Allan Rock

[Criminal Code, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the solicitor general and I have told the House, and as I told the police association yesterday, we are bringing forward proposals for discussion in caucus and in cabinet that will meet the issues that have been raised.

It is important for at least the members of this party, if my hon. friend is not able to do it, to draw distinctions and to look at cases that are different. As we consider section 745 we shall consider all of its implications.

The simple point that I made yesterday, I make today: all of those serving murder sentences are not necessarily in identical circumstances and we should bear that in mind as we look at section 745.

[Criminal Code, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the case to which I referred made the point I wanted to express, namely, that not all those persons serving time for murder are career criminals, are dangerous offenders and there are exceptional circumstances. The case to which I referred was just that, an exceptional circumstance.

In the course of my address yesterday before the police association I told its members that I am working with the solicitor general on proposals which we are going to bring to caucus and then to cabinet to change section 745 to deal with the issues that have been raised in the public debate that has gone on now for some months in this country.

We have not ruled out the repeal of the section but I made the point yesterday that if we were to simply repeal, as the Reform Party would have us do, many people contend it would overlook the hard fact that serving time for murder are people in exceptional circumstances. That is exactly the illustration I made with the case to which the hon. member has referred.

[Krever Commission, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's description of what we are doing is not right.

We have said from the outset that we have done nothing to interfere with Mr. Justice Krever's findings. If he has the intention of making findings of wrongdoing, that is entirely up to him. We have supported and encouraged the inquiry at all points.

The only reason we are in court, and we are there on a very narrow ground, has to do with procedural fairness. We have made a submission to the court, which is best argued in court, with respect to the fairness of the way in which the commission went about its business in terms of providing late notice to certain individuals that they may have findings made against them.

As to the right of the commissioner to make findings of wrongdoing, we have never argued with that. We are happy to have him make his findings and to learn from the very good work he is doing.

[Regulations Act, March 22nd, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-25, an act respecting regulations and other documents, including the review, registration, publication and parliamentary scrutiny of regulations and other documents, and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

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

[Justice, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my perception that Canadians have not lost confidence in the justice system. Canadians are losing confidence in politicians who engage in sloganeering and fearmongering for narrow partisan purposes.

The hon. member must allow himself to at least be distracted by some of the objective facts. I suggest that when he does that, when he takes his eyes from his slogan filled question sheet and looks at the judgments of the court and the reality of the law, he will see that those who commit the crime of taking another life in this country, intoxicated or not, are held accountable in the criminal law.

[Justice, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is far better to take the supreme court judgments and read them rather than misread them. If that is done, one will know that the organizing principle of the criminal law in Canada is that those who do harm to others are held accountable for their misconduct.

I was very grateful to the hon. member last year when he stood with others to support the government's initiative to change the Criminal Code by Bill C-72, and ensure that those who intoxicate themselves are held accountable in the criminal law. That is the law of Canada today.

The judgments yesterday, if one goes beyond the headlines and looks at the substance of what was done, simply clarified the technical elements of charges to the jury, when juries, people from our communities, have to decide whether someone was able to form the specific intent to murder. If they were not, then they are culpable for manslaughter which is punishable by life imprisonment.

[Voluntary Intoxication, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at the foundation of the hon. member's question is an interpretation of these judgments that I do not share. So we start from different points of departure.

With reference to her suggestion that our approach has been piecemeal, in the case of Daviault the House at the initiative of the government took specific steps to deal with the decision that we thought resulted in a criminal law that was inappropriate. There should be responsibility for acts of violence committed when one induces one's own intoxication.

In other instances we have taken a very comprehensive approach, for example in Bill C-41 where we comprehensively reformed the whole structure of the sentencing process in the criminal law, and as in Bill C-68 where we entirely took a new and comprehensive approach toward the control of firearms.

Our approach has been responsible, it has been coherent and it has been effective.

[Voluntary Intoxication, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, once again I cannot agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member.

The Supreme Court of Canada yesterday did not change the law with respect to liability for murder. It simply clarified the technical instructions that judges must give to juries in cases where the defence of intoxication is raised.

In manslaughter the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. It is open to the court in the facts of any given case, and the circumstances can vary widely, to determine the appropriate sentence. Sometimes that will not involve incarceration as in the recent case in Hamilton where a woman took the life of her terminally ill husband. In those circumstances the court felt that in that manslaughter case, incarceration was not appropriate.

[Voluntary Intoxication, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, no. When read properly, I suggest the judgments that were released yesterday simply confirm the practice in most Canadian courts already. It clarifies the instructions to be given to a jury in cases where the defence of intoxication is raised and makes technical adjustments to the way the law is put to juries in such cases.

What is most important of all is that there are some crimes in the Criminal Code that by their very definition require the formation of specific intent. That is just the state of the law. If one is incapable of forming that intent, it is clear that one cannot be convicted of that crime.

However, it is also true that by reason of the statute that was passed by the House of Commons last year with the support of parties opposite, we made it clear that if you intoxicate yourself voluntarily and then commit a crime of violence toward another you cannot escape criminal liability.

That is the effect of Bill C-72 and the state of the law in Canada today.

[Justice, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is not what I am prepared to do for the Roberts family. The issue is what the Roberts family wishes to do for itself.

The complaint which was made to the Law Society of Upper Canada was fully investigated and a determination was made by the discipline officers not to proceed.

There is nothing in the appointment of Mr. Desotti to the bench of the general division in Ontario which deprives the Roberts family of its civil remedies in law. I am sure the family has legal advice to provide a full description of the rights and remedies available and of which it is still able to take full advantage.