The following are the main improvements made by Bill C-13 that still have not come into force: allowing courts to make DNA data bank orders against a person who has committed a designated offence but who was found " not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder" ; adding Internet luring of a child, uttering threats, criminal harassment, and " criminal organization" offences to the list of designated offences; moving " robbery" and " break and enter into a dwelling house" and child pornography related offences from the list of secondary offences to the list of primary designated offences in order to increase the probability ...[+++] that a court will make a DNA data bank order; creating a new category of 16 extremely serious offences for which the courts will have no discretion whatsoever and must make the order; broadening the definition of secondary designated offences for the purposes of DNA data bank orders to cover all offences under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that are punishable on indictment by five years or more; including now-repealed sexual offences — among others, indecent assault male, indecent assault female and gross indecency — in the list of sexual offences designated by the retroactive provisions; simplifying the effective taking of bodily substances of offenders on release who are subject to a DNA data bank order, by creating a procedural mechanism compelling the offender to appear at a certain time and place to provide a DNA sample; and finally, Bill C-13 proposed, although this is still not in force, ensuring that an offender's DNA profile remains in the data bank until the order against him has been rescinded.

The tribunal shall render its final decision within five months of the date on which it is fully constituted unless it finds it necessary to extend the time-limit for a period which should not exceed five more months.

The tribunal, the parole board that orders house arrest, does so independently but with public safety in its view. It is the primary cause and the primary concern of the justice system (1120) Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the member does not even know what tribunal issues the sentences, but let us talk about balance.

At the reconvened hearing, the court may exempt the defendant from penalty (while still recognising his guilt), [150] or impose the penalty set out by law, or defer sentencing once more (Article 132-61 of the Criminal Code).

It is applicable to judgments sentencing the convicted person to a custodial penalty or measure, a fine, a confiscation or a disqualification and judgments ruling solely on the question of guilt.

By document received at the Court Registry on 10 June 1996, the Commission raised a procedural issue, in which it asked the Court to rule that the application for annulment should not proceed to judgment, declare the claim for damages inadmissible or, in the alternative, dismiss it as unfounded, and order the applicant and Kolprojekt to pay the costs of the claim for damages.