part of the Criminal Code - Report of the Criminal Recodification Task Force, at pp. 175-188 are also reproduced in STUART, Don, 1943-,  and Ronald Joseph Delisle, Learning Canadian Criminal Law, 7th ed., Scarborough (Ontario): Carswell, Thompson Professional Publishing, 1999, xxv, 1010 p., at Appendix A, pp. 995-1003, ISBN: 0459270613.
 

90a. E.A. Tollefson, "The Politics of Reform: The Canadian Experience", (2001) 49 (1 & 2) Chitty's Law Journal and Family Law Review 1-4, at pp. 3-4;
 

90b.  Statutes of Canada, 1992, c. 20;
 

91.  Sub-Committee on the recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, supra, note 82.
 

92.  Ibid., p. 76.
 

93.  Minister of Justice of Canada, Proposals to Amend the Criminal Code (general principles), [Ottawa], [Department of Justice Canada], 28 June 1993, 17 p.  On these proposals, see the comments made by Mr. Blais reported in The 1993 Year Book of The Canadian Bar Association and the Minutes of Proceedings of its Seventy-fifth Annual Meeting held in Quebec City, Quebec August 22-23, 1993, Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association, 1993 at pp. 78-82 at p. 80 (series; CBA Proceedings 1993, vol. 76), ISSN: 0318-4935.
 

94.  Department of Justice, News Release, "Proposals to Renew the General Part of the Criminal Code", [Ottawa]:, [Department of Justice Canada], June 28, 1993.
 

95.  Ibid.
 

96.  Liberal Party of Canada, supra, note 25, pp. 21-22.
 

97.  Canadian Bar Association, "Submission to the Minister of Justice on the Proposals to Amend the Criminal Code (General Principles)", [Ottawa], [Canadian Bar Association], January 1994, 12 p. at p. 5.
 

97a.  On file with François Lareau, a copy of a letter from Mr. Paul Monty, Substitut en chef du procureur général et directeur des Affaires criminelles, Minsitère de la Justice, Gouvernement du Québec, February 2, 1994, to Mr. R.G. Mosley, Department of Justice Canada, 1 p.
 

97b.  ARCHIBALD, Bruce P., "Actus Reus, Voluntariness and Automatism: A Commentary on Federal Government Proposals to Amend the Canadian Criminal Code", [S.l. : s.n.], 1994, 15 p.; also published in French / aussi publié en français:  L'actus reus, le fait volontaire et l'automatisme : observation sur la proposition de modification du Code criminel élaborée par le gouvernement fédéral, [Ottawa] : Division de la réforme du droit, Ministère de la justice du Canada, 1994, 11 p. ; 28 cm., copy at the National Library Ottawa:  AMICUS No. 16835862, Monograph, Preserv Copy - COP.CA.2.1997-1640 - NO ILL;  on the internet at http://129.128.19.162/docs/actdojf.html;
 

98.  Papers prepared for the Department of Justice in response to the white paper, "Proposals to Amend the Criminal Code (General Principles)", March 1994: Anne Stalker, "Fault Element in the White Paper"; Don Stuart, "White Paper Proposals on Subjective and Objective Standards of Fault and Defences, Mistake of Fact and Transferred Intent"; Gerry Ferguson, "Parties to an Offence"; Alan W. Mewett, "Proposals to amend the Criminal Code, June 28, 1993 Clause 9, s. 24.2, Conspiracy"; Anne-Marie Boisvert, "[Translation] Comments on the White Paper Proposals Concerning Liability of Corporations"/"Commentaires sur les propositions du livre blanc concernant la responsabilité des personnes morales"; Anne McGillivray, "Reconciling the Defences: A Response to the White Paper"; Patrick Healy, "Intoxication in the Codification of Canadian Criminal Law"; Bruce P. Archibald, "Actus Reus, Voluntariness and Automatism: A Commentary on Federal Government Proposals to Amend the Canadian Criminal Code"; Hélène Dumont, "[Translation] Opinion relating to section 34 of the Proposals to amend the Criminal Code (general principles) - Codification of the defences of  ignorance of the law"/"Opinion portant sur l'article 34 de la Proposition de modification du Code criminel (principes généraux) - La modification de moyens de défense d'ignorance de la loi et d'erreur de droit"; Kent Roach, "Duress and Necessity in the White Paper";  Tim Quigley, "Proposals to Amend the Criminal Code (General principles) - Defence of the Person - Section 37"; Tim Quigley, "Proposals to Amend the Criminal Code (General principles) - Defence of Property - Section 38";  Ève-Stéphanie Sauvé, "The Minister of Justice Proposal for the Codification of the ‘Defence' of Entrapment (Section 39 of the Proposal to Amend the Criminal Code - General principles)".
 

98a.  REPEAL 43 COMMITTEE, Brief to Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Solicitor General, Minister of Health, Secretary of State for the Status of Women and the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs re: Section 43 of the Criminal Code and the corporal punishment of children / submitted by the Repeal 43 Committee, Committee to Repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada, Toronto : Repeal 43 Committee : distributed by the Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse = L'Institut pour la prévention de l'enfance maltraitée, 1994, iii, 15, [xxiii] p., at pp. 13-14;
 

99.  R. v. Daviault, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63-132.
 

100.  Department of Justice Canada, Reforming the General Part of the Criminal Code: A Consultation Paper, [Ottawa]; [Department of Justice Canada], [November 1994], v, 35 p.
 

101.  Department of Justice, News Release, "Criminal Code General Part Consultation Paper Released", Toronto, 12 November 1994, 2 p. at p. 1
 

102.  Allan Rock, letter dated November 1994.
 

103.  Department of Justice Canada and James W. O'Reilly, Toward a New General Part of the Criminal Code of Canada - Details on Reform Options -, [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice Canada], [December 1994], ii, 50 p.; available at  http://129.128.19.162/docs/refordoj.html (accessed on 2 December 2002).
 

104.  Department of Justice, News Release, supra, note 101, p. 2.
 

104a. Ibid.
 

104aa. CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION, National Criminal Justice Section, Letter to The Honourable Allan Rock, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, "Re: Self-Induced Intoxication", dated January 5, 1995, signed by Michelle Fuerst, Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, 3 pages,  (Legislative and Law Reform Submissions number 94-24);
 

104b. BARREAU DU QUÉBEC, Comité permanent en droit criminel du Barreau du Québec, lettre à Me Yvan Roy, Ministère de la Justice Canada, objet de la lettre: "Intoxication volontaire / Position du Comité permanent en droit criminel du Barreau du Québec", Montréal : Barreau du Québec, 17 janvier 1995, lettre signée par Me Annie Chapados, avocate, Service de recherche et législation; document obtenu par François Lareau en vertu d'une demande sur la Loi sur l'accès à l'information,  numéro A98-00147 (documents 000618-000620).
 

105.  Letter of  Mr. Jean T. Fournier, Deputy Solicitor General Canada, dated February 27, 1995,  to Mr. George Thomson, Deputy Minister and Deputy Attorney General, Justice Canada, 3 p. at p. 1.  Copy of this letter, on file with François Lareau, was obtained by François Lareau from the Access to Information and Privacy Office, Department of Justice Request, request A98-00147 sent by the Department with their covering letter of February 22, 1999 (documents page numbers # 000476-000478).
 

105a.  Letter of  F.G. Palmer, Commissioner Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, dated March 14, 1995, file PSS-10-4,  to Mr. Rick Mosley, Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal and Social Policy Sector, Department of Justice Canada, 9 p. at p. 1.  Copy of this letter, on file with François Lareau, was obtained by François Lareau from the Access to Information and Privacy Office, Department of Justice Request, request A98-00147 sent by the Department with their covering letter of February 22, 1999 (documents page numbers # 000381-000389).
 

105aa. CANADA, House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, April 6, 1995, issue No. 98, pp. 98:6 and 98:10.
 

105aaa.  CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION, National Criminal Justice Section, "Submission on Bill C-72 - An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Self-induced intoxication), Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association, 12 p., published in Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Issue112 (meetings 158-164 - from 6-20 June 1995), Ottawa: Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada, available from Canada Communication Group Publishing, 1995, pp. 112A: 61 to112A:72 at p. 112A:64; available / disponible à http://www.lareau-legal.ca/ComC-72n98.pdf.
 

105b. CANADA, Senate, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, June 28, 1995, issue No. 46, pp. 46:22 to 46:23.
 

106.  R. v. Hibbert, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 973-1027.
 

107.  An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced intoxication), S.C. 1995, c. 32, s. 1 (in force since September 15, 1995 (SI/95-101)).
 

108.  Department of Justice, News Release, "Review Commissioned of Murder Cases Involving Women Who Allege They Killed Their Abusers in Self-Defence", October 4, 1995 (the News Release includes Terms of Reference).
 

108a.  See SALAND, Per, "International Criminal Law Principles" in Roy S. Lee, ed., The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results, The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999, xxxv, 657 p., pp. 189-216, ISBN: 904111212X (hardcover) and 904111243X (pbk.).
 

109.  An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other Acts in consequence thereof, S.C. 1995, c. 22.
 

110.  Liberal Party of Canada, supra, note 25, p. 22.
 

111.  Self Defence Review, Self Defence Review - Final Report Submitted to the Minister of Justice Canada and to the Solicitor General of Canada,  [Ottawa]: [Self-Defence Review?], 11 July 1997, 234 p. at pp. 153-157 (Chair: Judge Lynn Ratushny).  On the internet at: "http://toscane.crdp.umontreal.ca/publications/defence/rtush_en.html"; also available at http://web.archive.org/web/19971012095129/canada.justice.gc.ca/Publications/defence/rtush_en.html (accessed on 28 September 2009); also available in French / aussi disponible en françaisExamen de la légitime défense - Rapport final - Présenté au Ministre de la Justice du Canada et au Solliciteur général du Canda, [Ottawa], [Examen de la légitime défense?], 11 juillet 1997, disponible à  c à http://web.archive.org/web/19971012100413/canada.justice.gc.ca/Publications/defence/rtush_fr.html (vérifié le 28 septembre 2009);
 
 

111a. BINDMAN, Stephen, "Bureaucrats 'scorned' judge's probe: Federal Justice Department officials undermined inquiry, judge charges", The Ottawa Citizen, 25 July 1997, pp. A1-A2, at p. A1.
 

112.  Department of Justice Canada, Overview of Recent Activities and Departmental Achievements, Department of Justice of Canada, [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice Canada], August 1997
 

113.  Government of Canada, The Self-Defence Review: Overview and Next Steps,  [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice?], September 1997, 20 p.  On the internet at  "http://canada.justice.gc.ca/News/Communiques/1997/over_en.html".
 

114.  Letters on file with François Lareau.
 

114a. Daniel C. Préfontaine, "The Impact of the Nature and Volume of Crime and Administrative Processes on Criminal Justice Systems: The Canadian Experience" in Comparative Criminal Justice Systems: From Diversity to Rapprochement -- Proceedings of the International Conference for the 25th anniversary of the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences, Siracusa (Italy), 16-20 December, Toulouse: Éditions Ères, 1998, pp. 315-320  (series; Association internationale de droit pénal; number 17), ISBN: 2865866912;
 

114b. Canada, Solicitor General Canada, Towards a just, peaceful and safe society : the Corrections and Conditional Release Act five years later : consultation paper, [Ottawa]: Solicitor General Canada, 1998, v, 29, [4], 32, v p., ISBN: 066263425X; Text in English and French on inverted pages; aussi publié en français: Loi sur le système correctionnel et la mise en liberté sous condition cinq ans plus tard : document de consultation.
 

115.  Letter on file with François Lareau.
 

115a. Confidential briefing note "Reform of the Law of Self-Defence" reviewed and signed by Mr. Yvan Roy, Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada,  p. 2 of 7.  Part of this memo was received from the Department of Justice Canada under François Lareau's Access to Information request number A98-00147 and sent to Mr. Lareau as part of installment number 2 with letter of February 22, 1999 (document 000957, 000958 for p. 2 and 000963 for p. 7).
 

116.  Department of Justice Canada, Reforming Criminal Code Defences: Provocation, Self-Defence and Defence of Property A Consultation Paper, [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice Canada], [1998], 49 p. Available on the internet at: "http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Consultations/rccd/index_en.html".
 

117.   Department of Justice Canada, Overview of Recent Activities and Departmental Achievements - August 1998 , [Ottawa]: [Department of Justice of Canada], August 1998, 27 p. at p. 16.  Available on the internet at "http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Presentation/achieve_en.html".
 

120.    Text of my letter of August 20, 1998 to the Criminal Lawyers' Association, Mr. Alan D. Gold, President, 4 p. ("chro_crimlawass20Aug98.html");  the text of my letter October 28, 1998 to Criminal Lawyers' Association, Mr. Alan D. Gold, 1 p. ("chro_crimlawass28Oct98.html"); the  text of my letter of February 25, 1999 to Ms. Stephanie Mealing, Administrator, Criminal Lawyers' Association , 5 p. ("chro_crimlawass25Feb99.html").
 

121.    Letter on file with François Lareau from the Hon. Greg Byrne, Q.C., Minister of Justice New Brunswick, dated September 8, 19998, 1 p.  See also the text of my letter of August 13, 1998 to the Hon. Greg Byrne, Minister of Justice and Attorney General - New Brunswick ("chro_nb13Aug98.html"); text of a letter of Greg Byrne, Q.C., Minister of Justice New Brunswick, to François Lareau, dated September 8, 1998 ("chro_nb8Sep98.html"); text of a letter by François Lareau of November 4, 1998, 2 p., to the Hon. Greg Byrne, Q.C., Minister of Justice and Attorney General - New Brunswick ("chro_nb4Nov98.html"); and the text of my letter of February 14, 1999 to the Hon. Greg Byrne, Q.C., Minister of Justice and Attorney General, New Brunswick, 6 p. ("chro_nb14Feb99.html").
 

122.  Letter on file with François Lareau from Mr. David B. Riley, Deputy Minister of Justice, Prince Edward Island, dated September 8, 1998, 1 p.  See the text of my letter of August 13, 1998 to the Honourable Wes MacAleer ("chro_pei13Aug.html") and  text of my letter to the Hon. Wes MacAleer, dated February 5, 1999 (http://www.achilles.net/~flareau/chro_pei5Feb.html).  On November 12, 1998, I was advised by telephone that the Department of the Attorney General of PEI were unable unable to find any brief.  This telephone call was the result of my  fax of September 16, 1998 to Mr. David B. Riley, Office of the Deputy Minister Community Affairs & Attorney General ("chro_pei16Sep98.html").
 

123.  Letter on file with François Lareau from Irv Yaverbaum, Alberta Justice, Criminal Law Policy and Special projects, to François Lareau, September 10, 1998.  See also: the  text of my letter of September 15, 1998 to the Hon. John Havelock, Minister of Justice and Attorney General Alberta ("chro_al15Sep98.html"); the text of my letter of September 16, 1998 to the Hon. John Havlock, Minister of Justice and Attorney General Alberta ("chro_al16Sep98.html"); the  text of the letter of Mr. Irv Yaverbaum, Criminal Law Policy and Special Projects Alberta Justice to François Lareau, dated November 12, 1998 ("chro_al112Nov98.html") and the text of my letter of February 9, 1999 to the Hon. Jon Havelock, Minister of Justice and Attorney General Alberta ("chro_al9Feb99.html").
 

124.   Letter on file with François Lareau from Benoît Lauzon, avocat, conseiller politique, adjoint au directeur du Cabinet du ministère de la Justice, Procureur général et ministre responsable de l'application des lois professionnelles, Gouvernment du Québec, dated September 14, 1998, 1 p.   See also the  text of my letter of August 10, 1998 to the Ministère de la Justice et procureur général du Québec, M. le Ministre Serge Ménard, 3 p. ("chro_qc10Aug98.html"); text of my fax of September 16, 1998 to Ministère de la justice et Procureur général du Québec, M. Benoît Lauzon, Conseiller politique, Cabinet du ministère de la Justice, 1 p. ("chro_qc16Sep98.html"); text of my letter of October 14, 1998 to Ministère de la Justice et procureur général du Québec, M. le Ministre Serge Ménard, 2 p. ("chro_qc14Oct98.html").
 

125.    Letter on file with François Lareau from the Hon. John T. Nilson, Q.C. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Saskatchewan to François Lareau, dated September 17, 1998, 2 p.  See  the text of my letter of August 13, 1998 to the Minister of Justice of Saskatchewan ("chro_sask13Aug.html").
 

126.   Letter on file with François Lareau from Margo L. Nightingale, Senior Legal Policy Advisor, Northwest Territories Justice, September 25, 1998, 1 p.  See also my letters:  text of my letter to the Hon. Goo Arlooktoo, Minister of Justice, Northwest Territories, dated August 14, 1998;   text of my letter to the Hon. Goo Arlooktoo, Minister of Justice, Northwest Territories, dated October 5, 1998;  and the  text of my letter to the Hon. Goo Arlooktoo, Minister of Justice, Northwest Territories, dated February 3, 1999.
 

127.   Letter on file with François Lareau from Me Jacques Fournier, le bâtonnier du Québec, Barreau du Québec, October 7, 1998, 1 p.  See also the  text of my letter of August 11, 1998 to le bâtonnier du Québec, Barreau du Québec, Me Jacques Fournier, 3 p. ("chro_bar11Aug98.html"); the  text of a letter from le bâtonnier du Québec, Barreau du Québec, Me Jacques Fournier, August 24, 1998, 1 p. ("chro_bar24Aug98.html").
 

128.   Letter on file with François Lareau from John T. Nilson, Q.C. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Saskatchewan to François Lareau, dated October 16, 1998, 1 p.  See  the text of my letter of September 28, 1998 to the Minister of Justice of Saskatchewan ("chro_sask28Sep.html").  There is further correspondence: the text of my  letter of October 28, 1998 to the Minister of Justice of Saskatchewan ("chro_sask28Oct.html"), the text of the Minister of Justice of Saskatchewan's letter of November 20, 1998 to François Lareau ("chro_sask20Nov.html") and  the text of my letter of January 23, 1999 to the Minister of Justice of Saskatchewan ("chro_sask23Jan.html").
 

129.   Letter on file with François Lareau from Lois Moorcroft, Minister of Justice Yukon, dated October 23, 1998, 1 p.  See also the  text of my letter of August 14, 1998 to the Hon. Lois M. Moorcroft, Minister of Justice, Government of Yukon Canada ("chro_yuk14Aug98.html"); text of my letter of October 15, 1998 to the Hon. Lois M. Moorcroft, Minister of Justice, Government of Yukon, Canada ("chro_yuk15Oct98.html");  and the  text of my letter of November 11, 1998 to the Hon. Lois M. Moorcroft, Minister of Justice, Government of Yukon ("chro_yuk11Nov98.html").
 

130.  National Criminal Justice Section of the Canadian Bar Association, "Submission on Reforming Criminal Code Defences", [Ottawa]: [Canadian Bar Association], November 1998, iii, 13 p. at pp. 1-2.  See also the  text of my letter of October 28, 1998 to Mr. Barry Gorlick, President Canadian Bar Association, 6 p. ("chro_canbar28Oct98.html");  the  text of a letter of John D.V. Hoyles, Executive Director, The Canadian Bar Association, to François Lareau, November 2, 1998, 1 p. ("chro_canbar2Nov98.html"); and the  text of a letter of John D.V. Hoyles, Executive Director, The Canadian Bar Association, November 30, 1998 to François Lareau , 1 p. ("chro_canbar30Nov98.html").
 

131.   Letter on file with François Lareau from the Ministry of the Attorney General dated November 2, 1998 to François Lareau, 1 p.  See the text of my letter of August 12, 1998 to the Attorney General of Ontario (" http://www.achilles.net/~flareau/chro_on12Aug_.html").
 

131a.  STUART, Don, 1943-,  and Ronald Joseph Delisle, Learning Canadian Criminal Law, 7th ed., Scarborough (Ontario): Carswell, Thompson Professional Publishing, 1999, xxv, 1010 p., Appendix B, "Text of a General Part Suggested by Don Stuart", at  pp. 1005-1010, ISBN: 0459270613.  The papers of the conference were published in Don Stuart, R.J. Delisle and Alan Manson, eds., Towards a Clear and Just Criminal Law: A Criminal Reports Forum, Scarborough (Ontario, Canada): Carswell (Thomson Professional Publishing), 1999.  Professor Stuart's draft General Part with comments is found at "A Case for a General Part",  pp. 95-145; see also Markus Dirk Dubber`s article, "Commentary [on Professor Stuart's text of suggested General Part]"  at pp. 156-182.
 

132.   Letter on file with François Lareau from Bryan McConnell, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, November 12, 1998 to François Lareau, 1 p.  See also the  text of my letter of September 18, 1998 to Mr. Bryan McConnell, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, 5 p. ("chro_pol18Sep98.html").
 

133.   Letter on file with François Lareau from Dr. Jim Smith, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Nova Scotia, dated November 18, 1998, 1 p.   See also: the text of my letter of August 13, 1998 to the Hon. James A. Smith, MD, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Nova Scotia ("chro_ns13Aug98.html") and the  text of my letter of February 12, 1999 to the Hon. Robert S. Harison, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Nova Scotia ("chro_ns12Feb99.html").
 

134.   Letter on file with François Lareau from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Manitoba, the Hon. Victor Eric Toews, Q.C.  See my reply to him at  text of my letter to the Hon. V.E. Toews, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Manitoba dated January 25, 1999 ("chro_man25Jan.html").   For the correspondence see:  the text of my letter of September 30, 1998 to the Hon. V.E. Toews, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Manitoba ("chro_man30Sep.html"); text of letter from Mr. Rob Finlayson, Assistant Deputy Attorney General of Manitoba to François Lareau dated September 16, 1998 ("chro_man16Sep.html") and   text of the letter from François Lareau to the Hon. V.E. Toews, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Manitoab dated August 13, 1998 ("chro_man13Aug.html").
 

135.   Letter on file with François Lareau from the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Hon. Stéphane Dion dated January 6, 1999, 2 p. See also the text of my letter of October 28, 1998 to the Hon. Stéphane Dion, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs  ("chro_dion28Oct98.html") and the text of my letter of January 25, 1999 to the /Hon. Stéphane Dion, president of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs ("chro_dion25Jan99.html").
 

136.  Letter on file with François Lareau  from the Hon. A. Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, dated January 19, 1999, 1 p.
 

137.  Letter on file with François Lareau, from Mr. Murray Segal, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Law Division, Ministry of the Attorney General, dated January 27, 1999, 1 p.  See  the text of my letter of November 9, 1998 to the Attorney General of Ontario("chro_on9Nov_.html") and  the text of my letter of January 21, 1999 to the Attorney General of Ontario.
 

138.  Cristin Schmitz, "Justice Minister plans re-balance", The Lawyers Weekly, January 29, 1999, p. 2.
 

139.  Letter from Roderick A. Macdonald to François Lareau, February 10, 1999, 2 p., on file with François Lareau.  See also the  text of my letter of August 19, 1998 to Mr. Roderick A. Macdonald, President, Law Commission of Canada ("chro_lawcom19Aug98.html"), 4p.;  text of the letter of Mr. Roderick A. Macdonald, President, Law Commission of Canada, August 28, 1998 to Mr. François Lareau ("chro_lawcom28Aug98.html"), 1 p.;  text of faxed letter of François Lareau of September 9, 1998 to Mr. Roderick A. Macdonald, President Law Reform Commission ("chro_lawcom9Sep98.html"), 3 p.;  text of letter of Mr. Bruno Bonneville, Executive Director, Law Commission of Canada, October 9, 1998 to François Lareau ("chro_lawcom9Oct98.html"), 1 p.;  text of letter of François Lareau to Mr. Roderick A. Macdonald, October 28, 1998 ("chro_lawcom28Oct98.html"), 3 p.;  text of a fax from François Lareau, dated November 18, 1998 to Mr. Roderick A. Macdonald, Law Commission of Canada ("chro_lawcom18Nov98.html"), 1 p.;  text of a letter from François Lareau, Decmber 3, 1998 to Mr. Roderick A. Macdonald, Law Commission of Canada ("chro_lawcom3Dec98.html"), 1 p.;  text of a fax from François Lareau dated January 8, 1999 to Mr. Roderick A., Macdonald, Law Commission of Canada ("chro_lawcom8Jan99.html"), 1 p.;  text of letter (could be faxed letter) from François Lareau to Mr. Bruno Berthiaume, Executive Director, Law Commission of Canada ("chro_lawcom28Jan99.html"), 2 p.
 

140.  Letter to François Lareau from Mr. L. Denis Desautels, FCA, Auditor General of Canada, March 24, 1999, 1 p., on file with François Lareau.  See also the text of my letter to Mr. L. Denis Desautels, Auditor General of Canada, August 23, 1998, 3 p. ("chro_audit23Aug98.html"); text of a letter from Alan Gilmore, Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General to François Lareau, dated September 8, 1998 , 1 p. ("chro_audit8Sep98.html"); text of a faxed letter from François Lareau to Mr. Alan Gilmore, Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General, 1 p. ("chro_audit211Sep98.html"); text of a faxed letter from François Lareau to Mr. Alan Gilmore, Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General ,1 p. ("chro_audit211Sep98.html");text of my faxed letter dated September 14, 1998 to Mr. Alan Gilmore, Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General, 1 p. ("chro_audit114Sep98.html"); text of a faxed letter from Mr. Jean Ste-Marie, c.r., Conseiller juridique principal, Office of the Auditor General to François Lareau, September 14, 1998, 1 p., ("chro_audit314Sep98.html"); text of a faxed letter by François Lareau to Me Jean Ste-Marie, c.r., Conseiller juridique principal, Office of the Auditor general, 1 p., ("chro_audit314Sep98.html");  text of my letter to Mr. Alan Gilmore, Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General, 21 January 1999 ,1 p., ("chro_audit21Jan99.html") and in regard to note 118 mentioned in the text of my letter this note, at the time, was a quotation from the "Submission on Reforming Criminal Code Defences" prepared in November 1998 by the National Criminal Justice Section of the Canadian Bar Association which can be found in this chronology; text of a letter from Mr. Alan Gilmore, Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General to Mr. François Lareau, dated February 18, 1999, 1 p. ("chro_audit18Feb99.html"); text of a letter by François Lareau to Mr. L. Denis Desautels, Auditor General of Canada, dated March 16, 1999, 4 p., ("chro_audit16Mar99.html").
 

141.   Letter from Mr. Colin J. Flynn, Q.C., Director of Public Prosecutions, Department of Justice, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, dated March 26, 1999, 1 p., on file with François Lareau.  See also the  text of my letter to The Honourable Chris Decker, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador, August 14, 1998, 3 p. ("chro_nlfd14Aug98.html"); text of my letter of October 15, 1998 to the Hon. Chris Decker, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador, 1 p. ("chro_nlfd15Oct98.html"); text of my letter to the Hon. Brian Tobin, Premier, December 2, 1998 , 1 p., ("chro_nlfd2Dec98.html");  text of my letter of February 16, 1999 to the Hon. Paul Dicks, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador, February 16, 1999, 5 p. ("chro_nlfd16Feb99.html"); text of my letter to Ms Lynn Spracklin, Deputy Minister of Justice, Department of Justice Newfoundland and Labrador, February 17, 1999, 1 p. ("chro_nlfd17Feb99.html").
 

142.  Letter to François Lareau from Cleve Cooper, Assistant Commissioner, Director, Community, Contract and Aboriginal Policing Services, dated April 8, 1999, 1 p., on file with François Lareau.  See also the  text of my letter to the Commissioner Philip JR Murray, Royal Canadian Mounted Police,  dated 8 March 1999 , 2 p. ("chro_rcmp8mar99.html"); the nine page letter of F.G. Palmer, Deputy Commissioner Operations, RCMP to Mr. Rick Mosley, Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal and Social Policy Sector, Department of Justice Canada referred to in the main under the date of March 14, 1995.
 

143.  Letter of the Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh, Q.C., Attorney General of British Columbia, to François Lareau, April 27, 1999, 2 p., on file with François Lareau.   See the text of my letter of August 12, 1998 to the Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh, Attorney General of British Columbia, 3 p. ("chro_bc12Aug98.html"); text of my letter of October 15, 1998 to the Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh, Attorney General of British Columbia, 1 p. ("chro_bc15Oct98.html"); text of my letter of December 2, 1998 to the Hon. Glen Clark, Premier, province of British Columbia, 1 p. ("chro_bc2Dect98.html"); text of my letter of February 15, 1999 to the Hon. Ujal Dosanjh, Attorney General of British Columbia 5 p., ("chro_bc15Feb99.html"); text of my letter of February 17, 1999 to Ms. Maureen Maloney, Deputy Attorney General British Columbia, 1 p. ("chro_bc17Feb99.html"); text of my letter of April 21, 1999 to the Hon. Glen Clark, Premier of British Columbia ("chro_bc21Apr99.html"); text of a letter from the Hon. Glen Clark, Premier, British Columbia, to François Lareau, March 29, 1999, 1 p., ("chro_bc29Mar99.html").

144.  Letter from the Deputy Solicitor General Canada, Mr. Jean T. Fournier, to François Lareau, May 11, 1999, 2 p., on file with François Lareau; the letter starts with "Dear Mr. Thomson" but there is a line over "Thomson" and the handwritten word "George" is over it.  See the  text of my letter of March 5, 1999 to Mr. Jean T. Fournier, Deputy Solicitor General of Canada, March 5, 1999 , 2 p., ("chro_sg5Mar99.html"); text of my second letter to Mr. Jean T. Fournier, Deputy Solicitor General Canada, March 5, 1999 , 1p. ("chro_2sg5Mar99.html") and note that part of Mr. Fournier's letter can be found,  supra, under the entry for February 27, 1995;   text of a letter from Me Jean Boisjoli, Legal Services, Solicitor General Canada to Mr. François Lareau , March 25, 1999, 1p. ("chro_sg25Mar99.html").
 

145.  Letter from Mr. Mario Tremblay, Chief Crown Prosecutor, Department of Justice, Quebec Government, dated 25 June 1999 to François Lareau, 2 p.; see also the  text of my letter of February 20, 1999 to Mrs Linda Goupil, Minister of Justice Québec, 10 p. ("chro_qc20Feb99.html"); and the   text of me Dany Sauvageau, avocate, Cabinet de la ministre de la Justice, dated 4 May 1999 to François Lareau, 2 p. ("chro_qc4May99.html").
 

146. From the Department of Justice Canada Web site, at p. http://canada.justice.gc.ca/News/Discours/1999/asdel_en.html  as noticed on 25 November 1999.
 

146a. Available at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/JUST/Studies/Reports/just01-e.html (accessed on 1 December 2002) and at  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/SCRA/Studies/Reports/just01/07-toc-e.html (accessed on 24 February 2004).  Also published in French/aussi publié en français: Sous-comité sur la Loi sur le système correctionnel et la mise en liberté sous condition du Comité permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne, En constante évolution: La Loi sur le système correctionnel et la mise en liberté sous condition, mai 2000 (Président: Paul DeVillers, député) disponible à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/JUST/Studies/Reports/just01-f.html (visionné le 31 novembre 2002) et à  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/SCRA/Studies/Reports/just01/07-toc-f.html (visionné le 24 février 2004)..
 

147. Ottawa: Government of Canada, June 2000, 9, [3] p.; available at http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/lecl.html. Also published in French /aussi publié en français: Application de la loi et responsabilité criminelle disponible à http://canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/cons/alrc.html.
 

147a.  Department of Justice Canada, Memorandum for the Minister, "Reform of the defence of provocation", 4 p., dated October 2000, 4 p., Accress to Information Act reqest by François Lareau, Department of Justice Canada reply, dated 10 July 2002, file A-2001-0336/bf, documents 000007-000010.
 

147b.  Available at  http://www.sgc.gc.ca/publications/ccra/ccraoct2000_e.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2002; revised version of November 2000); also published in French/aussi publié en français: Réponse au rapport du Sous-comitésur la Loi sur le système correctionnel et la mise en liberté sous condition du Comité permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne "En constante évolution: La Loi sur le système correctionnel et la mise en liberté sous condition" (revisé, novembre 2002), disponible à http://www.sgc.gc.ca/publications/ccra/ccraoct2000_f.pdf (visionné le 1er décembre 2002).
 

148. Don STUART, 1943-, Canadian Criminal Law, 4th ed., Scarborough (Ontario): Carswell, A Thomson Company, 2001, liv, 733 p. at p.vi, ISBN: 0459261703 and 0459261118 (pbk.).
 

148a.  McLELLAN, Hon. Anne, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib., testimony before House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights,  Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Bill C-7, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, Wednesday, March 28, 2001; voir  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Minutes/JUSTmn3%287422%29-E.htm et  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev03-e.htm (accessed on 17 October 2002);  also available in French/aussi disponible en français: McLELLAN, L'hon. Anne, ministre de la Justice et procureur général du Canada, Lib., Comité permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne, Procès-verbaux du Comité permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne,  concernant  le projet de loi C-7, Loi concernant le système de justice pénale pour les adolescents et modifiant et abrogeant certaines lois en conséquence, mercredi le 28 mars 2001; voir http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Minutes/JUSTmn3%287422%29-F.htm et  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev03-f.htm; (visionné le 17 octobre 2002);
 

149.  Available on Parliament's web pages at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-24/C-24_1/C-24_cover-E.html.  Bill C-24 came into force in January 2002 as part of the Statutes of Canada 2001, chapter 32 (see SI=Statutory Instrument/2002-17).
 

150.  Available on Parliament's web pages at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-24/C-24_2/C-24_cover-E.html.  Bill C-24 came into force in January 2002 as part of the Statutes of Canada 2001, chapter 32 (see SI=Statutory Instrument/2002-17).
 

151.  Available on Parliament's web pages at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev12-e.htm.  On this Bill, see Louise Viau,  "L'autorisation de commettre des crimes: réflexion en marge d'un nouvel outil juridque pour lutter contre le crime organisé" dans, sous la direction de, Jacques Beaulne; comité de rédaction, Roxanne Guérard et Michèle Lafontaine, Mélanges Ernest Caparos, Montréal : Wilson & Lafleur, c2002,  xx, 388 p., aux pp. 247-279 (Collection; La collection Bleue, Faculté de droit Section de droit civil, Université d'Ottawa), ISBN: 2891275594; copie  à la bibliothèque de la Cour suprême du Canada, KF210 M456 2002;
 

152.  Available on Parliament's web pages at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/justev12-f.htm
 

152a. Available at  http://leadership.gc.ca/static/dayinthelife/september11/laws_e.shtml (accessed on 11 January 2003).
 

152aa.   "Concluding Comments from the Department of Justice" in Ronald J. Daniels, Patrick Macklem and Kent Roach, eds., The Security of Freedom: Essays on Canada's Anti-Terrorism Bill, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001, 499 p. at pp.435-445, p. 436, ISBN: 0802085199.
 

152b  "The Dangers of Quick Fix Legislation in the Criminal Law: The Ant-Terrorism Bill C-36 should be Withdrawn" in in Ronald J. Daniels, Patrick Macklem and Kent Roach, eds., The Security of Freedom: Essays on Canada's Anti-Terrorism Bill, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001, 499 p. at pp.205-213, p. 206, ISBN: 0802085199.
 

153.  Don STUART, "Time to Recodify Criminal Law and Rise Above Law and Order Expediency: Lessons From the Manitoba Warriors Prosecution", (2000) 28(1) Manitoba Law Journal 89-112.
 

154.  http://www.lcc.gc.ca/en/contracts/20020221.html (seen February 2002)
 

155. It will eventually replace eventually the Young Offenders Act that came into force in 1984.
 

156. Letter in French to the Hon. Martin Cauchon, dated 6 March 2002, see  http://home.achilles.net/~flareau/chro_fed7mars02.html
 

156a.  Isabelle Rodrigue, Presse canadienne, Ottawa, "Le ministre Cauchon s'attaque à une mise à jour du Code criminel", 24 septembre 2002, cyberpresse.ca, politique, disponible à  http://www.cyberpresse.ca/reseau/politique/0209/pol_102090139985.html (visionné le 3 janvier 2003);
 

157.  Jean-C. Hébert, "Justice pénale : l'urgence d'une réforme", (1er octobre 2002) 34(16) Le journal du Barreau, disponibe à  http://www.barreau.qc.ca/journal/frameset.asp?article=/journal/vol34/no16/tribunelibre.html (visionné le 3 janvier 2003).  M. Hébert était un des invités à cette journée de discusion.
 

157a.  At  http://www.cba.org/CBA/News/2002Archives/criminal.asp (accessed on 10 January 2003).
 

158.  "Minister's Roundtable on Criminal Law/Table ronde ministérielle sur le droit pénal -- 1 novembre 2002 de 9 h 30 à 16 h 30 -- November 1, 2002 9:30-16:30 L'Hôtel Metropolitan Hotel, 108, rue Chestnut Street, Toronto -- Toronto Ballroom -- Ordre du Jour / Agenda", document obtained by François Lareau ffurther to his Access to Information Act request, DEpartment of Justice's response dated 19 February 2003, their file A02-0296/ok.
 

158a.  FEDERAL/PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL WORKING GROUP, Report on sentencing for manslaughter in cases involving intimate relationships   Prepared for Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for Justice November 4-6, 2002 Calgary, Alberta, available at  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/smir/ms_int_rel_report.html (accessed on 15 April 2003); also published in French /aussi publié en français: Rapport sur la détermination de la peine dans les cas d'homicides involontaires coupables commis dans le cadre d'une relation intime Rédigé à l'intention des ministres fédéraux, provinciaux et territoriaux responsables de la Justice, pour leur réunion du 4 au 6 novembre 2002 Calgary (Alberta), disponible à http://canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/dept/pub/smir/ms_int_rel_report.html (visionné le 15 avril 2003);
 

159. Canadian Firearms Center, Special Bulletin for Police No. 54 , "Update on the Grace Period Compliance Scenarios Related to Licensing and Registration as of January 1, 2003", 27 December 2002; available at  http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/owners_users/bulletins/special/police/bulletin54.asp (accessed on 11 January 2003).  See also Tim Naumetz, "Ignorance an excuse on gun deadline", The Ottawa Citizen, January 11, 2003, p. A3.
 

160. Don Stuart, "The Anti-terrorism Bill C-36: An Unnecessary Law and Order Quick Fix that Permanently Stains the Canadian Criminal Justice System", (2002) 14.1 National Journal of Constitutional Law -- Special Issue 153-168, at p. 163 (notes omitted).
 

161. "Speech for the Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, to the Empire Club of Canada, 20 March 2003, Toronto, Ontario -- Check against Delivery", available at http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/sp/2003/doc_30860.html (accessed on 15 April 2003).
 

162.  J.-L.-E. (Joseph-Louis-Elzéar), Ortolan, 1802-1873, Cours de législation pénale comparée, 2 volumes, volume 1: Introduction philosophique. Méthode
et sommaire du cours de 1838 et volume 2: Introduction historique, histoire droit criminel en Europe depuis le XVIIIe siècle jusqu'à ce jour, Paris: Joubert, 1839, ij, 255 p. (v.1) et 1841, vij, 295 p (v. 2), au volume 2, pp. 119-120; note: "Analyses du cours de 1839-1840; recueillies et publiées par M.G. Narjot" (page
couverture, du volume 2); copie à l'Université de Montréal, #1-2 HAZD/O 78c.
 

163.  Lynne Cohen, "Criminal rulings show uneven SCC bench", (12 May 2003) 14(17) Law Times 9.
 

164.  For further reading, see:

- CANADA, Department of Justice Canada, Newsroom, "Justice Minister Introduces Measures to Protect Workplace Safety and Modernize Corporate Liability", Ottawa, 12 June 2003, available at  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2003/doc_30922.html (accessed on 13 June 2003);  also published in French /aussi publié en français, CANADA, Ministère de la Justice Canada, Salle de nouvelles, "Le ministre de la Justice dépose des mesures pour protéger la sécurité en milieu de travail et moderniser la législation visant la responsabilité des organisations", Ottawa, le 12 juin 2003, disponible à  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/news/nr/2003/doc_30922.html (visionné le 13 juin 2003); and
CANADA, Department of Justice Canada, Newsroom, "New Measures to Address Capital Market Fraud, Promote Workplace Safety, and modernize the Laws Regarding Corporate Criminal Liability", Ottawa, 12 June 2003, available at  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/sp/2003/doc_30930.html (accessed on 13 June 2003); also published in French /aussi publié en français, CANADA, Ministère de la Justice Canada, Salle de nouvelles, "Nouvelles mesures visant à contrer la fraude dans les marchés financiers et pour protéger la sécurité en milieu de travail et moderniser la législation visant la responsabilité des organisations", Ottawa, le 12 juin 2003, disponible à http://canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/news/sp/2003/doc_30930.html  (visionné le 13 juin 2003).


165.  For details, see my Selected Bibliography on Ccorporate Criminal Liability, Part I -- Canada, at  http://home.achilles.net/~flareau/corporations.html.
 

166. Martin L. Friedland, "Criminal Justice in Canada Revisited", (May 2004) 48(4) The Criminal Law Quarterly 419-473, at p. 458.
 

167. "Irwin Cotler Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to the Canadaina Bar Association.  Monday, August 16, 2004, Winnipeg, Manitoba -- Law Beyond Borders: Agenda for Justice -- Check against delivery", available at  http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/sp/2004/doc_31202.html (accessed on 29 August 2004).
 

168  Chris Morris, "Parole system needs review: McLellan.  Minister questions whether 'commitment to public safety is there' ", The Ottawa Citizen, Saturday, August 28, 2004, p. A3;