Allan Rock

[Government Appointments, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first, I ask the hon. member to bear in mind that he is dealing with the professional reputation of a lawyer who took a case into court in good faith on behalf of the Government of Canada. We ought to be careful, in my respectful submission, how we deal with that professional reputation.

The case to which the hon. member refers is one that may be appealed and I will not speak to that case. In this instance, as in every other, we send lawyers into courtrooms because we are satisfied with their competence to do the job.

[Young Offenders Act, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows as a member of the justice committee which considered Bill C-37 including these specific provisions that the proposal is that for 16 and 17 year olds transferred to adult court and convicted of first degree murder the period of parole ineligibility would be 10 years. That was arrived at, as the evidence before the committee demonstrated, because it was thought to be the appropriate balance between recognizing the age of the young person convicted of the offence and recognizing the need to protect society.

The provision in that bill which came out of committee has now been passed by the House.

[Government Appointments, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, these agents were appointed because they are competent to do the work they have been asked to do.

The hon. member should also observe as he looks at the government's record of appointing legal agents the changes we have made with respect to training new agents, the clarity in the terms and conditions governing their appointment, and that we are addressing the issue of conflicts which has never before been regulated by government. We are ensuring the people who represent the government in court abide by those standards in respect of not only competence but also conflict of interest. That is a stride forward.

[Government Appointments, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if we were to determine who was to continue as an agent for the government based on the stripe of the party that appointed them, it seems to me that 20 years ago the government in office was a Liberal government. Surely the premise of the hon. member's question is faulty.

As we find agents to represent the federal interest in court we look for people competent for the task. That is the approach we have taken in British Columbia and across the country.

[Government Appointments, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I note with satisfaction nothing in the hon. member's question suggests the new agent is not competent. The new agent is competent.

The premise of the hon. member's question is the appointments were somehow motivated by patronage. Of the new agents supported by the government, 38 per cent had acted as agents under the previous government. In British Columbia of the 38 agents whose mandate has been confirmed, 47 per cent had acted as agents for the previous government. We appoint agents on the basis of competence.

[Justice, June 2nd, 1995]

I cannot say exactly when, but I can say we will do it.

I want the hon. member to be aware there are provisions in the code already that can be used for that purpose and have been used for that purpose. I do not suggest for a moment that they are insufficient for that purpose.

[Justice, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member

to be fair to the facts. Bill C-72 with respect to the drunkenness defence is before the House. Indeed it is at committee.

The hon. member took a very active role in the consideration of Bill C-37, which was improved because of his work on committee dealing with amendments to the Young Offenders Act. That bill is now in the Senate. The hon. member participated in committee work with respect to Bill C-41, which is intended to strengthen the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code.

However, on the point the hon. member raises, I can tell the hon. member as I have in the past that we will introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Code to broaden the basis upon which DNA samples can be obtained.

I emphasize to the hon. member that there are provisions-

[Justice, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very aware of the case. I met with Mr. Manning, the father of the victim, and with his parents. I was very much affected by the sadness of the tragedy, particularly for the family.

I am not going to discuss the Manning case because it is pending in the courts. However I will respond on the subject of DNA testing and I will say that the government has said it would introduce changes to the Criminal Code to provide a further basis upon which authorities could take samples for DNA testing for prosecution purposes.

I should point out to the hon. member that there are provisions in the code at present which are being used for that purpose. Nothing I say is intended to suggest that those are insufficient for that purpose at this time.

[Department Of Justice, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the right to expect a detailed and factual response to these questions. Both the hon. member and his colleagues have asked specific questions about the number and percentage of contracts that have been awarded and the use of language in specific work done for the department.

My officials have prepared a response which I have in draft form on my desk. I shall get that response on these points to the hon. member and his colleagues within the week.

[Department Of Justice, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a subject that two of his colleagues raised on earlier occasions.

I have a draft response on my desk to which I should have got this week but did not. I will see the written response is in the hands of the hon. members who asked the questions next week. It will furnish a detailed response to the questions that have been raised on this subject.