Allan Rock

[Gun Control, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, for a period of almost one year I have met with individuals, groups, associations and representatives of governments at all levels in the country to discuss firearms' control. That consultation has been complete and entirely in accordance with our legal and constitutional responsibilities.

To listen to the leader of the third party one would conclude that to him consultation means doing exactly what he would have us do. In fact, the consultations in which we have participated over this last year have resulted in a bill which is respectful of and responsive to the needs of aboriginal peoples, among others, in the country.

We will proceed with the legislation which is very much in the public interest.

[Gun Control, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, may I record my astonishment that such a question would emerge from the party that to date has refused to meet with aboriginal people, describing them as a special interest group.

That such a question would emerge from a party that has voted against every single piece of legislation introduced in the House to advance aboriginal rights and that less than a year ago voted against legislation giving rights of self-government to the Indians in Yukon to which the leader has referred.

The record will show that I consulted throughout the country before preparing the proposals that are engendered in Bill C-68. In addition to the consultations carried out in advance of the legislation, we have already put in place an elaborate and unprecedented process of consultation with the aboriginal leadership and communities throughout the country.

[Criminal Code, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, that is not entirely right. The courts for the last seven years in Canada have been receiving DNA evidence as proof. It has been used by authorities to establish the guilt and from time to time the innocence of people implicated in alleged crimes.

At present, the use of DNA samples is limited to those circumstances in which it is found and where the court determines that its use is consistent with principles of justice.

Our intended changes would broaden the use, both of the taking of samples to put it on a regular lawful basis and allowing the authorities to stockpile it to have a bank available for reference in future investigations.

[Criminal Code, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an important point. I met two weeks ago with the father of Tara Manning and spoke to him about the tragedy his family had suffered because of her murder and about the need for changes in the law to provide, as the hon. member has said, for the collection and use of evidence that will help in the detection and prosecution of such crimes.

We have just completed a consultation with respect to this issue. We are reviewing the results now. I can tell the hon. member that it is my intention to present legislation in the House that will amend the code to provide for the taking of bodily samples with a search warrant for the purpose of determining the DNA of an accused person and for the creation of data banks whereby such samples can be stored and to which resort may be made in future investigations.

[Gun Control, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if we are not to make distinctions in law then what is our function here? These distinctions are very important.

The power is to inspect, which is completely consistent with the approach taken in dozens of other statutes federally and provincially to ensure public safety. Those powers of inspection have been organized and presented in Bill C-68 in a fashion that

has been held on more than one occasion by the Supreme Court of Canada to be both constitutional and appropriate.

[Gun Control, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, those clippings were drawn to my attention yesterday. My position has not changed from what I expressed to the committee when I testified before the hon. member and his colleagues on that committee on April 24 last.

As for the police powers to search the member should bear in mind that the powers, as he well knows, proposed in Bill C-68 are to inspect, not to search.

[Gun Control, May 9th, 1995]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Regulations Act, April 26th, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-84, an act to provide for the review, registration, publication and parliamentary scrutiny of regulations and other documents and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House of my intention to propose that this bill be referred to committee before second reading, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).

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

[Child Support, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, within coming weeks the government will introduce measures that will deal with child support to improve the present system in three important ways.

The first will have to do with the method by which the amounts of child support are determined. At present that is left to the uncertain and expensive process of litigation. We will propose that such amounts be fixed by regulation on a statutory guideline or formula geared to income.

The second element has to do with the tax treatment of child support both in respect of the consequence for the payor and for the recipient. Since the budget of 1994, and indeed since the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal in Thibaudeau a year ago, that has been a matter of both public consultation and careful consideration. We will be making the position of the government clear on the issue in the weeks ahead.

The third has to do with enforcement because the proper amount with the appropriate tax calculation is meaningless unless the order is actually paid.

I am working with my colleagues, the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue and the Secretary of State for the Status of

Women. We will include in our proposals a national strategy for the enforcement of child support orders to ensure that those who are required to pay, support their children.

[Department Of Justice, April 25th, 1995]

I will add that to the list of assignments I will take from the hon. member to complete.

I am certain of the falsity of the conclusion he offers. The Department of Justice is very proud of its continuing tradition of offering services in both official languages and of the strength of the staff, both professional and otherwise, that we have in the department to serve Canadians in both official languages.