"File/dossier: c\François\law.commission7.

                                                                                             François Lareau, LL.M.
                                                                                             55-890 Cahill Drive West
                                                                                             Ottawa, ON,   K1V 9A4

                                                                                             Tel.:  (613) 521-3689
                                                                                             Fax:   (613) 521-4522
                                                                                             e-mail: flareau@achilles.net
                                                                                              Ottawa, January 28, 1999
Mr. Bruno Berthiaume
Executive Director, Law Commission of Canada

Mr. Berthiaume:

            You phoned me yesterday and asked me what I wanted as Mr. Macdonald was away all week in Vancouver and could not return my telephone call of yesterday to him.  Your question surprised me (I would have thought that Mr. Macdonald would have given you some explanations  why I was phoning him).  The following  facts explain my telephone call to Mr. Macdonald:

      in my October 28, 1998, letter to Mr. Mcdonald and  the other Commissioners, I submitted an official request to the Commission.  I have not received an official reply yet from the Commission.  Part of the letter reads:

"Having read your policy, I am officially submitting a request that the Commission write to the Honourable Anne McLellan to inform her that she should not abandon the policy of a comprehensive recodification of the General Part (please refer to my first letter dated 19 August 1998).  I am officially asking that this request be submitted to the Commission's  next regular meeting.  I am convinced  that a comprehensive recodification of the General Part would meet all three criteria referred to at p. 2 of your policy.  If my request is refused, please explain which criterion was not met.  As I may use this material in a law article, make sure that the rationale of exclusion, if that is the case,  is well explained." [emphasis in bold added]

       on November 18, 1998, at the request of Mr. Macdonald (he phoned me at home), I went to meet him at his office.  During our meeting, if I recall correctly, he told me about the importance of the General Part for the Commission's work.  He told me he was meeting the Minister of Justice during the same week.  He asked me what I wanted from the Commission.  To the best of my recollection, I told him that I wanted a document in writing to the effect that the Commission was opposed to the Minister's of Justice policy of a piecemeal approach to the  reform of the General Part instead of a policy of a comprehensive recodification the General Part, a policy the Minister had abandoned.  Mr. Macdonald took some notes.  Mr. Macdonald did not say what he would do.

       on November 18, 1998, I faxed a letter to Mr. Macdonald, thanking him for the meeting.

       on December 3,  1998, I mailed to Mr. Macdonald, the CBA's Criminal Justice Section's "Submission on Reforming Criminal Code Defences" (a  submission  in reaction to the June 1998 Department of Justice Canada consultation paper "Reforming Criminal Code Defences: Provocation, Self-Defence and Defence of Property - A Consultation Paper").     I invited his attention to pp. 1-2.  Part of those pages reads as follows:

"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 incrimental 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."

       on January 8, 1999, I faxed a letter to Mr. Macdonald that reads: "On 18 November 1998, at your request, I went to meet you to discuss the issue of the General Part.  Could you please inform me of the developments.  Thank you".

       on January 26, 1999, I phoned Mr. Macdonald.  At about 1505 h., I was told that Mr. Macdonald would phoned me back in the next fifteen minutes and that he was going to BC.  I told the person that I would be there till 1530 h. and that Mr. Macdonald could phone me the next day. I  left home at 1525 h.   Mr. MacDonald did not phone back or leave a message.  As far as I know there are telephones in BC.

           I am upset as the facts indicate that the Law Commission of Canada has manipulated me.   The wait is terminated.  Please tell Mr. Mcdonald to return my call to him.  The Commission is a public body.  I have made an official request to the Commission under its public policy, "Policy Interventions in Public Policy Debates".  I have a right to a ruling with explanations.  If you need more information on the history of the General Part, consult my new web page   "Chronology - Towards a Modern General Part of a new Criminal Code?" at "chronologie_.htm".  The site is under construction.  Please give this letter to Mr. Macdonald.  Thank you.

                                                                                 François Lareau
c.c.: all other commissionsers"