Allan Rock

[Gun Control, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party are not in a position to say they are the champions of aboriginal rights in this country. When they see in this issue an opportunity to attack Bill C-68 they take it.

For the many months the bill was before the House committee, of which the hon. member formed a part, it was examined in great detail. There were both legal and constitutional witnesses before the committee. It was established there, as it has been established before the Senate, that this bill is completely constitutional.

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the hon. member's interest in the subject and I am grateful for the question.

As the hon. member has pointed out, some months have now passed since we have received the report of the Senate committee which discloses how difficult members of that committee found the issues. There was difficulty achieving consensus on some of the most fundamental questions that arose. It is now up to the government to determine where we go from here and how. It is also up to this caucus to discuss how the issue should be approached.

That having been said, I have long since expressed my preference for providing a process within which elected members of Parliament can bring their judgment to bear, as the Prime Minister has said, in a free vote on these questions.

My response to the hon. member is that this caucus in due course will consider how best to proceed from here so that these important issues can be brought forward for consideration.

[Young Offenders Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Young Offenders Act provided at the time of that offence and since then that young people, age 16 and 17, can be transferred to adult court for a trial on such charges. If transferred to adult court they face adult sentences.

The fact is that the Young Offenders Act contains those provisions. As the hon. member well knows, it is the provinces' responsibility to administer them. It is up to the courts and the prosecutors to apply them.

[Referendums, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the questions last week about constitutional powers were technical but the concerns of this government are not only about constitutional powers but about this government's responsibility for political stability in Canada. The source of that stability is good government.

[Referendums, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the real question, the most important one for the future, is good government for Canada. The Prime Minister promised to provide good government for Canada. Constructive changes in the government's administration have been discussed, and once these are implemented, we are confident there will be no need for another referendum campaign in the future.

[The Constitution, November 6th, 1995]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[The Constitution, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I never said that, but it is our intention to respect the Prime Minister's commitments.

As my colleague stated today, the most important thing is to ensure good government; then another referendum campaign will not be necessary.

[Justice, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, over the last two years I have met with dozens of victims of violent crime, women whose husbands have been killed, children left without parents, men and women whose children have been lost to violence.

I have listened to the message those Canadians have expressed. As part of Bill C-41 we changed section 745 to ensure that the courts on application for permission to apply for early parole will be obligated to hear from the families of victims as a factor to be taken into account in making that decision.

There are those who say that is not enough. Let me respond to the hon. member further. When the private members' bill to repeal section 745 came before the House there was in essence a free vote on that subject. That bill has has now gone to committee. I have encouraged the committee to look broadly at the whole subject and make recommendations. We shall pay close attention to those recommendations once they are made.

[Justice, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, section 745 has been part of the Criminal Code for almost 20 years. The debates which accompanied its introduction those many years ago disclose a will on the

part of Parliament to provide the possibility after 15 years for persons to go in front of a jury to ask for permission to apply for parole in certain circumstances.

What must be borne in mind is this is not the right to parole. This is simply a provision permitting a prisoner to go before a jury drawn from the community to test the question of whether they should be permitted to apply for parole to the Parole Board.

That was the will of Parliament when that provision was adopted 15 years ago.

[Gun Control, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is telling that on an occasion when the rest of us are engaged in debate on important matters of the future of Canada, when we speak of the economic future of Canada, indeed the future of the confederation, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville rises to ask questions about the right to bear firearms. It is fitting.

If I must address the substance of his question, the group to which he referred forms part of the Police Association of Ontario which represents all the frontline officers in Ontario. The Police Association of Ontario forms part of the Canadian Police Association. I was present on March 30 of this year in Ottawa when the Canadian Police Association, the national group of frontline officers, debated and voted on Bill C-68 and I was there to see it support the bill.

I was in Markham, Ontario, on August 14 this year when the Police Association of Ontario voted in support of Bill C-68. I was in Regina in late August when the chiefs of police voted in favour. The police of this country are behind this bill.