Allan Rock

[Justice, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to emphasize that in this instance and in cases of this kind, we are talking about police investigations. The issue is not whether the person under investigation can be shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as would be the case if they were charged, tried and it was left to a court to decide. That is not the test.

If that were the test very few police investigations would be carried on. At any given moment if the police officer was stopped and asked whether he now had sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and the officer said no but he wished to proceed to the next step, if we were to deny that at that point, we would never complete a police investigation.

The issue is not whether guilt can be established beyond a reasonable doubt at that stage; the issue is whether it is reasonable to take the next step in the investigation. That is the approach which is taken by the international assistance group when it has asked the police for help in communicating requests for help to other governments. That is the practice we follow.

[Justice, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. member is referring to the process of police investigations.

Police conduct investigations but when any police force in the country wishes to make inquiries of a foreign authority or a foreign government, the practice is to come to the international assistance group of the Department of Justice to communicate that request to the foreign government. In those circumstances, the lawyers and the senior officials of the international assistance group meet with the police and determine that there is a reasonable basis for taking the next step in the investigation, which is to ask a foreign authority for assistance. Once that is done, then the lawyers in the international assistance group work with the police in formulating that request and send it abroad.

[Justice, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the proposals we will make are based on rational, logical and appropriate distinctions in the law. The taking of any life is not only a tragedy for the victim's family, but it is the most serious crime in the code and it is punished accordingly.

For the last 20 years the Criminal Code sentences for murder have included section 745, have included recourse to a community jury after 15 years. We are going to propose changes that will narrow the availability of that recourse to the most deserving cases and ensure that it is only available in those cases. In addition, we are saying that for those who commit multiple or serial murders, it will not be available at all.

I very much hope the hon. member and her party will join with us in strengthening in the name of victims and in the name of justice the provisions of section 745 of the Criminal Code.

[Justice, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation I will table later today in the House of Commons will propose changes to section 745. The bill will speak for itself.

As to the difference between those who take one life or more than one life, the changes will introduce significant improvements to the section and the way it operates. It will ensure that only the most appropriate and deserving cases are given consideration under the section. It will also respond to concerns from victims groups that they not be required to participate in jury hearings at the sole option of the offender. It will provide a mechanism to ensure that cases that are brought before a jury have a reasonable prospect of success.

If the hon. member is not able to distinguish the difference between those who take more than one life and those who take one life, I say that she is overlooking a fundamental feature. The fact of the matter is that the sentencing policy for murder in this country should reflect a difference between those who take more than one life and those who take only one.

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in order to determine whether something is a half measure, one would have to know pretty well what the extremes are. I do not think we will take the hon. member's position on these issues as a point of reference for this party.

I will not refer to any specific case, any specific crime or offender because we do not legislate in respect of individual cases. That is not the policy of the government. Our interest is in a process with integrity which serves the interests of the Canadian people, which ensures safety in society. In that regard we intend to propose changes to section 745 which will strengthen it and improve the process.

We will move shortly in that regard and I hope we will have the support of the hon. member when we do so.

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I have responded repeatedly to his questions and the questions of others by saying that I do not believe that the repeal of section 745 is appropriate.

I have also said that I believe strongly that changes could be made to section 745 to address some of the real problems with the section, some of the issues that have arisen. We have been speaking with, we have been listening to, we have been analysing the comments of a wide variety of people, not just my hon. col-

league-I know his views on the subject-but also judges, prosecutors, defence counsel, victims and victims rights groups.

The government will shortly introduce measures to strengthen and improve section 745 of the Criminal Code. I hope when we do that we will have the support of the hon. member and his party.

[Referenda, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would first point out that no decision has been made regarding Mr. Libman's case. As I said, we are currently waiting to hear how the questions will be put by the Supreme Court of Canada.

As regards Mr. Bertrand's case, I would also like to say that we are not involved in this case because we want to support Mr. Bertrand. We intervened because of the position taken by the attorney general of Quebec. When he said clearly that the process of Quebec's move to sovereignty was beyond the sway of both the Constitution and the courts of Canada, the Attorney General of Canada had to get involved to counter this statement. It is not true.

[Referenda, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, no, that is not the point. We have been monitoring this case and its progress in the courts since long before that issue arose. Our interest is in the attention the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the country, will pay to questions of constitutionality.

I stress for the hon. member and for the House that we have made no decision on the question of whether to intervene. Our decision will only be made after the court has formulated the relevant questions and after we have had an opportunity to examine them in relation to the issues that the court will consider.

[Referenda, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is premature for us to take a position on that question. Naturally, any time the constitutionality of legislation is an issue, it is a matter of interest.

At this point, although leave has been granted to the appellant, the court has yet to formulate the constitutional questions it will be considering. When those questions have been formulated by the court, we will examine them and determine whether there is any way the Attorney General of Canada can assist the court in dealing with the constitutional issues that arise.

[Justice, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as far as buttering up is concerned, I am in trouble on both sides of the House. My colleagues thought I went too far but I courageously stand by my words. I want the hon. member to know that.

Section 745, as the hon. member knows, has been discussed in the House and by the committee. We have taken note of the discussion, we have consulted broadly and we are now preparing proposals to bring forward to address this important question.