Allan Rock

[Justice, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code provides and the general rule in law is that proceedings in court are held in open and the public may watch and see what is going on. The code also provides, and indeed the inherent jurisdiction of the court provides as well, that when the interests of a fair trial for the accused require it, there can be a ban on publication.

As my hon. friend knows from her own many years of distinguished service as counsel in the courts, sometimes these media bans on publication for specific periods of time are very important in the interests of justice, for example in a preliminary inquiry where the evidence is not published, so that the trial itself is not prejudiced or where there is some quarrel about the admissibility of evidence. The court does not want it published so the jury will find out about it before the admissibility of evidence is determined. Obviously there is a balance. The Supreme Court of Canada has two cases under advisement now in which it is considering the balance between the freedom of expression in the charter and media bans. We are going to await those decisions and read them with care. I can assure the hon. member that we will do all things necessary to ensure that the criminal law is administered fairly in this country.

[Justice, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a review of the process surrounding the section 690 applications is presently under way in the Ministry of Justice. We are taking a close look at the recommendations of the Marshall inquiry.

We will be announcing in the next few months changes in the system to ensure that all such applications are dealt with fairly and as quickly as possible.

I should point out one thing. While it is true some of the applications in recent years have taken an extended period, I have examined the records and they show that in those cases counsel for the applicant was making additional submissions sometimes with new evidence. Therefore those working on the application had to take that new material into account which delayed the process.

I do agree we should process them as quickly as possible in the interests of fairness and justice. We do have it under review. I will be happy to report to the House when we have come to our conclusions.

[Gun Control, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government is concerned that we avoid having firearms in the hands of those with criminal intent and to ensure the safe use of firearms which are owned lawfully.

Let me point out that the vast majority of deaths that occur by firearms in Canada each year occur through suicide. It is terribly important that those who lawfully own guns store, maintain and deal with them safely and prudently so they are not taken by someone who has the intent to do harm to themselves. The courses which were designed and are now in place are intended to achieve that.

We are after two things: making sure criminals do not have firearms and making sure those who have them lawfully deal with them safely.

[Gun Control, February 16th, 1994]

I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty with the question. I take it my friend's question refers to the value of firearm acquisition certificates and training courses.

Let me use this as an opportunity to say in response, if that is what my friend intended to ask, that both the training courses and the application requirements for the certificates are, as the hon. member knows, intended to demonstrate the kind of controls we need for dangerous weapons, the determination of the Canadian people to ensure we have proper gun control and the responsibility of government to ensure the safety of our citizens.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am indebted to my colleagues for their consent.

I would like to take the opportunity this afternoon to respond to concerns raised this morning in the course of this debate by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He raised concerns arising from the translation and a possible different meaning between the French and English texts of the constitutional amendment. The Department of Justice has now provided an opinion by those persons who are drafting experts in matters of this kind.

It is the opinion of the Department of Justice that the French text and specifically the word "remplace" is in the subjunctive tense and as such imports a possibility. In other words the French text, according to the Department of Justice, says nothing more or less than the English text which reads: "may be substituted".

I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for having raised the matter. We respect his concerns but we believe they are groundless. I appreciate this opportunity to clarify any possible misinterpretation.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement to the House and I wonder if I might have unanimous consent for that purpose.

[Euthanasia, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we will find a way to put the question before the House so it is not academic. It will be meaningful. If it involves a proposal for change in legislation with a free vote then that is exactly what we will do.

[Euthanasia, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government intends to provide through Parliament a forum for informed discussion of the important and complex issues this subject raises.

At a time that we will announce and by means that we will develop through discussion in caucus and cabinet, we will furnish to the House an opportunity to explore the public policy questions that arise, and likely in a free vote an opportunity will be afforded for each member of Parliament to express her or his view on these questions. The matter will come forward to this House in an informed way so that the issues around this terribly difficult but important subject can be addressed.

In closing may I remind my hon. friend that the vote last year on the private member's bill was taken in the shadow of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Rodriguez case. Many members felt it was best to await the outcome of the court's determination before having Parliament act. We now have the judgment in that case. We know that the judges feel it is our responsibility and we intend to discharge it.

[The Late Sue Rodriguez, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Sue Rodriguez was a courageous person whose death we mourn, and whose life in its last stages served to put in sharp focus the difficult and contentious issues arising from the subject of euthanasia.

I remain with the belief which I have expressed in the past that this is a subject that Parliament should consider and determine. Judges in the course of the Rodriguez litigation observed that it is the job of Parliament, and not the courts, to grapple with societal questions such as these. The House of Lords in England has embarked on an examination of the principles so it can be determined legislatively in that jurisdiction.

I remain of the view that we should provide through Parliament a forum for informed discussion, drawing distinctions among the various concepts that are involved, from cessation of treatment to actively assisting suicide, and let parliamentarians make up their minds.

It has not yet been determined the forum in which that will come forward from this government. But I assure the hon. member it is a matter of continuing concern for me that it occur. I do not agree that a referendum is the answer but I do think it should be discussed in Parliament. I will keep the hon. member advised as we make progress in the process of bringing the question forward for consideration in this Chamber.

[Justice, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the platform upon which this party gained office in October last contained at length recommendations, proposals and initiatives we intend to take with respect to Canada's justice system. Among others are important reforms to the young offenders legislation and as the Solicitor General can tell the House, changes in respect of parole in order to conform with needed changes we see in the system.

I can assure the hon. member this is not a reaction to special interests. This is prescribing a Liberal view of what is good for Canada and in the public interest. That is exactly what we are going to do.