Allan Rock

[Bertrand Court Case, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, these two basic principles are connected and each of them is very important in its own right. It is very important first to determine what the people of Quebec want and it is also very important to have a framework within which to operate.

Without a legal framework, one has chaos. The position apparently taken by the Attorney General of Quebec, a surprising position, is that he is going to have a referendum which is consultative. The very next day, if he gets the results that he wants, that is the end of the matter. The country is finished and the province is separate.

That is not the way things are done in Canada. True to say, the will and the decision of the population of Quebec is important. It must be seen in the context of a legal framework, because that is the way we do things in this country, in accordance with the rule of law.

[Bertrand Court Case, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a decision regarding our involvement in this case will be made in the days to come. One thing is very clear though, we fully intend to fulfil the commitment made a few months ago in the speech from the throne, when we said that, if and when there is another referendum, we will make sure that the question is clear, that the implications are clearly set out and that all Canadians have a say on the future of this country.

[Point Of Order, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Privacy Act requires us to remove the names of individuals referred to in the letter. We are in the process of satisfying the Privacy Act requirements. I hope we have a chance to table the letter before the House rises for the summer. I will do my very best to try to achieve that. We will get it tabled as soon as possible.

[Justice, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely out of sensitivity for the plight of the victims and it is precisely to achieve the underlying objectives of the criminal justice system that the government has put before the House legislation to improve section 745 of the Criminal Code.

The changes will screen out applications to ensure that only those that are meritorious will get before a jury. There are changes to ensure that once the case is before the jury, the shortening of the period of parole ineligibility will occur only when the jury is unanimous. There are changes that will ensure that in the future those convicted of multiple and serial murders will not have the right to apply under any circumstances.

I am glad to know that the hon. member is clearing the way so we can deal with that legislation this week. I urge him and his colleagues to support that legislation so we can improve the criminal law of this country.

[Dangerous Offenders, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has any legitimate concern for the families of victims he will stop allowing himself to be used as a dupe for Clifford Olson in raising his name in this House.

[Dangerous Offenders, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to Clifford Olson who is serving a life sentence for crimes that are absolutely heinous. He is locked away in a prison cell in an obscurity that he richly deserves.

I would like to know why the hon. member provides this platform and allows himself to be used as the instrument of that man to bring attention to Clifford Olson in this House and in the public.

[Airbus, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I said exactly that. I saw, along with everybody else, the report on the nightly news.

It became immediately obvious to me there is no point trying to discuss anything with anybody when that information gets directly on to the national news. It is no way to conduct any such discussions.

[Airbus, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the question is convoluted. I have no idea of the Toronto Sun article the hon. member is referring to. The chronology of the facts is clear from what I have already put on the record.

In November 1993 I was given information by two journalists. I consulted with the deputy minister and with the solicitor general. After that consultation I communicated the information to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

In doing that I was acting responsibly as the chief law officer of the crown. As I have observed in the House already, I was also conducting myself in exactly the same way as predecessors in office have done, including the Right Hon. John Turner.

[Pearson International Airport, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can put whatever he wants in his question. I will confine myself to facts in my response.

The facts of the matter are clear. They are on the record. I was approached by a journalist who fixed me with knowledge of allegations of what constituted serious wrongdoing if they were true. I then sought the advice of my deputy minister and of the solicitor general. I think I did what every member of the House would expect the Minister of Justice to do.

It is a matter of simple principle. If you are fixed with that kind of allegation of wrongdoing and take the advice of your deputy and the solicitor general, you communicate the information to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and let them do with it what they want. If I had not done that, I can just imagine the yowls of protest from the parties opposite. In this matter, I did the right thing.

[Pearson International Airport, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the question makes as little sense coming from the hon. member as it did from his colleague. I have responded to the questions put in the House when they have been on factual matters and the facts speak for themselves.