Allan Rock

[Airbus Aircraft, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the question of whether litigation should be settled is a matter for lawyers. As I said yesterday, I think in civil litigation the interests of the parties are always best protected, best served, by settling rather than by litigating issues.

There is no settlement imminent in this case that I am aware of. There is no concrete proposal on the table that I am aware of. If the parties through their solicitors have communication, so much the better. We will always be mindful of the public interest in whatever settlement discussions take place.

[Airbus Aircraft, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will poke in vain through the entrails of this affair to find some squalid political advantage.

There are two principles in operation here, and I abided in them both. First, as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, when I am fixed with information and consult with my deputy and with the solicitor general and am then advised that it is properly communicated to the RCMP, I do so. That is fulfilling a moral obligation. I am encouraged to see that predecessors in office have done the same, including John Turner.

The second principle is the police conduct investigations without interference from politicians. When I communicate information, it is up to the police to decide what to do with it.

In this instance they wrote back and said "we have looked into it and we are doing nothing with it". Then if they on their own decide to commence an investigation, as apparently they did, they are to do that investigation without being controlled or influenced by politicians. That is the second principle and that principle was also respected.

The hon. member will look in vain for any wrongdoing in this case.

[Airbus Aircraft, June 13th, 1996]

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not.

In the first place, at the time when I was sworn in I had not yet consulted either with the deputy or the solicitor general with respect to the information in my proper role. Second, a police investigation is not the responsibility of the attorney general and the Minister of Justice.

If the hon. member will look at the roles and responsibilities of officers of the government, he will see the RCMP conducts investigations on its own. It is the solicitor general, not the attorney general, who reports to Parliament for the police.

These are not simply matters of detail. They are fundamental issues, as I said in response to a question last week from the hon. member's colleague. Police investigations are run by the police, not by politicians.

It is only those who choose not to see it who say there is no distinction between an attorney general acting responsibly in communicating to the RCMP information so it can pursue it and exercise its own judgment about its importance and an attorney general saying to the police: "I will have no role in a police investigation. That is up to you to decide". Those are the principles.

[Airbus Aircraft, June 13th, 1996]

No, Mr. Speaker, but there is an assumption in the question that is wrong.

The hon. member asserted in his preamble that there has been an omission that I involved myself in the Airbus investigation. That is plain wrong. The choice of language and precision of expression is important in this matter.

The House will know from what has been said that I have made it a matter of public record that after consulting with my deputy minister and the Solicitor General of Canada, I communicated to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in November 1993, or thereabouts, information which I had received with respect to the previous government.

The RCMP then communicated with me after they had looked into those matters and said that there was no basis for investigation.

Subsequently, separately, the RCMP commenced an investigation into what is now called the Airbus affair. I had no knowledge of or involvement in that investigation. My first knowledge of it was derived on November 4, 1995 when one of the lawyers for Mr. Mulroney telephoned me at home.

Those are the facts. In communicating information to the RCMP that I had learned early in November 1993, I was not only acting after consulting with the deputy minister and the solicitor general, but as it appears from reports in the media in recent days, I was doing exactly the same as at least one former minister of justice, John Turner, said he did when he was fixed with information of that kind.

Therefore, I invite the hon. member to be careful in how he expresses himself. I had no involvement in the Airbus investigation, as that is known. That is a matter for the police.

[Criminal Code, June 12th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (production of records in sexual offence proceedings).

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

[Justice, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to some of the present prison population.

There are victims reported today in the press calling for the passage of the bill we introduced yesterday, victims' families calling for the passage of the bill.

If this bill is passed the present prison population will face a much tighter and significantly strengthened process under section 745. People who are now in prison will have to get past a judge in the screening process.

If the hon. member and his party are prepared to support us in getting this bill through, we can get it through by the summer break. If they do not, let us face it, they have a choice to make: will they support this bill and see it passed or will they stand in its way so that people now in prison will not have to face that screening mechanism before they get to a jury?

[Justice, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in the first place we do not propose to repeal the section, as my hon. friend and his party would do, because we believe along with the vast majority of moderate Canadians that there is room for this in the law. We are not prepared to say that of the hundreds of people serving life for murder none of them should ever get the opportunity to come before a jury of peers from the community to ask for a shortening of the period.

We have proposed a significant tightening of the section. We said for all those in prison now serving time for murder there will be a tight screening mechanism before they ever get to a jury. That screening mechanism means that only those cases where a judge says there is a reasonable prospect of success under the test in section 745 will ever get to a jury. We have also said that any such jury would have to be unanimous in shortening the period of parole and eligibility, whereas now it is only two-thirds.

I suggest these measures will strengthen section 745, will improve it and will ensure that it is those exceptional cases of deserving applicants who get the remedy provided for.

[Justice, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the matter is before the courts, but the hon. member raises the question of whether discussions are under way for the payment of any money. I can tell the hon. member that no matter what may have been reported last night, there is no proposal, there is no settlement imminent and there is no discussion of payment of money.

In the course of litigation-and I practised litigation law for 20 years-the parties are always exchanging feelers and that is appropriate. However, as I said, the plaintiff started this lawsuit. If the plaintiff wants to instruct his lawyers to come to us with a proposal, it is within his authority to do so.

I can tell the hon. member that there is no settlement imminent. That report to that extent was incorrect. There is no discussion at present of a settlement on those terms.

[Justice, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question of whether there is a deal in the offing is no.

I cannot take responsibility for what the CBC may have reported, nor can I explain why it reported what it did. However, I can tell the House in response to the hon. member's question that so far as I am aware there is no settlement imminent. Indeed, there is no concrete proposal on the table to settle it.

I remind the House that this litigation was commenced by the plaintiff. It is up to the plaintiff, if he chooses to do so, to instruct his solicitors to bring a proposal forward. That is well within his authority and he may choose to do so.

[Criminal Code, June 11th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility) and another act.

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