Allan Rock

[Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, September 20th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-54, an act to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Criminal Code, September 18th, 1996]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[Criminal Code, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member's commitment to the charter of rights and to individual freedoms.

I urge him to look carefully at the provisions of the legislation we tabled yesterday. I have every confidence that every part of that bill is completely consistent with the charter. In fact, I so certified it before I tabled the legislation.

The measures to deal with high risk offenders invest the sentencing judge with authority to impose conditions as part of the sentence which is a regular orthodox exercise of the criminal law power. The other provisions have to do with preventing crime. That is at the heart of this legislation. We are taking steps to prevent crime before it happens by identifying those who are at the highest risk of reoffending and giving the courts and the system power to intervene, to impose conditions and supervision to keep our families, our children and our communities safe. That is what this legislation is about.

[Criminal Code, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, punishment in the criminal law and certainly in the Criminal Code is reserved for those who have been convicted of crime, and that has remained the same both before and after the bill I tabled yesterday.

The hon. member will see in the bill that we have added a section which builds on the jurisdiction already in the code in section 810.1. That provides the court with jurisdiction on the application of a provincial attorney general to order that anyone, where there is a reasonable basis to fear that he or she may commit a very serious indictable offence, may be restrained by court order in a manner consistent with public safety.

Just that sort of jurisdiction was confirmed as constitutional and valid in a judgment of the Ontario courts last year. We are building on that to make the streets safer and above all to fulfil our red book commitment from 1993 to bring in solid and meaningful legislation to deal with high risk offenders.

[Referendums, September 17th, 1996]

The hon. member cannot and should not suggest that there is not a deep respect for the decision that the population of

Quebec must make. We shall do everything in our power to persuade them to vote for Canada if there is a future referendum. We recall for everyone that they have twice voted for Canada in the past.

If democracy and the will of the people is what really motivates us, then we have to worry about a scenario in which there is a consultative referendum, then the next day a small group in the leadership of the government decide unilaterally to declare that the country is separate and that Canada has come to an end. That is not consistent with the rule of law.

There must be the law and democracy hand in hand and that is the way that Canadians wish to have us approach this issue.

[Referendums, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians must be consulted in the decision about the future because it is their country that is in issue.

[Referendums, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite wrong in suggesting that the rule of law somehow results in the oppression of anyone.

It is crucially important to the population of Quebec as well as to the rest of Canada that everything we do in this country is consistent with legal principles.

The rule of law and democracy go hand in hand, and the rule of law is not an obstacle to change. It permits change to take place in an orderly way. If that is seen in its proper context as part of democracy then one sees that the premise of the hon. member's question is quite wrong.

It is troubling when an attorney general of a province, who is supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer of the province, leaves a courtroom and says that he will have nothing more to do with the case and that the result of the case is irrelevant to him or his plans. That is troubling. It is inconsistent with the values of the people of Quebec, the values of the people of this country.

Legal principles and respect for the rule of law goes hand in hand with democracy, and that is at the heart of the matter referred to by the hon. member.

[Wording Of The Referendum Question, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, these questions arose in the context of a decision of the Quebec Superior Court deciding that matters involving the project of sovereignty very much fall within the jurisdiction of the court and that the Constitution relates directly to these questions.

It was in that context that I said in the past and I repeated in the House yesterday that as the national government we are going to ensure that such matters are considered in the context of the law of the land. We are going to ensure that the political and the legal aspects of these matters are respected and that things are done in accordance with the values that we hold dear as Canadians.

[Wording Of The Referendum Question, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I repeated the commitment we made in the throne speech, namely that, during the entire process of a referendum, it is very important that the question be clear and that an effort be made to ensure everyone is informed of the consequences. As I said yesterday, all Canadians must also have a role to play.

All this is a question of Canada's future as a country. As I stated yesterday, we will our commitment is honoured.

[Criminal Code, September 17th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-55, an act to amend the Criminal Code (high risk offenders), the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Records Act, Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Department of the Solicitor General Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)