Allan Rock

[Airbus, February 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember what the facts of this case are.

This case, in terms of the sending of the letter of request, was processed like any other over the last 11 years since this procedure was put in place by the last government. The letter of request was initiated and drafted by the RCMP and it was sent after being signed by an official of the justice department to the Swiss government.

After it came to my notice, after the complaint was made about it, a second letter was sent to Switzerland underlining and emphasizing the fact that the statements made in the first letter were allegations only. That was done and it was clearly stated.

Since then various steps have been taken to change the system. I am the first to concede it had shortcomings and should have been improved. It has now been improved. We have afforded an independent third party to do an audit of those improvements and let us know whether we have done enough.

That is the approach we have taken to this problem and it reflects ministerial responsibility.

[Airbus, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is entitled to his own opinion but he is not entitled to his own facts.

The facts of this letter are clear. Within days of Mr. Mulroney's lawyers coming to the department and complaining about the language in that letter, a second letter was sent. The first letter had already been acted on and was sent, but the second letter made it clear that what was said were mere allegations, that no conclusions had been reached.

The hon. member asks about my responsibility. I made clear from the outset that I take responsibility for the Department of Justice. The record shows that acting responsibly, I have changed the system inside the department.

The parties to the settlement of this case acknowledge-may I read briefly: "The parties acknowledge the procedure used in sending a request for assistance-".

[Airbus, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that a second letter was sent days after November 8, 1995.

A second letter was sent at the request of Mr. Mulroney and his solicitors. That letter made clear that the contents of the first letter were allegations only, unproven and part of an investigation. I hope the hon. member takes that into account when he assesses this situation.

[Criminal Code, February 4th, 1997]

moved that Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (production of records in sexual offence proceedings) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[War Crimes, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this government fully agrees with the sentiment expressed by the hon. member.

Canada cannot be a safe haven for war criminals, for those who commit crimes against humanity. Every effort is made to ensure that does not happen. Indeed in recent months we have succeeded in having just such a person sent back out of the country where the evidence justified it.

The hon. member should also know that Canada very proudly contributed one of its best judges, the hon. Madam Justice Louise Arbour, to serve as chief prosecutor for the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, and that notwithstanding the opposition in various quarters.

[War Crimes, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the record of this government is clear. Unlike the last government, from the beginning we have committed ourselves to acting decisively and effectively where there are people in respect of whom there is evidence of complicity in war crimes or crimes against humanity to have them removed from the country.

In January 1995 a few months after the Supreme Court of Canada had decided the Finta case, that it is very difficult to proceed through the criminal law, this government committed itself to starting by April 1997, 12 deportation and denaturalization cases where there was evidence of complicity in war crimes. We have now started 10 of those cases. The other two will be started by our target date of April of this year. That is evidence of this government's commitment.

[Airbus, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is part of the parliamentary tradition, for which I have great respect, that ministers show responsibility in cases such as this one by acting responsibly to address the problems in the system squarely, quickly and effectively. That is exactly what I have done. To be sure, there were problems in this system. To be sure, there were weaknesses to be overcome. We have done just that.

The very month this letter became public, I directed that there be changes made in the system for sending letters of request from the Department of Justice. In the past year we have made a variety of changes to minimize the risk of such a thing ever happening again. Two weeks ago I engaged the services of a former justice of the court of appeal for Ontario, a person of impeccable reputation, to look at the changes we have made, to examine the entire system and to recommend any other changes that he thinks should be made to improve the system.

That is how a minister acts responsibly in these circumstances, and that is exactly what we have done.

[Airbus Affair, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have acted responsibly. We have changed the procedures. We have been accountable to the public and to Parliament. We have addressed the weaknesses in the procedures. That is what being accountable is all about, under parliamentary tradition. We have been and continue to be accountable.

I have hired a former justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal to review all the changes made to date and recommend more changes, as required. We have acted responsibly.

[Airbus Affair, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, what is very clear in all of this are the first principles. There was no political interference in the police investigation in the Airbus matter. That is a principle of real importance to this government and to Canadians.

The hon. member talked of responsibility. According to parliamentary tradition, ministers have a responsibility to address weaknesses in the system openly and directly. That is exactly what we have done. The justice department has already changed its procedures so as to address the weaknesses and improve both the system and the procedures. To act responsibly is to make the changes required to improve the system, and that is what we did.

[National Gun Amnesty, December 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville has been a vigorous and longstanding proponent of a gun amnesty. On those occasions when he has spoken about it the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville has pointed out the many advantages of a gun amnesty. It provides Canadians with an opportunity to turn over unwanted guns to the authorities, no questions asked. It gives people a chance to get removed from their homes, in a convenient way, weapons that could be dangerous if stolen or found by children.

We are going to consider very carefully the declaration of an amnesty in conjunction with the implementation of the firearms act, Bill C-68.

This government is profoundly convinced that the implementation of Bill C-68 will make this a safer country. The suggestion made by the hon. member for a gun amnesty is a very constructive one which we will actively consider.