|
![](/web/20060209195258im_/http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/inter/img/transparent.gif) |
The International Cooperation Group
Publications
![line](/web/20060209195258im_/http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/inter/img/line1.gif)
LAW REFORM AGENCIES
Gavin Murphy
![line](/web/20060209195258im_/http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/inter/img/line1.gif)
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1 |
The Lord Chancellor is the nearest equivalent
in the United Kingdom to a Minister of Justice. The Lord Chancellor
is a Cabinet minister, acts as Speaker in the House of Lords (the
Upper Chamber in Parliament) and sometimes sits as a judge in the
House of Lords (the senior-most court in the United Kingdom). |
2 |
John Farrar, Law reform and the law commission,
page 9. |
3 |
John Farrar, Law reform and the law commission,
page 14. |
4 |
The Home Secretary is the Secretary of State heading
the Home Office. The Home Office is the British government department
in charge of matters such as law and order and immigration in England
and Wales. |
5 |
John Farrar, Law reform and the law commission,
page 14. |
6 |
Information obtained from the secretary of the Law
Commission for England and Wales, Michael Sayers, in correspondence
dated 21 May 2003. |
7 |
The following overview is based mainly on William Hurlburt's
book, Law reform commissions in the United Kingdom, Australia
and Canada, pages 173–178, which provides invaluable
information on the early days of law reform in Canada. |
8 |
One of its main accomplishments was the Certification
of Titles Act of 1958. The Committee is also credited with bringing
about amendments to a number of provincial statutes, including the
Conditional Sales Act, the Coroners Act, the Deserted
Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act, the Evidence Act
and the Wills Act.
See Morgan Piper, Law reform in Ontario, Canadian Bar
Journal, volume 2, number 1, 1959, pages 443–444. |
9 |
The Nova Scotia Barristers' Society is the governing
body for the legal profession in the province of Nova Scotia. |
10 |
The Law Society of Alberta is the governing body for
the legal profession in the province of Alberta. |
11 |
The Royal Commission has also traditionally served
as a mechanism for law reform. A Royal Commission is a commission
of inquiry appointed by the government to investigate into an area
of public concern and make recommendations in light of its investigation.
But Royal Commissions suffer from the same fundamental weakness as
law reform committees. Furthermore, Royal Commission proposals are
kept secret until the publication of a final report, and their creation
has sometimes been perceived as little more than a delaying tactic
for the government to avoid taking serious and tangible reform action.
On the issue of Royal Commissions and law reform, see Ruth Deech,
Law reform : The choice of method, Canadian Bar Review,
volume XLVII, 1969, pages 401–402. |
12 |
The terms "law reform commission", "law
reform agency" and "law reform bodies" are used
interchangeably throughout this book. |
13 |
"A difficulty presents itself at the outset :
it is that none of our existing institutions possesses, in itself,
the blend of technical learning, social awareness, and power to get
things done that are required. The courts have the technical learning
most assuredly ; the social awareness perhaps ; but neither the opportunity
nor the power to tackle the job systematically. The government, by
its control of Parliament, has the power and the opportunity, but
lacks the learning and, sometimes, the will. Parliament has the social
awareness but, if one has to face realities, neither the learning
nor the opportunity — though in theory sovereign, it is controlled
not by itself, but by the government. And the government is, more
often than not, overwhelmed by the tide of its own business.
If therefore law reform, in any worth-while sense, is to have a
future in England, the ultimate problem can be seen to be one of
the machinery
of government."
Leslie Scarman, Law reform : The new pattern, page 8. |
14 |
"What really sets us apart as a public legal
reform agency is that we have distance from the day-to-day pressures
of our
elected masters. A government department quite properly has to
be responsive to the imperatives of their political chief, while
a Law
Commission is established to have a bit of distance from those
pressures, and as a result to be both more bold and more reflective."
Bruce Robertson, The potential for law reform agencies, page
3. |
15 |
This list of advantages draws heavily on Annex E of
a report on the Bangladesh Law Commission prepared by Michael Sayers,
secretary of the Law Commission for England and Wales.
Michael Sayers, Law reform and the Bangladesh Law Commission,
page 38. |
16 |
Wade MacLauchlan, Canadian federal law reform for
the 90's : Solvency, sovereignty, linkages and innovation. Paper
presented at the Federal Law Reform Conference held in Halifax in
1993, page 2. |
17 |
"The legislature will give the formal sanction.
But someone must do the preliminary study, must perceive the leak
to be stopped, must discover the anomaly to be pruned away, must
find
the directly advantageous practice to be extended, the conflicts
to be abated, and inconsistencies to be reconciled. So long as
this is
everybody's business it is nobody's business, and so much of the
pressure for legislation comes from purely selfish motives that
one who essays
a real improvement out of pure public spirit is not unlikely to
be met with suspicion. Thus he becomes discouraged and, lacking
any selfish
motive for persistence, gives up where the advocate of legislation
for some particular group or class continues the pressure and succeeds."
Roscoe Pound, Juristic problems of national progress, American
Journal of Sociology, volume XXII, number 6, 1917, page 731. |
18 |
"With respect to anachronisms in the substantive
law, our path is not so clear. But we may say confidently that
our
present haphazard methods of legislation may not reasonably be
expected to suffice. I submit that we require not merely legislative
reference
bureaus to deal with the forms of legislation, important as these
are, but even more a ministry of justice, charged with the responsibility
of making the legal system an effective instrument for justice.
We
need a body of men competent to study the law and its actual administration
functionally, to ascertain the legal needs of the community and
the
defects in the administration of justice not academically or a
priori, but in the light of everyday judicial experience and
to work out definite, consistent, (...) programs of improvement."
Roscoe Pound, Anachronisms in law, Journal of the American
Judicature Society, volume 3, number 5, 1920, page 146. [This article
is the text of Pound's address before the Conference of Bar Association
Delegates, American Bar Association, 3 September 1917.] |
19 |
"We shall reach the best results if we lodge power
in a group, where there may be interchange of views, and where different
types of thought and training will have a chance to have their say.
I do not forget, of course, the work that is done by Bar Associations,
state and national, as well as local, and other voluntary bodies.
The work has not risen to the needs of the occasion. Much of it has
been critical rather than constructive. Even when constructive, it
has been desultory and sporadic. No attempt has been made to cover
with systematic and comprehensive vision the entire field of law.
Discharge of such a task requires an expenditure of time and energy,
a single-hearted consecration, not reasonably to be expected of men
in active practice. It exacts, too, a scholarship and a habit of research
not often to be found in those immersed in varied duties. Even if
these objections were inadequate, the task ought not to be left to
a number of voluntary committees, working at cross-purposes. Recommendations
would come with much greater authority, would command more general
acquiescence on the part of legislative bodies, if those who made
them were charged with the responsibilities of office. A single committee
should be organized as a ministry of justice. Certain at least it
is that we must come to some official agency unless the agencies that
are voluntary give proof of their capacity and will to watch and warn
and purge — unless the bar awakes to its opportunity and
power.
How the committee should be constituted, is, of course, not of the
essence of the project. My own notion is that the ministers should
be not less than five in number. There should be representatives,
not less than two, perhaps even as many as three, of the faculties
of law or political science in institutes of learning. Hardly elsewhere
shall we find the scholarship on which the ministry must be able to
draw if its work is to stand the test. There should be, if possible,
a representative of the bench ; and there should be a representative
or representatives of the bar.
Such a board would not only observe for itself the workings of the
law as administered day by day. It would enlighten itself constantly
through all available sources of guidance and instruction ; through
consultation with scholars ; through study of the law reviews, the
journals of social science, the publications of the learned generally
; and through investigation of remedies and methods in other jurisdictions,
foreign and domestic.
(...)
A ministry of justice will be in a position to gather these and
like recommendations together, and report where change is needed.
Reforms
that now get themselves made by chance or after long and vexatious
agitation, will have the assurance of considerate and speedy hearing.
Scattered and uncoordinated forces will have a rallying point and
focus. System and method will be substituted for favor and caprice.
Doubtless, there will be need to guard against the twin dangers
of
overzeal on the one hand and of inertia on the other — of
the attempt to do too much and of the willingness to do too little.
In
the end, of course, the recommendations of the ministry will be
recommendations and nothing more. The public will be informed of
them. The bar and
others interested will debate them. The legislature may reject
them. But at least the lines of communication will be open. The
long silence
will be broken. The spaces between the planets will at last be
bridged."
Benjamin Cardozo, A ministry of justice, Harvard Law Review,
volume XXXV, number 2, 1921, pages 123–125. |
20 |
New Jersey Law Revision Commission, Overview of
the commission and its work, page 1. |
21 |
Law Reform Commission of Canada, The genesis of
the Law Reform Commission of Canada, in Making law reform
happen, page 3.
John MacDonald, Legal research translated into legislative action,
Cornell Law Quarterly, volume 48, number 3, 1963, page 410. |
22 |
In the vanguard of those who established the foundations
for change in the United Kingdom were two practising barristers, Gerald
Gardiner, a former member of the Law Reform Committee, and Andrew
Martin. In 1963 they put forward their views on the legal areas that
needed change in a famous book entitled Law Reform NOW.
On the premise that "much of our English law is out of date, and
some of it shockingly so", they held (page 1) that "the
problem of bringing the law up to date and keeping it up to date is
largely one of machinery ; and that if the machinery is to work efficiently
at a time, such as ours, which is a time of thorough and rapid technological,
economic and social change, it must be kept in continuous operation
and minded by full-time personnel". Gardiner and Martin pointed
out that neither of these requirements had ever been met in England.
The machinery they proposed was a committee of full-time law commissioners
who would have a high degree of independence from the government.
Following his appointment as Lord Chancellor in 1964, Gardiner
was
the driving force behind the Proposals for English and Scottish
Law Commissions, released in 1965, and the legislation establishing
the two British law commissions submitted to Parliament that same
year. One of the first appointments to the new Law Commission for
England and Wales was Andrew Martin, Lord Gardiner's co-author.
The Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission
were established by statute under the Law Commissions Act 1965,
(Statutes of the United Kingdom, 1965, chapter 22). Two separate commissions
were established to address distinct legal systems. The law governing
England and Wales is based on common law, while Scots law is rooted
in a more civil law tradition. These bodies provided the framework
for many Commonwealth states when establishing their own agencies.
The Law Commissions Act 1965 requires both the England and
Wales and the Scottish Commissions to :
- keep the law under review, with a view to its systematic development
and reform through codification, the elimination of anomalies, the
repeal of obsolete legislation, the reduction of comparable statutes
where appropriate and the modernisation of the law
- consider any proposals for law reform that may be referred to them
- prepare and submit programs to the Minister (Lord Chancellor in
England and Wales and Secretary of State in Scotland) for the examination
and reform of different branches of the law
- undertake the examination of the law and the drafting of proposed
bills for reform
- prepare, at the Minister's request, programs of consolidation and
statute law revision, and undertake the preparation of draft bills
pursuant to any such programs
- obtain information on the legal systems of other countries if it
will assist the Commissions in the performance of their duties. |
23 |
This fact was pointed out by a Member of Parliament,
John Gilbert, during the debates on the establishment of a federal
law reform agency :
"In Canada we are not law pacers ; we are law followers. When
we talk about the law reform commission we should remember that
the State of New York set up its law reform commission in 1934.
New Zealand established its law reform commission in 1937 ; California
established its in 1953 ; Ontario established its commission in
1964, and England established its law reform commission in 1965.
That is a clear indication that we are following the pattern set
by other countries rather than setting the pace."
John Gilbert, House of Commons Debates, Volume VII, 1970, page 6857.
Furthermore, it should be added that the province of Quebec established
a Civil Code Revision Office in 1955. |
24 |
In a letter to the editor of the Canadian Bar Review,
Power wrote :
"What seems to be needed in each province and,
perhaps, at Ottawa is a permanent Law Revision Council whose duty
will be (1) to collect such legal relics [Note : these are common
law rules that are inconsistent with modern social conditions and
ideas of justice.] ; (2) to hear representations from persons engaged
in businesses and pursuits affected by them ; (3) to keep abreast
of public opinion ; (4) to suggest, draft and urge the enactment of
appropriate remedial legislation. Such a body should consist of
legal scholars and practitioners whose minds are not hide-bound or literal,
and should also, perhaps, include at least one layman, one person
of experience in public life and one woman. A council of six or even
five members would be large enough to be representative."
Canadian Bar Review, volume XXXII, 1954, pages 930–931. |
25 |
Responding to Power's suggestion, the federal Minister
of Justice expressed the view that the mechanisms already in place
were sufficient to conduct reform. He added that, in any event, one
could doubt that there were in Canada enough jurists with the necessary
qualifications and time to staff the federal and provincial law revision
councils whose creation was advocated.
Stuart Garson, Letter to the editor of the Canadian Bar Review,
Canadian Bar Review, volume XXXIII, 1955, pages 129–132. |
26 |
For example, see R. E. Megarry, Law reform,
Canadian Bar Review, volume XXXIV, 1956, pages 691–712. |
27 |
"The 1960s were a time of ferment. There was
no reason to expect that the law would remain immune from the pressures
for change. It became apparent that the law no longer performed
its
functions as effectively as it should. Certain legal scholars saw
the creation of law reform commissions as an antidote to the problem
of the laggard law."
Law Reform Commission of Canada, The genesis of the Law Reform
Commission of Canada, in Making law reform happen, page
3. |
28 |
The Canadian Bar Association is an organisation representing
a significant part of the legal profession in Canada. Its mandate
is to enhance the administration of justice through the improvement
and promotion of the knowledge, skills and ethical standards of lawyers.
|
29 |
"[L]egal research in Canada is wholly inadequate
today in quantity and quality to enable the legal profession properly
to fulfil its high social obligations, and that not only should
the
Canadian Bar Association, as the most representative organ of the
profession, actively undertake a systematic programme for the promotion
and development of research at the earliest possible moment, but
every
section and member of the legal profession should feel a new responsibility
for the success of this endeavour."
Report of the Committee on Legal Research, Canadian Bar Review,
volume XXXIV, 1956, pages 1000–1001. |
30 |
"It is our opinion that the time is appropriate
for the development of permanent law-reform machinery in Canada.
We
think that the Canadian Bar Association should take the initiative
in setting up this machinery, in cooperation with the Minister
of
Justice, the Attorneys-General of the provinces, the provincial
law societies and bodies like the Conference of Commissioners on
Uniformity
of Legislation in Canada."
Report of the Committee on Legal Research, Canadian Bar Review, volume
XXXIV, 1956, page 1036. |
31 |
Linden later became the fourth president of the Law
Reform Commission of Canada. |
32 |
"Although the profession may deserve some criticism
for its lack of enthusiasm toward law reform, it is government that
is the chief culprit. It has not granted the administration of justice
the high priority that it should have and has permitted the machinery
of law reform in Canada to become rusty and obsolete ; horse and buggy
methods are being used in a jet age. This, then, is the challenge
of law reform in our time — to create the mechanisms whereby
the intelligent and steady modification of our law will be facilitated
so that it will come to embody the aspirations of the majority
of
Canadians."
Allen Linden, The challenge of law reform, Canadian Bar Journal,
volume 9, number 1, 1966, page 269. |
33 |
"Similarly, it would not improve the functioning
or output of the Commission to have "laymen" (whatever
that should mean) on the Commission. The real "lay" control
over the work of the Commission will come from the Cabinet and
Parliament,
through which the Commission's output must pass and which would
test and perhaps modify the proposals."
Martin Friedland, The process of criminal law reform,
Criminal Law Quarterly, volume 12, 1969–1970, page 160. |
34 |
"The quality of our criminal law legislation
will depend to a great extent on the machinery which is established
to
advise the Government. If the law reform body is part-time, with
only a small staff and a low budget, the resulting product will
reflect
this lack of concern. On the other hand, if a substantial long-term
commitment is made to the process of criminal law reform we will
have
the potential to develop a criminal justice system second to none."
Martin Friedland, The process of criminal law reform,
Criminal Law Quarterly, volume 12, 1969–1970, page 165. |
35 |
Bill C-72, An Act to establish the Canada Law Reform
Commission, First session, twenty-seventh Parliament, 14 Elizabeth
II, 1966. |
36 |
Under the rules of Parliament, private members' bills
cannot contain financial provisions. All money bills must be initiated
by a Cabinet minister in the House of Commons. |
37 |
In response to written questions posed by Bell,
and answered by the Minister of Justice in Parliament on 7 July 1967 :
|
|
"Question No. 20 – Mr. Bell (Carleton) :
1. Has the government received any representations from (a) the Canadian Bar
Association (b) other organizations or persons, advocating the establishment
of a Canadian law reform commission?
2. If so, what consideration has been given to such representations?
3. If the answer to part 1 (b) is yes, from what organizations or persons?" |
|
Hon. P.-E. Trudeau (Minister of Justice) :
1. The government has received representations on this matter from the Canadian
Bar Association, based on a resolution passed at the annual meeting of the
Canadian Bar Association (1966). Other representations have also been made.
2. The problems involved in establishing a Canadian law reform commission have
been under study in the Department of Justice, but to date no formal recommendation
has been made to the government.
3. Formal representations advocating the establishment of a national legal
research institute, the functions of which might be comparable to those of
the Canadian
law reform commission, have been received from the faculty of law of the University
of Saskatchewan."
House of Commons Debates, Volume II, 1967, pages 2388–2389. |
38 |
Bill C-64, An Act to establish the Canada Law Reform
Commission, First session, twenty-eighth Parliament, 17 Elizabeth
II, 1968. |
39 |
The essence of this speech can be found in Politics
of Purpose, the book that Turner published in 1968 :
"Nowhere
is the time-gap between our past and our present more evident than
in the state of our laws. Some of our laws and legal procedures reflect
conditions of the nineteenth century. Our collective conscience is
beginning to accept the view that we should create for ourselves a
community of equal opportunity. Yet nowhere is inequality more apparent
than in our laws. I think it is fair to say that there is still one
law for the rich and one law for the poor in this country : as we
focus our attention on specific fields in the law, this becomes clearer,
more defined — fields such as studies on bail, compensation
in automobile accidents, and sentencing. This legal double-standard
has not come about because of deliberate sins of commission, but
because
of sins of omission on the part of legislators and lawyers. We
jointly share the burden of a legal system that calls for aggressive
law reform.
Lawyers have held a central place in our society. In politics and
in business, lawyers play a role quite out of proportion to their
numbers. Lawyers are leaders of the community. They should be shaping
events to improve life in Canada. But they have not done their
job.
They have fallen behind. Our legal system has failed to anticipate
the sweeping movements in our society — forces that are transforming
our very lives. Our society is changing, and we must ensure that
it
changes for the better. Old orders, old traditions, and old ways
are crumbling. They must give way to improvements, not setbacks.
The legal
order has always been a yardstick to measure civilization ; laws
have survived long after civilizations have disappeared. Just as
ancient
societies were judged by their ability to adapt to change in an
orderly and just fashion, so will our society be judged by the
same criterion.
The body of our laws has become voluminous — more complex,
and more uncertain. We are using procedures and methods of research
not
too different from those we used a hundred years ago. Even more
serious has been our distinct failure to incorporate our changing
social attitudes
and values into our legal system. Rather than become an agency
for change, the law too often has become a barrier to change.
The technology of law reform in Canada is rusty and obsolescent.
Efforts to keep the law responsive to the hopes and dreams of society
are
lagging behind because of small vision, limited resources, lack
of desire for reform, overworked public officials, and — above
all and most dangerous of all — complacency.
(...)
But do we really care about legal reform? Our national concern
is shown by the dollars we spend on law reform, as compared to
spending
in other fields. How much is spent on law reform today? Do we spend
over a million dollars, federally and provincially, a year? And
how
much do we spend on scientific research? Is $30 million a low figure?
Obviously, if we are concerned with our society, we must spend
more
on legal research. Why not establish a national centre dedicated
to legal research? A national research centre could engage in the
housekeeping
job of law reform and join with other disciplines to look to the
social and economic questions necessary to make law responsive
to our modern
society. This centre could spearhead social engineering in law,
not in isolation, but in partnership with other disciplines and
other
research programmes. A national research centre, with satellites
in each law school each specializing in a given field of law, could
move
this work ahead. This could bring coordination of research on a
national basis. At the University of Toronto, at Osgoode Hall,
at McGill and
other law schools, legal research centres in criminology, space,
commercial law, and other areas have already been established.
The framework
is there."
John Turner, Politics of Purpose, pages 68–70, 75. |
40 |
"I believe that in a changing world where there
is a search for new relationships both between man and man and between
man and his government, a law and order that is rigid and that reflects
yesteryear will not do. I believe that the law must respond to change,
to options, to movement and to the urge for reform. A law and order
that reflects merely yesterday's priorities, and yesterday's
priorities only, may become tomorrow's oppression. I do not
believe that the law can afford to stand still. It is my hope that
this commission will contribute to law in motion."
John Turner, House of Commons Debates, Volume IV, 1970, page 3996. |
41 |
"In my recent reading I came across a book
by Galsworthy, the well-known English author at the turn of the
century, I think in a play called Windows, in which he
said, "Public opinion is always in advance of the law."
I think that is how it should be. Public opinion should always be
in advance of the law ; the law should not be in a hurry, because
if the law were in a hurry it would lead to disaster.
The Romans, who had an experience of law longer probably than any
other nation as a polity, gave us that wonderful expression festina
lente — hasten slowly. Therefore, this commission should
not be regarded as one that will be a revolutionary instrument to
bring about all the panaceas that impatient young minds, or even
men in the academic sphere or in the ivory towers, may think absolutely
essential in order to bring about salvation in Canada. I think it
would be a mistake if we assigned such a responsibility to such
a commission. Nor should we expect anything of that kind therefrom.
In anticipation possibly of such impatience, I am glad to see that
we have the corrective force of members of the judiciary and members
of the legal profession as members of the commission, but at the
same time two persons from outside the legal profession. Always
wanting to be chivalrous, and remembering Senator Fergusson, I certainly
plump for the concept that one of the two, if not of the lawyers
or judges, should be a lady, having regard to the requirements of
modern times."
Senator Lazarus Phillips, Debates of the Senate 1969–70, Volume
II, page 1128.
|
|
"This commission could be set up in various
ways. As the honourable Senator Thompson suggested, it could be
composed
of bright young men from the universities, and they could undoubtedly
bring in reforms, but whether they would be workable is a risk
I think we dare not take. The possibility of two or three really
bright
and able young people being on the commission is not excluded ;
neither is the right of the commission to hire their services.
However, I
think it is absolutely vital, when we start to tinker with something
as important as the law, whatever part of the law we may be dealing
with, that before we start to change it, it should be subjected
to the hard-eyed scrutiny of cold-blooded people who can appreciate
what the practical effect of the changes will be and will not be
blinded by some roseate and theoretical dream."
Senator J. Harper Prowse, Debates of the Senate 1969–70,
Volume II, page 1130. |
42 |
Patrick Hartt, President of the Law Reform Commission
of Canada :
"Today nothing is sacrosanct — everything
is being questioned. It is therefore necessary to begin by asking
basic questions. What is the purpose of the criminal law? What goals
are being sought? What values enforced? The fact that these and
similar questions are already being asked constantly today is to me the most
significant development in the whole field of the criminal law
and its processes. What is called for, then, is a deep philosophical probe
of the criminal law. This is something that has never previously
been done in this country and its need at this time is obvious. Our Criminal
Code is basically a nineteenth-century document reflecting nineteenth-century
theories of human nature, psychology and philosophy. It has all the
limitations that implies. There has been a veritable explosion
of knowledge about human behaviour, especially as this relates to the
psychology of groups and the nature of social mechanisms for maintaining
cohesion. These important insights must be applied to a re-examination
of the basic function of the criminal law in terms of modern mass
society. It is in the area of criminal law that our attempt to establish
a credible and compassionate law will meet its most important challenge.
It is here that our most fundamental values of life and liberty and
our deepest social needs receive expression and sanction."
Law Reform Commission of Canada, Federal law reform in Canada,
in Manifesto for law reform, page 29. |
43 |
The Law Reform Commission Act, Statutes
of Canada, 1969–70, chapter 64. The Act received royal assent
on 26 June 1970. |
44 |
The Minister of Justice would explain quite clearly
the features of the proposed new agency during the debates in the
House of Commons :
"All appointments would be for a term
not exceeding seven years for full-time members and not exceeding
three years for part-time members. This would permit the commission
to be renewed on a continuing basis. What we are attempting to
institute here is a relatively small commission made up of personnel reflecting
the priorities of law reform as they arise from time to time. I do
not anticipate that the commission will provide a career. What
we are looking for are men and women whose particular expertise and competences
will reflect the priorities of law reform in the next five to seven
years ; as these priorities are changed, the personnel of the commission
will be rotated, and new men and women will be commissioned to meet
the responsibilities and priorities of the next period of reform.
I said I wanted the best years of their lives — men and women,
of legal competence primarily — though members could be drawn
from other disciplines if that could be arranged to meet the priorities
of law reform. At least four members of the commission must be
from
the legal profession, either barristers or judges, but, as I have
said, there is room on the commission for others outside those
professions.
At least two members of the commission, including either the chairman
or the vice-chairman, must represent and reflect the civil law
system
in Quebec.
The commission would have a permanent staff appointed under the Public
Service Employment Act, and it would have power to contract out work
for specific projects. It follows that the necessary specialized expertise
would be available to it. We realize it would be impossible to incorporate
within such a compact commission as is proposed, all the expertise,
specialized legal knowledge and familiarity with allied disciplines
necessary. So the commission will be empowered to employ on a relatively
short-term basis, experts in particular fields under review.
The commission will enjoy a substantial degree of independence.
For example, it will be able to receive proposals for law reform
from
any person ; and it will have power to initiate and carry out such
studies as it deems necessary. However, it will be required to
submit
its program to the Attorney General of Canada, and the Attorney
General, or the Minister of Justice, will have authority to insert
any program
for reform into the commission's program for study, should
he deem it in the interest of Canada, and the commission will be
bound
to give such a program special priority when required. This provision
has been inserted so as to ensure that the research program and
undertakings
of the commission will be related to the priorities in law reform
as they appear relevant from time to time, having regard to the
priorities
of the people as reflected by the debates in Parliament and so
on. It is essential to the credibility of the commission that its
programs
be directed toward reforms, the need for which is felt by the government
and reflected in Parliament.
The commission will be independent in its methods of working, in
the establishment of its programs and in the conclusions which
it reaches.
The bill does not permit the Minister of Justice to control how
the commission will perform its work once its programs and priorities
are set. It does not permit the Minister of Justice to determine
how
its research shall be conducted. It does not permit the government
or the Minister of Justice in any way to determine the recommendations
which will be forthcoming from the commission."
John Turner, House of Commons Debates, Volume IV, 1970, pages 3960–3961. |
45 |
"Senator Aseltine also spoke of the fact that
there was no time limit on the tenure of the commission as a whole
— not on the office of the individual commissioners, but on
the work of the commission. Perhaps the answer should be that we
do
not anticipate the day when the laws of our country will achieve
perfection, and we may have to recognize that we have to follow what
has been
done in England and Scotland, in New Zealand, and in Ontario and
what is now being considered in the United States, and allow this
Commission
to carry on its very important work of law reform for a considerable
period."
Senator Paul Martin, Debates of the Senate 1969–70, Volume
II, page 1189. |
46 |
"Both of these features — permanence
and independence — are vital to the effectiveness of the Commission.
One without the other will not suffice ; permanence without independence
would make the Commission akin to a main line government department
; independence without permanence would make the Commission akin
to an ad hoc Royal Commission. Hence, the unique contribution
of a Law Reform Commission is founded on the fact that it is both
permanent and independent."
Law Reform Commission of Canada, Some thoughts about the future
research of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, in Taking
law reform seriously, page 679.
|
|
It is interesting to note, however, that there was
some dissent on the issue of independence at the time the Law Reform
Commission of Canada was created. One Member of Parliament was of
the view that the government should retain the possibility to freely
dismiss any member of the Commission :
"I think that if democracy has a meaning, members of the Commission should
be appointed at the discretion of the government, so that if the latter changes,
the new Minister of Justice will be completely free to appoint other members
since there should be a community of thought between political parties, at
least regarding the main objectives.
I do not see why some members of the commission should be irremovable for a
period of years."
Pierre De Bané, House of Commons Debates, Volume IV, 1970, page 3974. |
47 |
"Apart from the work of the department as I
have described it, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice concerns
itself with the subject of law reform. In the very near future I
will be reintroducing a bill that will make extensive revisions
in the Criminal Code, and I will also be introducing a completely
revised and new Expropriation Act. We intend to set up a new research
branch in the Department of Justice that will be charged with the
reform of the law and the revision of statutes.
I mentioned when I spoke to the students at Osgoode Hall that we
were going to set up within the next two years a national law reform
commission charged with reviewing the entire area of federal statutes
and the criminal law. I hope too that we will have a permanent statute
revision next year. The purpose of the research branch of the department
will be to co-ordinate and to liaise with the national law reform
commission, with institutes of criminology across the country, with
law faculties and, of course, the profession in general."
John Turner, House of Commons Debates, Volume III, 1968, page 2980.
|
|
"I have always felt that in looking
at the Department of Justice, the Attorney General's side has been
stronger than that of
the Minister of Justice. That is to say, that part of the department
which acts as lawyer to the government and to the various departments
of government, and prosecutes on behalf of the people of Canada
in the enforcement of federal statutes, has been a stronger branch
of
the Department of Justice than has been that of the reform and
research side of the law. We hope we will be able in this new research
section
to promote that aspect of reform and thereby provide liaison between
the Department of Justice on a daily, short-term policy basis with
an overview, if I might use the words of the President of the Privy
Council earlier this afternoon, of the federal statutes as represented
by the Law Reform Commission.
So, the establishment of this law reform commission in no way will
derogate from the responsibility of the federal Department of Justice
to anticipate and meet
the policy of law reform within federal jurisdiction."
John Turner, House of Commons Debates, Volume IV, 1970, page 3963. |
48 |
"The law can and must be made more relevant.
The double function of law has been too long overlooked. While
law traditionally
has reflected and confirmed the elements of stability in our society,
in the future it must become a powerful as well as a peaceful instrument
of social change. Superficially, it may seem that the functions
of
changing the law and guarding its stability are mutually repugnant.
Yet, to any observer of the current scene it is becoming more and
more obvious that an adequate accommodation by the law to changing
values and mores may indeed be essential to the continuity of law
itself. The more the law becomes out of step with reality, the
more
inappropriate are its responses to contemporary social problems.
Laws which are anachronistic, which do not reflect the expectations
and
values of society, are a focus for attack. They provide an incentive
to revolution rather than a foundation for stability."
Law Reform Commission of Canada, Federal law reform in Canada,
in Manifesto for law reform, page 16. |
49 |
This report, entitled The Exigibility to Attachment
of Remuneration Payable by the Crown in Right of Canada, was
actually presented to the Minister of Justice on 30 November 1977.
It is a mere five pages long and does not include draft legislation.
The report resulted in provisions in the Garnishment Attachment
and Pension Diversion Act to protect the rights of certain judgment
creditors. The House of Commons passed the bill on 18 June 1982. Part
I of the Act was proclaimed into force on 11 March 1983. |
50 |
The Law Reform Commission Act, Statutes
of Canada, 1969–70, chapter 64, section 15. |
51 |
"More recently, successive ministers have
been able to give much more attention to law reform, and recent
legislation
giving effect to several of the Canada LRC's proposals reflects
that attention. The greater specificity and pragmatism of the Commission's
more recent proposals (...) have made them easier for government
to
accept and implement. Those factors have at least alleviated the
legislative drought and may have brought it to an end."
William Hurlburt, Law reform commissions in the United Kingdom,
Australia and Canada, page 204. |
52 |
The Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council,
the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, the Economic
Council of Canada, the International Centre for Ocean Development
and the Science Council of Canada. |
53 |
"We speak of the Government of Canada in the
singular, but of course it actually consists of over 400 separate
organizations
and advisory bodies. These include not only 26 statutory government
departments, but 80 departmental agencies, 56 Crown corporations
and
more than 200 boards, tribunals, councils and other advisory bodies.
The common denominator of these organizations is that they were all
created to respond to what was perceived, at one time or another,
as a particular public need. In more expansive times, the tendency
was sometimes to create a new public body to meet new requirements,
without necessarily examining whether these could be served within
existing structures. Of course over time public needs have evolved
and changed.
As a result of this process, some overlapping of functions and mandates
has clearly occurred, but given our heavy national debt and the high
taxes this brings with it, that is something Canada can no longer
afford. Accordingly, the government is undertaking to reduce the number
of agencies, boards, commissions and advisory bodies it maintains
(...).
(...)
Let me point out that (...) the measures before us today are fully
in keeping with the commitment to spending restraint, waste reduction
and good fiscal management that our government has pursued since first
coming to office. We have proved before, and are proving again, our
willingness to take the tough decisions needed to ensure that taxpayers
get the best value for their money.
(...)
The Law Reform Commission was created in 1971. It has played a useful
role in conducting an ongoing review of the statutes of Canada, in
co-ordinating non-governmental research on legal issues, and in providing
independent advice to the Minister of Justice.
The government has concluded, however, that these functions can
be fulfilled without maintaining a separate organization. Responsibility
for commissioning outside research will be assigned to the Department
of Justice, with the minister and the department seeking the views
of researchers and practitioners in universities and elsewhere.
The
Law Reform Commission will accordingly be wound up and any necessary
continuing resources transferred to the Department of Justice."
Gilles Loiselle, House of Commons Debates, Volume VIII, 1992, pages
9888–9889. |
54 |
Christopher Curran, Law Reform in the lean, mean
90's, Atlantic Institute of Criminology, Federal Law Reform Conference : Final report, page 1. |
55 |
During the Parliamentary debates on the proposed
legislation to create the commission, very few people overtly opposed
the measure for cost reasons. In the House of Commons, it appears
only one Member of Parliament seemed to have expressed concerns
in this regard :
"The bill provides, further, that the commission may receive
and consider any proposals for the reform of the law. I only hope
the commission will try to do this as closely as possible to its
base. One thing that has astounded me is the tremendous amount of
money involved in sending committees and commissions all over this
country to study problems which in many instances could be studied
just as carefully here in Ottawa."
Melvin McQuaid, House of Commons Debates, Volume IV, 1970, page
3987.
|
|
In the Senate, Walter Aseltine was one of only two
opponents :
"Honourable senators, if this bill is passed and proclaimed and the commission
is established, it must be borne in mind that the duration of the commission
is not fully established. As I read the bill, the commission carries on and on
indefinitely and a fabulous amount of money will be required to cover the cost
of its operations.
Strange as it may seem, no speaker in either house has referred in any manner
whatsoever to what this law reform commission is likely to cost the Canadian
Government. That is the real reason why I am speaking this evening. I have felt
it my duty to try to find out the approximate cost, knowing as I do that royal
commissions and other commissions such as the one in question frequently cost
double or more than double the original estimate. Before we vote on this bill,
we should have all the available information possible as to what it will cost
the ratepayers of this country."
Senator Walter Aseltine, Debates of the Senate 1969–70, Volume II, page
1135. |
|
"In my opinion, honourable senators, a conservative
estimate of the real cost of this commission would be in the neighbourhood
of half a million dollars per annum ; and over the years the total
cost would run to many millions of dollars, because, as I stated
a moment ago, there is no time limit. The commission may go on
indefinitely.
I should like now to give some other reasons why we should not pass this bill.
As I have already stated, a great amount of money will be required to put this
commission into operation and to maintain it. I suggest, therefore, that it would
be a serious mistake for Parliament to pass and implement such a measure while
we are desperately trying to carry on and win the battle against inflation. When
the federal Government, the provincial governments and the municipal governments,
as well as other spending bodies and institutions, are curtailing and cutting
expenditures to the bone, for the federal Government to set a bad example by
going ahead with this law reform legislation at this time is beyond my comprehension.
Moreover, in my opinion we have the best laws of any country in the world. Of
course no one believes that our laws are perfect. But I have practised the profession
of law for more than fifty years and have found our laws, both provincial and
federal, generally satisfactory.
I am all for law reform when it is deemed to be necessary and urgent ; however,
I am not in favour of spending the vast sums of money that will be required
to implement the provisions of Bill C-186. I firmly believe that any urgent
reforms
can be dealt with by Parliament — including the revision of the Criminal
Code mentioned by several speakers as being very important and more or less urgent.
We revised the Criminal Code once before, and we can do it again. Not long ago
Parliament dealt fully with the revision and redrafting of our divorce laws — something
that no law reform commission or royal commission could have accomplished.
A few years ago, Parliament also revised the shipping laws, and it is quite
capable
of dealing with any law reforms that require immediate attention."
Senator Walter Aseltine, Debates of the Senate 1969–70, Volume II, page
1136. |
|
Another critic was Senator Jacques Flynn :
"First we may ask, as did Senator Aseltine, whether the cost of the commission
may not be excessive, and whether it might not have been less costly to assign
the task to a special or standing committee of the Senate. I realize, of course,
that this task is a complex and permanent one, and that it needs great expertise,
which may not be fully available in a Senate committee."
Senator Jacques Flynn, Debates of the Senate 1969–70, Volume II, page
1182. |
|
The cost argument was summarily dismissed by the leader
of the government in
the Senate :
"Senator Flynn raised one or two questions this evening. He said that Senator
Aseltine had remarked that the cost of this commission concerned him. In reply,
I would simply say that, of course, it is difficult to predict the long-term
annual cost of this or any other commission, but the Minister of Justice seriously
questions the estimate of half a million dollars a year, at least as far as
the immediately foreseeable future is concerned.
Perhaps the basic approach to this criticism, if I may say so with respect
to Senator Aseltine, is that any money spent on law reform, so long as the
amounts
are kept within reasonable limits, is money well spent both in terms of effecting
long term savings in the Government's costs of administration and in
purely human terms."
Senator Paul Martin, Debates of the Senate 1969–70, Volume II, page 1189. |
56 |
"The continued funding for special groups is incredible.
For example, the Law Reform Commission which was reinstated in this
budget had previous expenditures of $4.8 million in 1992–93,
$4.9 million in 1991–92 and $5 million in 1990–91.
All of this is for an unaccountable organization of academics who
turned
out obscure reports that were mostly forgotten the day after they
were published.
The taxpayers are going to foot the bill for this Liberal academic
think tank. It will clothe itself with credentials in the appearance
of political neutrality while preaching Liberal dogma. Political
parties
have their own funding from their supporters. Now the taxpayers
are going to fund a Liberal think tank. This is old Canada thinking
of
the Pearson-Trudeau era. We should support the legitimate academics
in our universities to do research on legal public policy. We do
not
need the social engineering of a reconstituted Law Reform Commission."
Paul Forseth, House of Commons Debates, Volume 133, Number 034, 1994,
page 2116. |
57 |
"[T]he government is not proposing in Bill
C-106 a restoration of the last Law Reform Commission brick by
brick. We
propose the creation of an entirely new institution, a new kind
of institution, to deal with new issues in new ways.
The law commission visualized in Bill C-106 will first of all be
an independent and accountable body working at arm's length
from government and operating in a mode that matches the challenges
and
the constraints of our time, that is to say, it will work with
the windows open. It will make law reform a visible, understandable
process
in which not just legal professionals but Canadians in every walk
of life can play their part.
Furthermore, because of its structure, the commission will not be
remote or isolated. Last but not least, it will approach its task
with a vigilant attention to cost.
The principles that will govern the make-up of a commission and guide
it in its work are set out in the preamble of Bill C-106. The House
should know that these principles were not developed in a theoretical
test tube. They emerged in a rigorous nationwide consultation that
preceded the drafting of the bill. They reflect the synthesized thinking
of many disciplines, sectors and groups. These are the characteristics
that Canadians tell us the process must embody if it is to work effectively.
The first principle is related to the unwritten goal of every aspect
of this work, the building and the maintenance of confidence in our
system of justice. To that end, this principle points to the need
to democratize and demystify the making and remaking of the law.
It provides that the commission must be transparent, must involve
disparate interests in its work. The door to the workshop of law reform
must be open to all who want to watch or join in the process. The
results of that work must be available for inspection by all in a
form understandable by all.
The second principle is that the commission must not only have
keen foresight, it must also have wide peripheral vision. It must
see the
challenges of law reform in their full social and economic context.
To achieve this end, the commission will have to be multi-disciplinary
in its approach. It will focus not just legal expertise on the
issues,
although that will be needed, but the talent and training of all
the relevant disciplines — for example, in economics, in
technology, in the social and natural sciences, in the field of
law enforcement.
The third principle is that the commission should be responsive and
accountable. Specifically, it should forge partnerships with a wide
range of interested groups and in particular with the academic community.
The law is never static. Only in this way can the commission keep
ahead of endless change to avoid gaps or duplication in agendas and
to make the most of limited resources.
The fourth principle is one that would have seemed odd in legislation
drafted 25 years ago, but it seems perfectly natural in our time.
It is a requirement that the Commission, as it tackles today's
tasks, employ today's technologies, wherever it is appropriate
to do so. The Commission must take advantage of the capabilities of
new tools and new methods, particularly in information technology.
This is essential to success in every aspect of the Commission's
operation — to its ability to share work with other groups and
institutions — and to operate effectively on its modest budget.
The fifth principle relates to the overriding requirement that we
arrive at solutions we can pay for. This principle requires that the
commission in its deliberations must never fail to consider the elements
of cost and economic impact. This too is a matter of relevance in
the 1990s.
These then are the five principles as set forth in the preamble. There
is a sixth, which may not be spelled out expressly but which hon.
members will find implicit throughout the statute. That is to say,
the requirement for balance, the need for the commission to be both
independent of government in its decisions and accountable to the
public for its actions. (...)
The executive branch of the Law Commission would be appointed by
order in council. It would comprise five members, a full-time president
and four part-time commissioners, who may all be drawn from different
disciplines. In terms of size, it seems to me this is the balance
we need : large enough to be diverse, but small enough to be decisive."
Allan Rock, House of Commons Debates, Volume 133, Number 241, 1995,
pages 15500–15501. |
58 |
"The Minister of Justice now wants to revive
this useless creature, which cost taxpayers $105 million over its
20 years of existence and which made only a few recommendations
that were adopted by Parliament.
The Law Reform Commission created in 1971 was responsible for reviewing
Canada's laws on an on-going and systematic basis. The research
work done by the former commission was divided into three main areas : substantive criminal law, criminal procedure, and administrative
law. In its last year of existence, the commission had a budget
of $5 million.
In addition to its members and employees, the commission hired a
number of outside consultants.
The commission spent over 82 per cent of its budget on salaries
and on special and professional services. This small organization
was very costly. Most of its staff consisted of university researchers
and lawyers hired as consultants for short periods. The emphasis
was on research and not on efficient management. Research programs
that were out of touch with reality and astronomical costs were
the two main reasons why the government of the day pulled the plug
on the old commission.
(...)
The reasons the previous government disbanded the former commission
are essentially the ones for which the Bloc Quebecois cannot now
support such a waste of public money. The previous government had
come to the conclusion that the services provided by the former
commission could be adequately obtained by transferring to the justice
department the responsibility of commissioning research work from
non-governmental organizations, under specific mandates. The Minister
of Justice and his department were to seek the opinion of researchers
and professionals on a factual basis. Consequently, the Law Reform
Commission was disbanded and the resources to be kept were transferred
to the justice department."
Pierrette Venne, House of Commons Debates, Volume 133, Number 243,
1995, pages 15564–15566.
|
|
"Bill C-106 reinstates a failed body, this law
commission of five people and an additional 24 people to advise them.
Apparently the idea of this is to provide "independent" advice
on needed improvements, "modernization," and reform of
Canadian law. Again, we need to make it abundantly clear that the
people of Canada are not leaving the government in the dark about
the improvements and reforms that are needed in Canadian law. Why
they have to work hard to shell out another $3 million a year to
have the obvious stated, if in fact it is stated, is beyond the
comprehension of any hard-working and overtaxed Canadian I can
think of."
Diane Ablonczy, House of Commons Debates, Volume 133, Number 243, 1995, page
15568. |
|
"There is no compelling reason to re-establish
the law commission. Law reform is possible without the creation
of another government agency which will be supported by Canadian
taxpayers.
As I stated earlier, the commission will be nothing more than a
mouthpiece for the Minister of Justice. No doubt he is desperately
seeking some
official body to back up his autocratic decisions on gun control
and the death penalty. What better way to save his image than to
spend $3 million a year to establish a panel of yes people beholden
to the Minister of Justice, prepared to put forward or support
his personal decisions?"
Dick Harris, House of Commons Debates, Volume 133, Number 243, 1995, page 15573. |
59 |
"[T]he commission envisioned by the legislation
represents and [sic] number of significant differences from the
former
Law Reform Commission of Canada. Its broadened approach to the
process of law reform is to be inclusive, multi-disciplinary and
open to all
sectors of Canadian society. There will be greater emphasis on
the efficiency and economy of the legal system. It will have a
leaner
budget and a structure employing part time commissioners, a small
secretariat and the use of outside researchers optimizing joint
arrangements,
collaboration and partnerships, notably with the academic community.
It will have a more inclusive manner of operating, using an advisory
council and subject [sic] panels. Innovative approaches, including
new information technologies, will support a commission which will
approach its task with more vigilant attention to cost."
Gordon Kirkby, House of Commons Debates, Volume 133, Number 022,
1996, pages 1299–1300. |
60 |
"I have no objection to the government wishing
to have advice on law reform that, to use this government's words,
reflects openness, inclusiveness, responsiveness, a multidisciplinary
approach and innovation. What I object to is the apparent assumption
that this advice can only come from a new, independent organization
even though that organization's real work will be done by contracting
out with non-governmental experts.
(...)
Honourable senators, the Minister of Finance (...) has embarked
on a process of tough fiscal management, reducing or abolishing
programs,
cutting back on transfer payments, reducing funding for research
across the board, abolishing, merging or privatizing existing federal
Crown
corporations and agencies, moving activities from Crown corporations
and agencies into departments, and so on. I think the Minister
of
Finance is on the right track and deserves our support and assistance.
If that proposition is accepted, I am at a loss to understand why,
in the face of the Minister of Finance's program of fiscal restraint,
it makes sense to recreate the Law Commission of Canada. From what
I have seen, there is no reason for turning back the clock and
setting
up another independent body. Unless the government supplies convincing
evidence to the contrary, I honestly cannot see how this chamber
can,
in good faith, approve this bill."
Senator William Kelly, Debates of the Senate, Volume 135, Number
9, 1996, pages 194–195. |
61 |
The Commission's Web site can be found at www.lcc.gc.ca |
62 |
Law Commission of Canada Act, Statutes of
Canada, 1996, chapter 9. |
63 |
"[Section] 3. The purpose of the Commission
is to study and keep under systematic review, in a manner that
reflects
the concepts and institutions of the common law and civil law systems,
the law of Canada and its effects with a view to providing independent
advice on improvements, modernization and reform that will ensure
a just legal system that meets the changing needs of Canadian society
and of individuals in that society, including
(a) the development of new approaches to, and new concepts of, law
;
(b) the development of measures to make the legal system more efficient,
economical and accessible ;
(c) the stimulation of critical debate in, and the forging of productive
networks among, academic and other communities in Canada in order
to ensure cooperation and coordination ; and
(d) the elimination of obsolete laws and anomalies in the law."
Law Commission of Canada Act, Statutes of Canada, 1996, chapter
9, section 3. |
64 |
Law Commission of Canada Act, Statutes of
Canada, 1996, chapter 9, section 20. |
65 |
There are no permanent law reform agencies in the three
territories of Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. |
66 |
The Ontario Law Reform Commission Act, 1964,
Statutes of Ontario, 1964, chapter 78. |
67 |
Although a minimum of three commissioners was required.
In practice there were five commissioners, including a chair and vice-chair. |
68 |
In practice, the Commission published annual reports
and these reports were tabled in the legislature. |
69 |
These figures come from Ontario Estimates from
1965–1966
to 1996–1997. The estimates are the proposed spending plans
for all government departments. |
70 |
William Hurlburt, Law reform commissions in the
United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, pages 206–207. |
71 |
These law schools were at the following universities : Ottawa, Queen's (Kingston), Toronto, York (Toronto), Western Ontario
(London) and Windsor. |
72 |
The inclusion of draft legislation was a frequent feature
of Canada's early law reform agencies. |
73 |
Ruth Deech, Law reform : The choice of method,
Canadian Bar Review, volume XLVII, 1969, pages 414–415.
W. F. Bowker, Alberta's Institute of Law Research and Reform,
Canadian Bar Journal, 1968, pages 341–347. |
74 |
Alberta Law Reform Institute, Annual report July
2000 to June 2001 (no page reference given). |
75 |
For example, in 1972 the Institute sponsored a series
of lectures by Sir Victor Windeyer, at the time recently retired from
the High Court of Australia. It also arranged for the publication
of books and law review articles. |
76 |
First signed in 1967, the founding agreement is renewable
every five years. |
77 |
For general information on the Institute see www.law.ualberta.ca/alri |
78 |
The Alberta Law Foundation was established in 1973
and is the recipient of the interest that banking institutions must
pay on funds held in lawyers' general trust accounts. The interest
income is then made available to organisations engaged in specific
legal activities. Conducting research into and recommending reform
of the law and the administration of justice are examples of the stated
objectives of the foundation. |
79 |
The Law Reform Commission Act, Statutes of
British Columbia, 1969, chapter 14. |
80 |
All Commission reports, other than annual reports,
are available online at www.bcli.org |
81 |
Available at www.bcli.org/pages/about/constitution.html |
82 |
Also available at www.bcli.org/pages/about/constitution.html |
83 |
The Law Society of British Columbia is the governing
body for the legal profession in the province of British Columbia. |
84 |
The Law Foundation of British Columbia, like other
provincial law foundations, is the recipient of the interest that
banking institutions must pay on funds held in lawyers' general trust
accounts. The interest is then made available to organisations engaged
in specific legal activities. |
85 |
The Vancouver Bar Association, a local and county bar
association of the Canadian Bar Association, is a voluntary group
consisting of Vancouver lawyers. It had approximately 2,600 members
in 2002. The Vancouver Bar Association organises social and fundraising
events throughout the year, and through its efforts provides bursaries
and scholarships to law students at the University of Victoria and
the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. It also funds other
law-related activities. |
86 |
The Law Reform Act, Statutes of Nova Scotia,
1969, chapter 14. |
87 |
The inclusion of the word "advisory" in
the Commission's formal name emphasised that it could only advise
on law
reform matters. |
88 |
Another public servant appointed by order-in-council
could also fulfil these roles. |
89 |
An Act to Amend Chapter 14 of the Acts of 1969,
the Law Reform Act, Statutes of Nova Scotia, 1976, chapter 37. |
90 |
Law Reform Commission of Nova Scotia, A continuing
need for law reform, page 5. |
91 |
"The reasons for its de facto demise
appear to have been financial stringency, lack of common approach
to law reform between the Commission and the Attorney General,
and
the feeling of the Attorney General that he could effect through
his department whatever law reform is necessary without being faced
with
reports from an entity which he did not control."
William Hurlburt, Law reform commissions in the United Kingdom,
Australia and Canada, page 252. |
92 |
Law Reform Commission of Nova Scotia, A continuing
need for law reform, page 5. |
93 |
The Law Reform Commission Act, Statutes of
Nova Scotia, 1990, chapter 17. |
94 |
General information on the Law Reform Commission of
Nova Scotia is available at www.lawreform.ns.ca |
95 |
For example, the Commission has published papers on
enforcement of court-ordered family law obligations and the jury system. |
96 |
Comments received in a meeting with John Briggs, executive
director and general counsel of the Law Reform Commission of Nova
Scotia, on 5 February 2003 in Halifax. |
97 |
The Law Foundation of Nova Scotia, like other provincial
law foundations, is the recipient of the interest that banking institutions
must pay on funds held in lawyers' general trust accounts. The interest
is then made available to organisations engaged in specific legal
activities. |
98 |
The government has committed to providing the Commission
$125,000 per year for fiscal years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. |
99 |
The Law Reform Commission Act, Statutes of
Prince Edward Island, 1970, chapter 32. |
100 |
"The reason for the establishment of the Prince
Edward Island LRC appears to have been a desire to conform to fashion
and not pressure for law reform or enthusiasm for it. The government
and the legal profession were not inspired by a feeling toward
it
which was stronger than apathy. When retrenchment became necessary
its funding was terminated and the Commission ceased to exist."
William Hurlburt, Law reform commissions in the United Kingdom,
Australia and Canada, pages 253–254. |
Previous Page | Table of Contents
| Next Page
|