Allan Rock

[Family Trusts, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the preamble was so erroneous that I was prepared to answer it. But I will go beyond that and answer the question. Some hon. members said "for a change", which I think is quite unfair.

It is important to remember that after the auditor general delivered the report in question, this government referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Finance which heard from a number of legal experts, the vast majority of whom agreed with the legal issue that was in question.

Second, it heard from justice officials that the course taken was consistent with justice advice given over the years from whichever government was in office. It also heard evidence from which it concluded that the officials from revenue acted in good faith.

Against that background the committee formed its conclusion. I believe that represents a thorough analysis of the issue and a conclusion with which we should be entirely comfortable.

[The Wording Of The Referendum Question, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we will have the opportunity in the next few days to announce our intention, and I would just like to state that all of our options are still open. In the days to come, I will have the opportunity to clarify our position.

[The Wording Of The Referendum Question, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has already said, we have not yet decided, but will do so in the next few days. As I said last week, it is our intention to respect the commitment we made in the Throne Speech, which is that next time, should there be a third referendum on the same subject, the question needs to be clear, the consequences need to be well known, and all Canadians need to be involved.

[Justice, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is true to say that the application in the case of Wilfrid Beaulieu was made about two years ago. However, that does not mean that much time has elapsed since we had all the material on which to base the decision.

It was only earlier this year that I received the full report after the evidence was put in the hands of Mr. Beaulieu's lawyer for comment. It was only earlier this year that I received a draft from the counsel involved with recommendations. In the interim, I have reviewed that in detail. I have looked into further aspects of the matter about which I had questions, and I intend to deal with that matter in the weeks to come.

I have taken on the practice when I release reasons in these cases to append a chronology so the public will know about the period since the original application was taken up. Often it is requesting additional information that we need, often it is awaiting responses from counsel for the applicant. All the time that has elapsed is not necessarily on the account of the Department of Justice.

That having been said, they have to be dealt with quickly.

[Justice, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, following the question put to me on that occasion by the hon. member, the Department of Justice organized and then published a set of procedures governing section 690 applications, making it clear to applicants what was required of them and also making clear the steps that would be followed inside justice in processing such applications. We have followed that procedure since and I think there has been a real improvement in the way they have been dealt with.

I am very much aware that these applications have to be dealt with as quickly as possible. We are talking about people who are in prison, for the most part. At the same time, it is a personal responsibility of mine to read the file, to review the submissions and to come to my own independent judgment not only about what is to be done but the reasons for doing it because of the value of precedent these cases set.

We do the best we can with the resources available. I will provide the hon. member with a copy of the guidelines or the procedure we published, and I know he will have a continuing interest in these matters.

[Justice, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55, which was tabled this week, is an important step toward safety of Canadians in their communities. It targets adult offenders, those at highest risk to reoffend, sexual offenders. It empowers the court to impose a period as long as 10 years after the end of the prison term of supervision to ensure that those at highest risk to reoffend are under some degree of control in the communities.

This regime would apply to a young offender transferred to and sentenced in the adult court. It does not apply in youth court. As the hon. member knows, the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is now completing a comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act.

One of the matters under consideration is how better to deal with violent young offenders. I am certain the committee will look carefully at the question, whether these principles have application in the youth justice system.

[Bertrand Litigation, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have said from the outset that there are important legal principles to be considered. This is both a political and a legal matter.

We said also that we would take whatever steps that may be necessary to fulfil our commitment. If there is to be another referendum the question will be clear, the discussion will be full, the process will be fair, the consequences well understood and that all Canadians will have a role to play in deciding the future of their country.

Those are our objectives and we shall take what steps are appropriate to achieve them.

[Bertrand Litigation, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as I said last Monday in response to the same question from another hon. member, we intend to decide what we will do within the next few days.

I hope to have an answer on the government position on this by next week.

[The Judiciary, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will not have to wait long but the process will be followed. That process involves me receiving the official notification of the council's decision, it involves me consulting with my cabinet colleagues and then taking action. That is exactly the way we are going to approach this matter.

[The Judiciary, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have not yet received the formal decision from the Canadian Judicial Council. We expect it perhaps today or next week.

When I have received the report, it is my intention to discuss it with my colleagues in order to decide on the next step.