March 10, 1954 (22nd Parliament, 1st Session)


Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

I quite agree with the minister that it is not fair that a person unlawfully deprived of property should have to go to unnecessary expense to get it back. We could not be more closely in agreement there. But I do think the wording of subsection 3 of section 1050 is safer than the wording of the new clause. Let us read the whole section. It reads:
The court or tribunal may also, if it sees fit, award restitution of the property taken from the prosecutor, or any witness for the prosecution, by such offence, although the person indicted is not convicted thereof, if the jury declares, as it may do, or if, in case the offender is tried without a jury, it is proved to the satisfaction of the court or tribunal by whom he is tried, that such property belongs to such prosecutor or witness . . .
There it is very definite and very closely tied down to the person whose property it was. It has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that such property belongs to such prosecutor or witness. I think that is an excellent provision, and I do not believe any such person should be put to the necessity of bringing a civil action to recover his property. But I think the principle should be preserved in the former words rather than in the new words. Perhaps it is just another case where I quarrel with the draftsmanship. I am sorry, but I cannot help doing it.

Topic:   '2862 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Full View