Allan Rock

[Justice, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be making a statement to the House tomorrow with respect to the department's response to these circumstances.

I can tell the hon. member, as has been made clear to the court, I regard the meeting that was held between the justice official and the chief justice as inappropriate. Where counsels are involved in matters before the courts, those counsels should be notified of such meetings and those meetings should not take place without counsels being informed.

In terms of the role of the chief justice or others, I withhold comment on that until I have recommendations from the deputy minister. I will have more to say about the entire subject tomorrow when I make a statement in the House.

[Justice, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right to raise this important matter. It is troubling. We have already told the court in the course of the litigation that the Department of Justice regards the meeting that was held as inappropriate and it ought not to have occurred.

In the period since the meeting came to my attention, I have asked the deputy minister to investigate the matter and recommend a course of action. Tomorrow it is my intention to make a statement in this House with respect to our response to the developments.

[Foreign Affairs, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said, we are operating at various levels to see that steps are taken in relation to the tragedy that has been alleged on the high seas.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has been in touch with the chargés d'affaires of other governments. I am standing by to exercise whatever authority I might have in terms of extradition. Transport is busy doing what it can to investigate. We have made it clear to the foreign government that we will do whatever we can to co-operate.

I want the hon. member to know that as much as we deplore and are appalled by the allegations, we do have to respect the rule of law. These events, as alleged, took place in international waters. They involve a Romanian ship and a crew from the Philippines. What is important is for us to respond in accordance with the rule of law and we will do that. It does not mean that we are without remedy but it is a little more complicated. However, I assure the hon. member that we will do whatever we can within the law to see that a remedy is provided.

[Referendums, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, they talk of democracy. A referendum can be held in order to determine the opinion of the population. That is democracy.

But it is not democratic to say, once such a consultative referendum has been held, that the Constitution as a whole, the rule of law in this country, have been removed or nullified. That is not democracy. It is antidemocratic to say such a thing, and we are before the courts in Quebec City this week simply in order to support the principle that, above all, in Canada we have the rule of law, which applies for the good of all Canadians.

[Referendums, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister, who is in Quebec, I would like to say first of all that our participation in the case before the courts in Quebec City this week is not to support Mr. Bertrand, but to support the rule of law.

I think it is very important to emphasize that the rule of law is what gives stability to the country, Quebec included, for the people of Quebec. Democracy and the rule of law are directly linked. I think this is very important, and that is why we are involved in this case before the courts.

[The Constitution, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the hon. member's question, it is the right of any provincial government to test the popular will of the population by putting a question in a consultation process through a referendum.

I think what is brought into sharp focus by the position taken by the attorney general of Quebec in the Bertrand litigation is the effect of such a consultative vote. It was implicitly said by the Quebec attorney general in the Bertrand litigation that should such a referendum, if it results in a positive vote, can supplant or replace the Constitution and the rule of law so that they have no application to the consequences.

To that we take direct and substantial opposition. We have involved ourselves in the litigation for the purpose of responding to that position as expressed by the attorney general of Quebec.

[The Constitution, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is our position that any change in the make-up of the country would have to be done legally. As to the precise mechanics or dynamics, that is a matter of discussion even among academic and constitutional experts. I do not think it is possible to be categorical in saying exactly what protocol is required.

However, it is terribly important to emphasize, as is implicit in the hon. member's question, that democracy and the exercise of democratic freedoms go hand in hand with the rule of law. It is possible to exercise democratic freedoms only when the rule of law is firmly in place.

No one should think that mere adherence to the rule of law means change cannot take place. Change can happen effectively in a stable and orderly way only when the rule of law prevails, which is the approach we have taken to this issue.

[Referendums, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, you have to look at the facts. The facts are that we did not get involved in Mr. Bertrand's case to support Mr. Bertrand. We have had the opportunity to become involved since last August.

It was only once the attorney general of Quebec said, a few weeks ago, that the Constitution did not apply to Quebec's move to independence that we decided it was necessary to become involved on behalf of Canadians and the rule of law.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition can say what he said today, but it is not right. The facts are clear. We decided to take part in this matter only in response to the position taken by the attorney general of Quebec.

[Referendums, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, those who know our position know this is not true. As I said, we recognize the right of the people of Quebec to express themselves in a referendum. It is another matter entirely, however, when the attorney general of Quebec says the Constitution may be nullified by popular vote. It is not true, and I cannot, as attorney general of Canada, stand on the sidelines in the light of the position of the attorney general of Quebec.

So, we decided to get involved in the matter, not to support Mr. Bertrand, but to support the rule of law. We have had the opportunity since last August to become involved in Mr. Bertrand's case and we decided not to. It is not our intention to support Mr. Bertrand; we are there only to support the rule of law and the Constitution of Canada for all Canadians, including Quebecers.

[Referendums, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we do recognize the right of the people of Quebec to express themselves democratically in a referendum. We deeply respect that right. But the Quebec attorney general has said something more. In the Bertrand case, the Quebec attorney general said that the Constitution and the courts had nothing to do with the process of Quebec's achieving independence.

We believe in the rule of law in Canada. As the attorney general of Canada, it is my responsibility to take part in the Bertrand case, not in order to back Mr. Bertrand, but in order to respond to the position taken by the attorney general of Quebec against the rule of law in Canada.