Allan Rock

[Bill C-226, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member creates the impression that section 745 is a provision which results in the automatic release of people who have been convicted of murder.

Section 745 simply provides that such people can apply to a court, composed of a judge and a jury picked from the community, to decide the question of whether that person should be permitted to ask for an opportunity to have parole.

When the private member's bill was before the House, there was, in effect, a free vote on that bill. As a result it went to the justice committee.

I have written to the justice committee and I spoke to its then chair to ask the committee to deal with this matter as one of priority. I want the committee to deal with it. As I told the House last week, I shall be making submissions to the justice committee about the broader context in which it should look at this single important issue.

[Quebec, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I can only say the Government of Canada is focusing on providing good government and fulfilling our commitments. As the Deputy Prime Minister emphasized today, we are focusing on our agenda of jobs and growth with the intention of ensuring that no future referendum will be held by any government in Canada because there will be no need to do so.

[Quebec, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the residual powers to the Canadian government under the peace, order and good government provision in the Constitution are considerable. They are there for the purpose of ensuring that a national government can act in the national interest on matters of fundamental importance.

Let me simply say that the Prime Minister has simply observed, if I may say so, that the power is in the Constitution and can be invoked for the kind of proper purpose to which he referred.

I should also add that the focus of the government is not so much on some future possible referendum. It is on ensuring that no such referendum is held because the people of Quebec see for themselves that their future is far better within a united Canada.

[Justice Jean Bienvenue, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, the process provided for in the Judge's Act requires steps to be taken before any such result is arrived at.

What is first required is for me to receive and examine the transcript of the judge's remarks and then determine how to proceed from there.

I shall keep my hon. friend and the House advised so they can be fully aware of the action we take when we have the transcript in hand and have an opportunity to examine it.

[Justice Jean Bienvenue, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right to raise this matter in the House. I was shocked and offended by the statements attributed to the judge in the case referred to.

I have asked that a transcript of the judge's remarks be prepared. When I receive that transcript, which I expect will be in the next couple of days, I will review it. I have options available to me under the provisions of the Judge's Act. I will consider all those options when I have read the transcript and I shall take what I deem to be appropriate action in the face of these shocking remarks.

[Contraventions Act, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, no member of the House has worked harder in the cause of facilitating the enforcement of safety rules on the waterways than the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I thank him for his help in that regard.

It was through the work of the hon. member that I met with the executive of the Muskoka Lakes Association which brought home to me the urgency of dealing effectively with this matter. As a result, officials in the federal Department of Justice have worked with provincial counterparts to put the provincial schemes and mechanisms for ticketing of offences at the disposal of the federal government through the federal Contraventions Act.

I am pleased to say that next week I intend to introduce legislation which will amend the Contraventions Act federally to enable us to use the provincial mechanisms. This not only allows us to keep the waterways safer and have effective enforcement but it also avoids duplication, overlap and needless expense. It serves to that extent the interests of the people of Canada.

[Gun Control, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by pointing out the important contribution made by those who lost family members in the Montreal tragedy six years ago today.

The fact is that if it were not for the commitment and the hard work and perseverance of the families of those victims, this important matter would not have found its way to the top of the national agenda. We are in their debt for the work they did to ensure the passage of the bill.

In specific response to the question put by the hon. member, whose own work was so important in this regard, may I emphasize that every year in Canada some 13,000 orders are made in the courts of the country prohibiting people from having firearms because they have shown a propensity for violence. Too often that violence occurs in the context of the home. By a margin of two to one, when men kill women in the home the weapon of choice is a firearm, and 80 per cent of the time it is a rifle or a shotgun. It is almost always legally owned.

The registration system that is provided for in this bill will permit police to enforce those orders to remove firearms and save lives. That is only one of the ways this bill will help in the effort we must make continuously to deal with violence by men against women.

[Veto, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the important thing to bear in mind is nothing in Bill C-110 changes the formula for amending the Constitution, as set out in part V of the Constitution Act of 1982. What is required under section 38, as the hon. member well knows, is the agreement of seven of the ten provinces expressed by resolutions passed by their legislative assemblies. That is what is required before a constitutional amendment can take place.

All Bill C-110 provides is that before the Canadian government will participate in such a change, and after seven legislative assemblies have expressed their agreement, it will determine the consent of the provinces to the extent of the majority as described in the bill.

What constitutes consent could very well be the legislative assemblies' statement. It could be an expression of support by the government of the province or it could be expressed directly by the people. That flexibility is one of the real advantages of the legislation.

[Veto, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-110 clearly says that before the Canadian government authorizes an amendment to the Constitution, it will need the consent of a majority of the provinces that includes Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and the Western provinces. We said clearly in this bill that what we need is the consent of the provinces.

[Violence Against Women, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first I must acknowledge the deep commitment and the enormous contribution of the hon. member in this area.

Although a great deal remains to be done, those things that have been achieved over the last year in dealing with men's violence against women have been brought about largely because of the contribution of my colleague and other members of the Liberal caucus.

Over the last year a number of steps have been taken to which I can refer in response to her question. On February 15 of this year, Bill C-42 became effective. Among other things, it provided in peace bonds that application can be made by someone other than the woman affected. An application might be brought by a police officer. The penalties were increased, the terms were made firmer.

I can refer as well to Bill C-41, the sentencing bill given royal assent in mid-July. Among other things, as a result of the initiative of the hon. member for Mississauga South, domestic violence was made an aggravating factor. As a result of the work by the hon. member for Brant, restitution was provided for victims of domestic violence.

A great deal remains to be done. I am proud to say we have already taken steps this year that will make a difference.