Allan Rock

[Justice, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, part of the problem is illustrated by the hon. member's question. We are not discussing alternative measures. We are discussing, according to the former question, conditional sentences. They are very different.

Alternative measures occur when a province decides to avail itself of those provisions in the code that allow it to take people out of the criminal law stream before they are dealt with by the courts.

That is only for non-violent crimes where the crown attorney agrees it is in the public interest to do so and where the person in question has acknowledged responsibility. That is, on the one hand, dealing with non-violent matters.

Conditional sentences, on the other hand, occur after the charge and after the trial and where the court decides that a sentence of two years less a day or less is appropriate. Then people are permitted to serve their jail term in the community so to speak, subject to strict conditions. If they do not comply with them, they are reincarcerated.

If the hon. member would take that definition of the terms and put his question, perhaps I could understand and respond to it.

[Justice, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago Professor Anthony Doob of the University of Toronto did a study. He showed newspaper reports of sentences, in particular of criminal cases, to members of the public and asked them if they felt the sentences were strong enough. The vast majority felt they were not.

He took the same people, the same cases, and provided all the information about the cases, all the facts involving the offender and the offences. After they had read all the facts a clear majority thought the sentences were too harsh.

The reality is that when the court looks at the offender and the offence and takes all the circumstances into account, the court does a pretty fair job of determining appropriate punishment.

Obviously, the business of this member is not to worry about the facts or the reality but to use fearmongering to make his squalid point. That is very regrettable and it is bad public policy.

[Justice, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member is not right about using a toy gun to hold up a store. That does not attract four years. That attracts one year under section 85.

More to the point, the conditional sentence is part of Bill C-41. It was made part of the Criminal Code by the House of Commons last year because it provides the courts, in appropriate cases, with an alternative to incarceration where sentences are two years less a day or less.

In those instances it is recognized that sometimes merely putting somebody in jail and locking the door is not necessarily the best approach. Maybe there are other steps which can be taken that are less costly and more effective in protecting the victim and in ensuring that the person does not commit another crime.

We have provided, through the conditional sentence, another tool for the courts to use in determining the appropriate sentence. It is then up to the courts to decide whether, on the facts of any

particular case, the conditional sentence is the appropriate disposition. We have done the right thing.

[Assisted Suicide, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate committee has been reviewing this matter for the past three years. They have considered the moral, ethical, medical and legal issues. The Senate committee did not reach a consensus on these issues. During last weekend's convention debate, we recognized that this is a very complex matter.

All aspects must be examined. As I said, we as a government intend to review all this in detail in caucus, in cabinet, in order to develop a position.

[Assisted Suicide, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Liberal Party discussed this complex and difficult issue last weekend.

The Liberal Party of Canada passed a resolution for Parliament to review this matter. We are currently considering it in caucus, in cabinet. We will then decide how to proceed.

[Justice, October 23rd, 1996]

I suggest that the hon. member should do his homework, learn the facts and not come to this House with suggestions that call into question the integrity of the chief justice of this country.

[Justice, October 23rd, 1996]

It does nothing more than bring judges' pensions into line with all the other public service pensions, including members of Parliament's pensions.

[Justice, October 23rd, 1996]

It deals not just with the chief justice and his spouse. There are other judges on benches in Canada who are married to each other.

[Justice, October 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I should first caution the hon. member that he is speaking about the office of the chief justice of Canada, the highest office in our legal system in this country.

I caution the hon. member that he is speaking about a person who occupies that office, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, who for over 30 years as a judge has demonstrated an unimpeachable character and integrity. I caution the hon. member to approach this issue with those factors in mind.

By raising this issue in this way, this hon. member has demonstrated more than anything else his own lack of judgment and his own regrettable approach in the business of politics.

This bill, as the hon. member well knows, is a technical amendment identified years ago, indeed before there were even any spouses on the bench. It was brought forward in Bill C-42 at the first appropriate time.

[Justice, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it was last year that the solicitor general introduced the child sex offender registry which has now been in operation for some months. I believe it has contributed directly to an increase in public safety.

The hon. member will know as well that in recent weeks the government has introduced in Bill C-55 specific and practical measures by which we can have sentencing judges impose on sex offenders and particularly sex offenders who offend against children, not only a period of imprisonment that is appropriate to the offence, but after their release from prison a regime of controls and supervision to minimize the high risk that they will reoffend.

I urge the hon. member and her colleagues to support that legislation which we believe strongly will enhance the safety of the community in the face of such unacceptable risks.