Anne McLellan

[Justice, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I respond to that question.

The three priorities I outlined in the speech to the Canadian Bar Association in August were, first, crime control; second, working with provincial counterparts and victims' rights organizations to see how we can define an appropriate federal role in the area of victims' issues; and in relation to the reform of the Young Offenders Act.

In relation to crime prevention, we are in fact in the process of developing a new crime prevention strategy with partners as it relates to victims. We have begun our consultations—

[Law Enforcement Officers, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that one of the amendments my predecessor made to section 745 was a device called judicial screening. Certainly Mr. Bernardo and any others who find themselves in his situation will now have to go through a process of judicial screening.

It would seem to me that judicial screening will ensure the safety of the public in relation to killers like Mr. Bernardo.

[Law Enforcement Officers, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He may not be aware, because he was not a member of the House in the last session of Parliament, but my predecessor as minister of justice made significant reforms to section 745.

I think we will see that those reforms strike the right balance between due concern for victims, due concern for the safety of society and due concern for a criminal justice system that reflects a balance of values.

[Supreme Court Of Canada, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of chief justices in this country, on behalf of my provincial counterparts, the attorneys general, on behalf of presidents of law societies and distinguished members of the practising bar in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere, I fundamentally reject your characterization of those people as, what was it? Backroom dealmakers?

[Supreme Court Of Canada, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I would like to point out, and I hope all members agree, that over the past 130-some years the appointment process by which supreme court justices have been appointed has led to some of the most distinguished and meritorious people serving on the Supreme Court of Canada.

I have indicated that there is some merit in considering how we could broaden the consultation process in relation to prospective appointments to the court. I will take that under advisement.

[Justice, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out, because it does not appear clear from the hon. member's question, that the case he refers to decided by the supreme court today is in fact a case we won.

It was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in which, yes, they did refer to an exercise of bad judgment by an official within the Department of Justice; but they went on to conclude that the exercise of bad judgment should not lead to a stay of proceedings.

I am very pleased to announce to the House this afternoon that the government will be proceeding in a very timely fashion with the three cases involving alleged war crimes.

[Justice, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I point out to the House that what the Supreme Court of Canada said today in a very important decision was that the justice official in question exercised bad judgment but did not act in bad faith.

Having said that, I reassure the hon. member that I will be taking under advisement that which the supreme court said and I will be reviewing it in the coming days.

[The Environment, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is timely, considering that starting tomorrow in Bonn, the world's nations will begin another series of negotiations in relation to the challenge of global warming.

Let me assure the hon. member that my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, and I announced 45 new or enhanced measures when we met with our provincial colleagues in Toronto in December. Those measures include things like green power procurement in federal buildings, enhanced energy efficiency regulations for appliances and small engines.

However, the hon. member is right that is will be very hard for us as a nation to achieve the stabilization goals. But by working with other stakeholders like the provinces, industry and environmental groups, ours is a record of which we can be proud. Ours is a record that reflects momentum and we will continue to work on this difficult global problem.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 12th, 1997]

moved that Bill C-23, an act to establish the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)