Allan Rock

[Justice, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this government last year introduced and this Parliament last year adopted legislation to change section 745 of the Criminal Code to ensure that it will be used only in exceptional cases.

That legislation changes the system so that such applications will never be brought by those convicted of taking more than one life. It provides for a screening mechanism by a judge in advance of any application by those eligible and it requires that the jury on any such application be unanimous before any relief is granted.

It seems to me that is exactly the way to prevent future victims' families from having to experience such proceedings while at the same time providing for the exceptional cases in which such applications are appropriate.

In those circumstances one wonders why the hon. member and his colleagues in the Reform Party voted against those amendments.

[Justice, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am not familiar with this case right now, but I intend to ask justice department officials for details and I will reply in the coming days.

[Justice, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the details of this case. I will raise the matter with my officials and I will reply in a few days.

[Justice, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, at a certain point one wonders why the hon. leader of the third party would ask, since every time we come forward with a measure on behalf of victims his party votes against it. If we are to have further amendments, indeed if we are to have an amendment to our charter, perhaps it should be against the shameless exploitation of victims.

One could understand why those victims were on the stage yesterday in Vancouver. They are driven by the pain of the tragedies they have suffered. One also understands why Reform members are on the stage and why Reform members are leading this band. They are exploiting the very tragedies which they pretend to decry.

Perhaps most important of all, by behaving as they are, Reform Party members are giving Clifford Olson exactly what he most wants, the only thing they can give him, a platform on which to become even more infamous-

[Justice, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the chair of the justice committee requesting that it undertake that task, designing changes to the Criminal Code in addition to what we proposed on behalf of victims.

Let me point to the record of the government in establishing that we have done more for victims in the justice system than any national government in memory.

The drunkenness defence was available until we acted on behalf of victims to make sure that it would not be. On behalf of victims we have introduced changes to provide for DNA testing in criminal law for the first time, putting it on an express basis.

If we look at the record of the party opposite we find an entirely different story. When we proposed changes in Bill C-37 to the Young Offenders Act to provide for victim impact statements, the Reform Party voted against it.

When we proposed in Bill C-41 elaborate provisions to help victims get restitution, the Reform Party voted against it.

Last year when we proposed the changes to section 745 which would prevent multiple murderers in the future from applying the Reform Party voted against it.

[Justice, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, every member of this caucus has nothing but profound empathy for the tragedies suffered by the families of those victims and for the people who have lost loved ones to crime.

It is because of the victims, it is in their interests and in their name, it is for them that the government has acted so often to change the criminal law so that it might be more responsive.

With regard to section 745, it was after I met with the widow of an RCMP officer who was murdered in Saskatchewan who explained to me how awful it was for her to be at the 745 hearing but not be allowed to participate, it was after that meeting with Marie King Forest that I proposed in the House a change to section 745 to guarantee victims a role in such hearings.

It was because of the government's concern with the plight of victims that last year we introduced in the House Bill C-45, which ensures that section 745 of the code will be used only in the most exceptional cases, not at all for those who have taken more than one life, and for all the others only after a judge agrees that their case is meritorious and only when a jury unanimously agrees that they should have consideration. This government has acted on behalf of victims.

[Airbus, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it may be that the hon. member is not familiar with international protocol in such matters, which was established some years ago by the previous government.

The letter that was sent to the Swiss authorities, the only letter that was sent in final form, was acted on by the authorities in keeping with international practice.

[Justice, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have done a wide variety of things with respect to children being exploited through prostitution. One of the issues, but only one of them, is the issue of age.

For example, we put before the House legislation which would impose mandatory minimum penitentiary terms on those who serve as pimps for children in prostitution. It is legislation that will make a difference.

We have worked in concert with provincial attorneys general and authorities throughout the country in a co-ordinated effort to crack down on child prostitution.

On those occasions when I visited cities throughout Canada I have driven with the police in their cars. I have seen the tragic sight of children working the streets as prostitutes. I have conferred with those in the provinces who are working with the social services because this is more than just a matter of criminal law.

I use this occasion to say to the hon. member that I fully share her objectives. We have taken concrete legislative and policy action against children in prostitution and I urge her to join us in those continued-

[Reference To Supreme Court, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the brief we presented Friday afternoon, including the experts' opinion, sets out the federal government's position on the three questions before the courts.

The experts' opinions support our position, which is that, under both national and international law, a government does not, as the PQ government of Quebec claims, have the right to unilaterally declare the separation of a province from a democratic and independent state.

[Reference To Supreme Court, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to point out once again why the Government of Canada sought the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada.

I would remind the hon. member that the stance taken by the PQ government of Quebec has made this necessary.

The attorney general of Quebec has denied the role of the courts and the Constitution in this debate. As the attorney general of Canada, I have the responsibility of maintaining and protecting the role of the courts and the Constitution. So, the reference to the court has brought out fundamental issues in order to resolve these disputes.