House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 56% of the vote.
Airbus June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we are defending the litigation brought against the Government of Canada. We intend to continue in that defence. We will put forward all the defences we have pleaded and we will do our best to establish them in the courtroom. That is our intention and that is the course we are on.
Justice June 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member himself has been calling for changes to section 745; he wants to repeal it.
While I do not agree with that, I agree the matter should be dealt with and I have brought the bill forward. I would have thought the hon. member would have been critical of me for not bringing it forward.
It seems that no matter when I bring the bills forward the hon. member finds them contentious and controversial. We are acting at this time. The House is in session. Let us debate the bill and send it to committee. Let us hear the evidence and let us bring it back and decide. The House should act as soon as possible.
Justice June 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the present regime in the Criminal Code, which has been in place for 20 years, is a fair and just regime.
For the last 20 years the penalty in the Criminal Code for first degree murder is life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for 25 years subject to, after 15 years, members of the community coming together on a jury to determine whether the person should be given the opportunity before the 25 years, but after 15, to seek parole, which is up to the parole board.
I have now proposed changes to that regime to make it fairer and more just. It will require that all applications be screened by a judge to determine they have merit. It will require that the jury be unanimous so that the people drawn from the street are unanimous in giving the person a shortening of the period. It says such a break should not be available under any circumstances to multiple and serial murderers.
In short, that is a fair and just approach. As I said in my speech this morning in second reading debate of Bill C-45, the changes we propose will improve the present regime.
Human Rights June 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in view of what happened last month I am astonished to hear that the hon. member would want to have another parliamentary debate on the human rights legislation.
The hon. member suggests that Parliament should be supreme. Indeed Parliament is supreme. Parliament enacted the Constitution of Canada which is the supreme law of the land. That Constitution establishes fundamental principles of justice and rights.
Parliament also enacted the Canadian Human Rights Act which establishes principles and rights. Under our system of government in which there is a legislative branch, the courts and tribunals are called on to apply those principles on the facts of particular cases and to interpret statutes on the basis of those principles.
Parliament is supreme all right, but having laid down principles we then have to turn over to the legislative branch the interpretation and application of those principles. That is what has happened in this case, and that is part of the government of this country.
As to the decision in this case, as we have told the hon. member we will look at it and decide in due course whether an appeal should be brought.
Human Rights June 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, first let me make it clear that the judgment that came from the Human Rights Tribunal yesterday was in a case that was commenced long before Bill C-33 was thought of, introduced or passed.
The judgment was based on the law as it stood before Bill C-33 added those words to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The enactment of Bill C-33 was irrelevant to the judgment. The judgment dealt with benefits. Bill C-33 did not. It dealt with discrimination.
My hon. colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, has already told the House that we are going to have to look at the judgment. He will have to consider its implications and a decision will be made on the question of whether an appeal will be brought when we have had that opportunity.
Airbus Aircraft June 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I assume there is a question there.
I can tell the hon. member that he is in grave error when he says that I initiated this investigation. The reality is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police makes its own mind up when it initiates investigations and when it stops them.
The hon. member will know from the answers I gave earlier this week in the House that there are just two principles involved here so the hon. member should follow them.
First, so long as I am Minister of Justice and Attorney General, if someone fixes me with knowledge of serious wrongdoing, after making consultation of experienced and capable people, including in this case the solicitor general, I will communicate that information to the police to do with as they might. That is principle number one and a colleague of the hon. member has already conceded that that is the proper course.
The second principle is that once that information is communicated it is up to the police to decide what to do. In this case they told me they were doing nothing after looking into it.
If they then start an investigation on their own, or into a different matter because that information does not relate to Airbus to my recollection, if they then decide to initiate an investigation that is up to the police. Politicians should not be involved in directing and controlling police investigations. That is the second important principle.
The hon. member will find that both of those principles were respected in this case.
Airbus Aircraft June 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in the first place, the member errs when he begins by saying that this was an investigation conducted by the justice department. This was a police investigation conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for whom the solicitor general reports to Parliament.
The role of the Department of Justice is also a matter of record. As happens 100 to 150 times a year, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police went to the International Assistance Group and asked it to communicate to a foreign government a request for assistance in pursuing the investigation. That was the role of the Department of Justice. This is not a justice department investigation.
As to settlement, the government has retained and instructed very competent lawyers to defend this litigation. We are preparing for the next stage of litigation. With respect to matters of settlement, if discussions for settlement occur they will be conducted by the lawyers who eventually will seek instructions. As I have said, I shall report to the House if there is anything of significance to report.
Airbus June 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member may have read in the newspapers, the fact is that I did no such thing. I have made it clear from the outset that two people provided me with information. I believe I acted entirely responsibly in the circumstances and provided the information to the authorities.
I am gratified to see that the hon. member agrees that was the correct thing to do.
Airbus June 14th, 1996
First, Mr. Speaker, it hardly behoves the hon. member to challenge the facts and then when the facts are explained to him to describe it as hair splitting. The facts are the facts whether the member likes them or not.
In so far as journalists are concerned, I have made it a matter of public record from the outset. I have been frank and direct in saying that I was fixed with information early on after I became Minister of Justice. In respect of that information, I sought advice. I consulted with the deputy minister. I consulted the solicitor general. On the basis of that consultation, I communicated the information to the authorities, discharging my moral obligation to do so, and for them to do with as they saw fit.
The police eventually reported that they had looked into what I had said, that there was no reason for further inquiry and that they were closing the file.
May I also say that is a practice that has been followed in the past. Indeed, it was revealed last week by John Turner that when he was minister of justice he followed exactly the same procedure.
I would like the hon. member to tell the House whether he thinks that if a Minister of Justice and Attorney General is told something
about allegations of serious wrongdoing that he ought not to pass it on to the authorities? That to me is a startling proposition.
Airbus June 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, first of all, when I was asked a question by a reporter from the CBC on Tuesday, I was told that a settlement was imminent. That was news to me. I said to the reporter that it was not right. The fact was that no settlement was imminent. There were not even concrete proposals on the table. That is what I said and that is the fact. There was no discussion of payment of money.
Whether the lawyers are in the course of discharging their duties, having conversations or not, that is a separate matter, something over which I have no control. It is entirely within the ordinary course of a lawyer's work in litigation. I practised litigation myself for 20 years and I know how common it is.
The hon. member should look at the facts. It was put to me that there was a settlement imminent. I responded that that was not so. I responded that there were no concrete proposals on the table and that remains the case.
Let us focus on the facts here. The facts are as I have disclosed them to the House.