Allan Rock

[Taxation, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the government has not announced a formal plan in relation to this matter, but there has been a great deal of action. A great deal of work has been done over the last 10 months on the subject of child support.

The government is approaching the issue based on three principles. First, that there should be guidelines or a formula provided by statute to assist the court in determining the amount to be paid for child support to relieve the parties of the expense and anguish of determining that through litigation.

Second, that the tax system should be examined to determine that it is fair to both custodial and non-custodial parents in providing the best for the children of separated families.

Third, that there is an effective national strategy for enforcing court orders once they are made.

In relation to the first matter, the federal-provincial-territorial report with respect to child support was published last January. It contains specific amounts in a proposed formula that is now under public discussion. We are learning from that discussion.

Second, in terms of tax, the Minister of Finance has been at work in that area and is completing an analysis of the options.

Finally, in enforcement, we have developed proposals that will be announced with the other two elements of the package which we believe will enhance the enforcement of support orders across Canada.

[Criminal Code, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I know of the hon. member's continuing concern in this area. I want to assure her that I share it and that steps are being taken.

We have already announced our intention to strengthen the existing dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code. Two weeks ago the Solicitor General announced the new flagging system to make it easier for prosecuting lawyers to have information about what people should be subject to such applications.

In addition we have announced our intention to introduce legislation to strengthen the dangerous offender provisions by removing the requirement for two psychiatric opinions before the court. We are also looking favourably at the recommenda-

tion from the federal-provincial-territorial task force to add long term offenders as a category to the code.

In May the Solicitor General and I will be convening a meeting of constitutional experts and others to look at other strategies we can take within the law to protect society from those who are at high risk of reoffending.

[Criminal Code, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first, I believe the Ontario government will be considering the question of whether to launch an appeal as it is a party to the proceeding. The federal government intervened at the first instance and, if an appeal is launched, may well intervene at the appellate stage as well.

Second, depending on whether an appeal is taken and obviously depending on the timing of an appeal if it is brought, it may be necessary to apply for an extension of the six-month period which is permissible under the rules of the court. If that were to be necessary I have no doubt that such an application would be considered and, if appropriate, it would be brought.

[Gun Control, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed.

We have had for several months now on the record a resolution passed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police calling for a variety of measures with respect to firearms already in Bill C-68 and supporting full registration.

Until yesterday the Canadian Police Association, which represents the rank and file police officers, had withheld expressing a position on the bill or on registration until it had a chance through its own firearms committee to canvass the views of working police officers across the country.

Yesterday delegates from across Canada came to Ottawa for the purpose of making up their minds. They debated the issue and issued resolutions in which they support every element of the firearms bill the government has put forward subject to the conditions I have mentioned having to do with budgets and with decriminalization of the first offence.

It is extremely significant that this is a group representing the working rank and file police officers on the streets, the persons we look to for safety in the communities.

[Gun Control, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the course of the CPA's discussions this week on a whole range of justice issues, it identified areas where we can do better. There is no question there is room for improvement in every part of the criminal justice system.

It endorsed the firearms proposals by the government. The question had to do with enforcement mechanisms for criminal law. I assured the Canadian Police Association yesterday and throughout the week that we look forward to having its specific representations to the committee when it appears before it. If it has suggestions about improvements on the enforcement side, then working with the provinces, which are responsible for the enforcement of criminal law, we should be happy to see to it.

[Gun Control, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I must slay the hon. member's beautiful hypothesis with a brutal fact. Yesterday the Canadian Police Association, representing some 35,000 frontline police officers, endorsed every element of the government's firearms package.

I shall be happy to share with the hon. member a copy of the resolution. It endorsed the government's prohibition on small calibre handguns. It endorsed the government's prohibition on assault weapons and it endorsed registration of all firearms.

In respect of the specific registration system proposed in Bill C-68, the Canadian Police Association endorses it subject only to two points, that the costs would not be taken from the operational budgets in place at present for the police, assurance of which I gave readily yesterday, and that some means be found by which first offences for non-registration could be dealt with on a regulatory rather than a criminal basis.

In respect of the second point, I expressed concern about achieving compliance. The response given by the police association was that perhaps instead of a criminal offence, if someone does not register, the first time around their gun should be confiscated. My response was that based on that approach perhaps we can do business.

[Points Of Order, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct a mistake which I made in response to a question put on March 23 by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.

The hon. member asked me about the registration of firearms. In response, I referred to Statistics Canada numbers. I said that in Saskatchewan the fatality rate from firearms is 50 per cent higher than the national average and the suicide rate from firearms is twice the national average. I was wrong.

The statistics are, when correctly stated, that the firearms suicide rate is one-third higher than the national average in Saskatchewan. It is the rate of death from accidents with firearms that is twice the national average. Overall, firearms fatalities in Saskatchewan are 25 per cent higher than the national average. I shall furnish the hon. member with a copy of these statistics which bear out those numbers.

[Justice, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, what is at issue is the validity of an instrument created under federal jurisdiction. I am very confident that the federal interpretation of the law will prevail.

Second, the Alberta government, as the hon. member has just pointed out, agrees with the position. It is taking the appeal. It will argue the appeal and it will contend that the judgment should not stand.

Third, there is a world of difference between commenting on the facts of the case implicating the guilt or innocence of the accused person, which would be improper, and commenting on the legitimacy of a piece of legislation before the court on a legal argument as to validity. There is a world of difference and nothing improper at all has occurred.

[Justice, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the judgment has been appealed. We are taking the position in the Court of Appeal that the judgment was in error.

With great respect to the hon. member, there is nothing at all inappropriate about the government saying that it disagrees with the court judgment, and it is appealing it.

We will be making our arguments to the appellate court and we are confident that those arguments will prevail.

[Criminal Code, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this gamesmanship is both tedious and uncharacteristic. I wish the hon. member would focus on the answer to the question he has put. It is a serious matter.

The police have asked us to consider an amendment to the code which would provide for criminalizing certain organizations. That is not something one does with the snap of a finger or without taking care with the language.

We also have to be concerned about motorcycle groups, for example, that are not criminal, that are quite legitimate. We also have to bear in mind that police already have some 800 sections of the Criminal Code to deal with today.

We will look at the question seriously. We will do the responsible thing. If the hon. member has a specific proposal for language, I have already asked him to provide it to me. I will give it due consideration.