Allan Rock

[Somalia Inquiry, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it should be remembered that the commission itself, when it undertook its work, said it would focus the inquiry on the senior members of the forces.

In recent months it has interviewed some of the more junior ranking officers and enlisted personnel. This matter came up in the House last week and I take this occasion to repeat what I said then. The fundamental principle on which we have operated is that where interests conflict separate representation will be afforded.

In 13 cases so far we have arranged to have separate lawyers retained and paid for by the Government of Canada so that individual interest can be represented.

Whenever in the course of an interview or in the course of testimony it becomes clear that there is a difference between the interest of that person and the institutional interest of the government, we ask that the proceedings stop and we advise the person of the right to separate counsel. If the person makes that choice, we arrange for them to get a separate lawyer.

As I said last week, if the hon. member is aware of any case in which justice is not being served because that process is not being followed, I encourage them to tell me about it so that we can redress it immediately.

[Gun Control, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the licensing and registration systems are being designed with the help of a users committee comprised of police officers, police chiefs, farmers, hunters, aboriginal persons, gun collectors.

We are putting this system together in a way that will work properly for Canadians. We will take the time required to do that and get it right.

This legislation was not given royal assent until December of 1995. That is a simple fact. The registration and the licensing systems will be brought on stream when they are ready and not a day sooner.

[Gun Control, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, may I first speak to geography. I assure my hon. colleague that my move was lateral and that the gulf that separates us remains just as wide.

On the subject of timing, when the firearms legislation was tabled in February 1995, which now seems like a very long time ago, our projection was for licensing to begin on January 1, 1996.

Through the very skilful and elaborate means my hon. colleague used in his vain attempt to impede and defeat the legislation, much time was taken in the parliamentary process. It was not until December 1995 that the legislation obtained royal assent.

Naturally the hon. member would want us to take all the time necessary in order to produce a user friendly, efficient and effective system of registration and licensing in order to be fair to the firearm owners of Canada. That is what we intend to do.

We shall bring the registration and licensing systems on line and into effect when we can do so, when they are fully ready, when they are easy and reliable to use for firearms owners, and when we are certain they will achieve the many worthwhile objectives for which they are intended.

[Justice, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is only the most recent occasion on which representatives of the party opposite have sought to cloak themselves in the cause of victims.

The record discloses that when the Canadian people come to assess which party spoke for victims in the House they will decide it was the government.

For the first time in the history of the justice system the government through Bill C-37 introduced victim impact statements in the Young Offenders Act. What happened? The Reform Party voted against that bill.

This party with Bill C-41 strengthened enormously the rights of victims to restitution. What happened? The Reform Party voted against it. This party for the first time changed section 745 to provide for the rights of victims to participate in the hearings. What happened? The Reform Party voted against it.

When victims groups, mothers and fathers of victims, came to Ottawa, brothers and sisters of those shot to death in crime, arguing for gun control, what happened? The Reform Party voted against that bill.

We are the party that stands for victims' rights in this country.

[Justice, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech in its reference to our continued commitment to ensure the criminal justice system safeguards the rights of victims is simply additional evidence of the government's continuing commitment in that regard.

Over the last two years the House of Commons has seen, has debated and has enacted more constructive changes to the criminal justice system than in any period in the last 20 years. The government has shown that commitment.

[Department Of Justice, February 29th, 1996]

No, Mr. Speaker, and I say that there is no foundation on the facts for that allegation. It is simply unfair.

Our interest from the outset has been to ensure that the facts come out before the commission. The Minister of National Defence created the commission for that purpose. I repeat that the Department of Justice throughout has made it possible for anyone who is in a different position from ours to have separate representation. We will continue in that regard. If the hon. member is aware of any instance in which that principle is not honoured, I would ask her to let me know so that we can deal with it immediately.

[Department Of Justice, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset in this as in any other commission of inquiry, the possibility of conflict has been acknowledged. Whenever government lawyers act for government institutions as well as individuals, that possibility can arise.

Equally from the outset, we have made provisions for such conflicts. To date 13 individuals have been invited to retain their own separate counsel at the expense of the government and that has been done. In addition to that, additional safeguards have been put in place to ensure that any person who is interviewed as a witness or who is brought before the commission is given the opportunity to have separate representation if their interest is different from that of the government.

I can inform the hon. member and the House that earlier this week my deputy minister met with one of the commissioners, Commissioner Létourneau, and discussed this matter in detail. We are now preparing a written response to the letter we received last week on this subject. I am confident that procedures can be devised to address this difficulty while maintaining the responsibility that this department has to represent the government in the inquiry.

[Judges Act, February 29th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-2, an act to amend the Judges Act.

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

[Justice, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that in subjects that require certain rational analysis the hon. member resorts to a combination of oversimplification and distortion.

No one released from prison under section 745 to date has been implicated in a crime of personal violence. Second, the suspect in the Melanie Carpenter case was not released under section 745, but was on parole for other offences.

Third, we do not share the oversimplified view of the hon. member that the answer lies in scrapping the entire provision. That is one possible approach which we are considering. We also believe we should look at ways to improve the section and limit it to the exceptional cases for which it is intended so that we can achieve the dual objectives of protecting the public, including victims, and showing humanity in the system of justice.

[Justice, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I urge the hon. member not to take the size of the paragraph in the throne speech as the measurement of the importance we attach to criminal justice issues.

I would rather have the hon. member refer to the eight strong, separate pieces of legislation that have already been produced during this Parliament to strengthen the criminal justice system.

I would rather have the hon. member bear in mind the important changes we brought to the sentencing process in the Criminal Code, to strengthen and toughen the responses in the Young Offenders Act to violent crime by young people, and to solid gun control. Those are the measures which make a difference.

As to section 745, in Alberta a week and a half ago I met with Darlene Boyd, whose daughter was abducted and murdered some 15 years ago. I spoke with her, as I have with so many other survivors of victims of murder about their concerns with section 745. We have already made changes and are considering others to make sure this section fulfils at once the interests of victims and humanity in the justice system.