Allan Rock

[Justice, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I urge the hon. member to support Bill C-45 which we put before this House to improve the current provisions of the Criminal Code so far as they relate to applications for early parole by those sentenced to prison for longer than 15 years.

In that bill we have proposed a tightening and a toughening of that provision to ensure it is available only in exceptional cases. What is most important of all, apart from the fact altogether that it would make applications of that nature impossible if one is

convicted of multiple or serial killing, it puts the ultimate decision in the hands of the community, the community jury, the very Canadian people for whom this hon. member purports to speak.

[Justice, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is frightening at the moment is the hon. member.

I think what we should do here is remember that we are talking about a legal system which functioned properly in this case; responsible people applied the correct criteria and produced the appropriate response. All of the huffing, puffing and carrying on is not going to change either the legal principles or the facts of the case.

[Justice, October 1st, 1996]

I am standing here wondering if we put them all together, do we come up with a sensible question? I do not think even then we can do it.

In the case to which my hon. friend has referred, we have to distinguish between law on the one hand and politics on the other.

Let us talk about law for 30 seconds. For law we have a very competent prosecutor, a lawyer in the Montreal office, who looked at the facts, applied the usual criteria and decided that no prosecution should be brought based on legal principles. It was taken to his superior who reviewed the same facts and came to the same conclusion. That is law. That is the way the system should work.

Now let us look at politics. That is politics, a man who does not know the facts, does not know the law and comes to the floor of this House with that outrageous question and tries to make short term political hay. That is politics.

[Justice, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have now heard from all parts of the fearsome trilogy on justice.

[Justice, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a better idea. I will send my hon. friend a copy of the Dubin report and ask him to read it. After he has read it, maybe he can come back and ask a question that is relevant.

[Justice, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that question is a shocking mixture of misunderstanding and misstatement. It is absolutely shocking.

We took the trouble to have a person of unquestioned reputation look carefully through all the facts of this matter. When the Hon. Mr. Dubin reported in August he did not say there were grounds for firing Ted Thompson. What did the former chief justice of Ontario conclude? Unlike my hon. friend, he took the trouble to look through all the facts carefully, speak to the people involved, examine the documents and consider them carefully in accordance with appropriate principles. He concluded that there was no basis to fire Ted Thompson. It was his recommendation that Mr. Thompson should not continue in his present role and Mr. Thompson, as a result, resigned voluntarily.

The report speaks for itself. It establishes that the Department of Justice well understands the principles of judicial independence. My friend should educate himself before asking the next question.

[Justice, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could usefully take an hour or two out from spreading fear in order to look at the facts of this case. When he does so, he would discover that some months ago I appointed the former chief justice of Ontario, the Hon. Charles Dubin, a person whose experience and integrity in such matters is beyond question, to look into all of the circumstances surrounding the incident referred to by the hon. member.

That report was received and made public in August. It made clear that the Department of Justice well understands the importance of judicial independence and acts every day on its principles.

The Hon. Mr. Dubin also made recommendations concerning Mr. Thompson and as a result of the report, as the hon. member well knows, Ted Thompson voluntarily relinquished the position he held.

The fact of the matter is that the report established clearly that there was no interference by the Department of Justice with the independence of the Supreme Court.

[Justice, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I must concede that there is very little I can teach the hon. member about spreading fear out there. I think he has to figure things out for himself.

The hon. member has referred to a letter written by Madam Justice Reed to a reporter with the Toronto Star . I was sent a copy of the letter. I did not respond to the letter. I do not intend to respond to the letter, nor to comment on it.

[Gun Registration, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to save us some money perhaps he can speak to his friends in the Alberta government and have them drop the lawsuit.

I read in this morning's newspaper that the attorney general of Alberta gives himself a 50:50 chance. It is for the courts to decide. We have to respect the role of the courts.

I will say this. I am very confident. From the federal perspective it looks a lot better than 50:50. Let me say that this is on the part of my hon. friend just another shot in the dark.

[Gun Registration, September 27th, 1996]

Of course I consulted, Mr. Speaker, closely and continuously. The fact that the attorneys general of some of those provinces did not like what was done does not mean they were not asked for their views and their views were listened to carefully.

The hon. member is factually wrong in saying that Ontario is opting out. As I understand its position, it is challenging the regime in court but it has not decided to opt out.

The fact is that there are some provincial governments who do not support gun control. That is the sad fact: some provincial governments do not support gun control. It is a good thing there is at least one level of government in this country that is prepared to represent the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians who stand up for gun control.