Allan Rock

[Young Offenders Act, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the tragic deaths of Reverend and Mrs. Toope have shocked and saddened the community of Beaconsfield. All Canadians have been touched by the senselessness of this brutal crime. As the hon. member has said, people have been charged and the case is now before the courts. I will be careful not to comment on the facts of that case. Let me speak more broadly to the issues the member has raised.

The government cannot say that merely changing words in a statute, in a book, is going to prevent tragedies like this from happening. We know that is not so. A number of things are required to prevent crime and to get at its causes.

To the extent to which changes in the criminal law and the Young Offenders Act can deter and properly punish such misconduct, this government has acted. Bill C-37, which is through the House, is now before the Senate and I hope it will receive its prompt attention. As the House knows, that bill increases penalties for murder. It provides for the transfer to adult court of certain youths charged with serious violent crimes. It provides for the sharing of information.

I have also asked for the justice committee to tour the country, to listen to Canadians, to examine our juvenile justice system and determine whether other changes are needed. This government will be responsive to those recommendations. We are committed to a system that is fair and tough. We will act on that conviction.

[Government Contracts, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has some facts, only some. The balance of her question is a combination of either invention or wishful thinking.

The funds were spent for the legitimate purpose of seeking the advice of others as to how best to serve the public interest. This was not advice on how to deal with caucus. This was advice on how to deal with issues that confront the Minister of Justice in relation to performing public responsibilities in the public interest. That is exactly why the money was spent.

[Government Contracts, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the contract referred to was entered into in the ordinary course of business in order to provide advice of practical assistance in discharging every day responsibilities. It is perfectly proper. It is money well spent.

I offer the events of yesterday as the most cogent proof of that investment.

[Government Contracts, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the question, I will get the facts and I will respond.

In the meantime, I am constrained to answer right off the top that the business of the Department of Justice is in both official languages.

[Government Contracts, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take the hon. member's question under advisement and provide a detailed response to her as soon as possible.

An immediate response to the question is that much of the business of the Department of Justice has to do with retaining

lawyers in private practice to represent the interests of the government in cases from time to time. It may well be that much of that work is done in other parts of the country.

I will get the facts and respond to the hon. member in due course.

[War Criminals, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. These cases must be undertaken as soon as possible. We are starting with four cases. We have identified eight others as appropriate for proceeding in this same way. We have eight counsel under the lead of a senior justice counsel dealing with the four cases that are already before the courts. As soon as we possibly can we will initiate the others.

We started with four cases that we believe in some important respects will clear the way by creating legal precedents that will make it simpler to proceed in the other cases.

I fully agree with the hon. member and we will commence the balance of the cases at the earliest possible date.

[War Criminals, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, by far the preferred way of approaching such cases is to initiate criminal prosecutions.

However, a couple of things have happened since 1987. First, the provisions in the Criminal Code that were added at about that time to provide for such prosecutions have been tested in court proceedings and interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Second, the nature, quality and availability of the evidence in such prosecutions has diminished in the years since 1987. When we came to office we came with a determination to do something about the moral imperative of removing such people from our midst.

We looked at the possibility of criminal prosecution and determined that in view of the interpretation placed on the provisions of the code by the Supreme Court of Canada in Finta and in view of the state of the evidence in these cases, the best approach for achieving the moral imperative in a practical way was to institute civil proceedings by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. That is the step we have taken.

[Canadian Human Rights Commission, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought, based on the speeches and comments made by the chief commissioner, that his primary concern about the lack of tolerance in Canada has not had so much to do with the number of regional offices the commission has, but rather the attitudes in some quarters about human rights themselves.

The commission, which does its work so ably in serving the Canadian public, has had to decide, as we all must, how to meet its needs with diminished resources. It is apparently confident that it can meet those needs with centralized services from Ottawa.

[Canadian Human Rights Commission, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my information is that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is reducing the number of regional offices and centralizing the services it offers to the Ottawa location.

The commission is a body that operates at arm's length from government. Its resources have been reduced in recent years because of fiscal realities. The way it chooses to respond to that reality is a matter of policy for the commission. If it has concluded that it can provide the services in the way that has been decided on, then that is the way it will proceed.

[Points Of Order, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the hon. member's point of order.

First, I take very seriously my responsibilities both here in the House and outside, to respect the jurisdiction of the court, to abide by the sub judice rule and to bear in mind that as minister of the crown, I have responsibilities quite different from those judges of the courts of the country.

I contend as well that nothing I have said here or elsewhere in relation to the Simmerman case or its principle has offended the rule against commenting on cases before the courts.

May I first observe that it is passing strange that the hon. member should first ask me about a case in the House and then raise a point of order because I commented on the case in answering his question. It was in answering the very question put by the hon. member that I am alleged to have breached the rule. I was simply responding to a question put by the hon. member, and doing so in good faith.

Second, as I mentioned the other day, when the hon. member raised this point in question period, there is a great deal of difference between on the one hand commenting on the facts of a criminal case which is in process, whether at trial or on appeal, in a fashion that might prejudice the party, the accused, by indicating what findings should be made or who committed what act-that is highly improper-and on the other hand simply observing that we take a different legal interpretation of a statute which, in fact, is what is at issue in the Simmerman case.

I have said that we regard the legal interpretation put on the Criminal Code and the relevant sections at trial as not being the correct one. In fact, the Alberta government is appealing. The appeal is expected to be heard by the Alberta Court of Appeal in about September of this year. The federal government is now considering whether it will intervene in the appeal to put its point of view before the Court of Appeal.

There is precedent for the proposition. I say there is nothing at all wrong with a minister saying that we take a different legal interpretation of a statute than that put on the statute by a court.

It follows that the interpretation relied on by the court at first instance is not in accord with our interpretation. I suggest what is an issue here is that first we must show proper deference and respect to the court and its process and second, nothing must be said or done by a minister or a member that would prejudice the rights of parties in a pending case with respect to matters of fact.

I say that neither of those principles has been offended by anything I said or did. This point of order is without foundation.