Debates of May 31st, 1996

Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Colleagues, being aware, as we all are, of how members feel about beginning a speech only to have it interrupted by the Speaker for one reason or another, I wonder if we might agree that I see the clock as being 1.30 p.m. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Criminal Code

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

moved that Bill C-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest without warrant), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to state at the outset that I have mixed feelings about presenting my private member's Bill C-224 today.

On one hand I am honoured to have the opportunity to present what has been asked of me by the police officers of this country. In my travels across Canada I have met with many police officers. All have stated that in order to make society safer, they need more power to enforce the law. Bill C-224 addresses this need.

On the other hand I know that after today it will be the end of the line for this issue. After today there will be no further discussion, no further debate and worst of all, no vote. Certainly there will be no new legislation to help our police forces. I feel I have failed them in their request. I can only blame our legislative process.

I stand here today with yet another example of how our private members' business is in desperate need of massive reform. So far in this 35th Parliament there have been no private members' bills passed with regard to reforming our criminal justice system. There have been many proposed bills from all parties which would have made our streets safer. Yet the committee with the authority to decide what is good for us decided behind closed doors to turn down these proposals by deeming them not votable.

There are currently 59 private members' bills on the Order Paper. Sixteen of them deal with reforming our criminal justice system. This has to send a signal to the government that there is a need for reform which the government is not meeting.

One of the more important bills was proposed by the hon. member of York South-Weston, a bill to prevent murderers from applying for parole after 15 years. This bill has been before the justice committee for the past two years with no movement toward making it law. The bill would scrap section 745 of the Criminal Code.

Of the 59 private members' bills, nine have received second reading but many of these were done away with last week. The whole process is a disaster and a sham. It all comes down to the standing committee on House management which makes the final decision in determining which of the items added to the order of precedence are to be put to a vote in the House.

The committee's track record of picking bills which it feels should be voted on is suspect. The only private members' bills that have been given the go ahead and have been passed into law have been mostly uncontroversial bills that will not rock the boat. For example, there was a bill on whether to make lacrosse or hockey the official national sport.

I was sent here to represent the people of Wild Rose. I promised them I would try to make their country a little more safe. I have found this is nearly impossible within our present system, with the government having free rein in making decisions behind closed doors.

My private member's Bill C-224 first and foremost would have helped our police officers. It addresses their needs by stating that if a person fails or refuses to comply with the condition of their parole or of an unescorted temporary absence or who on reasonable grounds the peace officer believes has breached or is about to breach such a condition, the peace officer may then have the power to arrest that person without a warrant.

A frequent example of this is when a person has been told they are in violation of their parole conditions because they have visited a bar or an establishment that sells liquor. In many cases the police know who is out on parole in their jurisdiction. While patrolling these establishments they may spot an individual who is violating these conditions. The situation now is that the police have no authority to arrest the person. They have to contact the suspect's parole officer and wait for the processing of a warrant in order to arrest the individual. This could take many hours and the person could be long gone by that time.

If my bill had been votable and was accepted, it would have restored power back to the police to arrest the individual on the spot. In many cases this would prevent the individual from committing a further crime or endangering society in any other way which has happened on many occasions.

Another frequent incident where this bill would be effective is in the case of those who are out on parole and are stalking an individual. Criminal Code sections 264(2) and 264(3) define what criminal harassment is and the punishment for this crime. The government's new Bill C-27 addresses the case of death occurring during criminal harassment. In both of these measures, there is no prevention in place. Prevention is something this government has talked about on a number of occasions.

There are examples every day of an ex-husband who has threatened to get revenge at any cost. In many of these cases these people are out on parole. Even though they are violating their parole order, the police must once again wait for a warrant in order to arrest them. If the police had proper authority as provided in this bill and they found the individual in the vicinity of the ex-wife and the individual was breaking the condition of parole or unescorted temporary absence pass, then they would be able to arrest him right there and then. This would ultimately protect many women in their fight to survive. This is another issue that has been talked about by government members, but only talked about.

This bill could have saved lives and should have been made votable. In order that the people of Canada and the police officers who asked me to do this can understand the issue, I will discuss my private members' bill in a different manner. I will present the discussion in the context of the criteria the standing committee responsible for private members' business sets for the selection of votable items. I want the Canadian people to be the judges and to see, as I do, that this bill certainly meets the guidelines, remember-

ing that the only reason it was stopped was that one committee behind closed doors decided to stop it without any explanation.

The first criterion is that the private members' bill must be of national, regional or local significance. It cannot be highly contentious or controversial, trivial or insignificant.

This bill has national significance since it affects the Criminal Code of Canada. In no way is this bill contentious, controversial, trivial or insignificant. It essentially enhances the safety of all Canadians by increasing the number of people who are able to monitor those individuals who are out on parole. The bill will allow our police officers and our parole officers to patrol the streets. This would ultimately increase our frontline workers. It would reduce crime and save lives.

The members of the Canadian Police Association have agreed with the importance of this bill. After they looked at it carefully, they liked it and they offered their support for it. They stated it would make their difficult job of peace officers that much easier and hoped it would be successful.

The second criterion is that the bill must not appear to discriminate or be in favour of or against a certain area or region in this country. In no way does the bill do that. This bill would apply across the country. The police have been calling for this authority from coast to coast in order to effect safety for all Canadians.

The third criterion is that the bill cannot concern electoral boundaries or constituency names. Obviously it has nothing to do with boundaries or constituency names.

The fourth criterion is that the bill should not require obvious amendment because it is substantially redundant with the law, is fundamentally ineffective to implement its own intent, is unclear in its meaning or otherwise defective in its drafting. I have been assured that Bill C-224 is not redundant with the existing laws nor is it ineffective in its intent and meaning nor is it defective in its drafting.

The fifth criterion is that the subject of the bill should be different from specific matters already declared by the government to be on its legislative agenda. This bill does not affect the government's legislative agenda. If anything, this bill is providing further clarity to section 733.1 which was outlined in the government's Bill C-41 that was passed last June. The bill did not address the expansion of powers to police officers. My private members' bill would rectify that situation.

The sixth criterion, depending on the context of political issues and events, the number of times the topic has appeared in the House may be of significance. In our debates in the House of Commons we have seen on a week to week basis many examples of how the police could have made a difference if they had had more authority. This topic has occurred in the House on a regular basis and is of great significance to Canadians.

In the seventh criterion, all other factors being equal, lower priority should be given to motions which deal with matters which the House could address in some other way or through another procedure. All in all this bill should have received high priority since this matter cannot be dealt with through another procedure. The government has just completed significant amendments to the Criminal Code in Bill C-41 and is now proposing further amendments in Bill C-27. It is unlikely this issue will be back before the fall session. Now is the time to deal with this bill.

The eighth criterion is that motions couched in partisan terms should not be selected. This is not a partisan bill. This bill is about the safety of Canadians.

The ninth criterion is that bills will be set aside in the selection process if they are clearly unconstitutional in that they infringe upon provincial legislative authority, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other entrenched constitutional rules, or if they impede or are contrary to normal federal-provincial or international relations. In no way does this bill infringe upon provincial legislation or provincial relations.

The terms of parole are set by court order, while cases of unescorted temporary absence orders are deemed by the federal parole board. This bill will work as a means of carrying out both of these agencies' orders by giving police officers the authority to oversee their judgments. In addition, this bill will enhance federal-provincial relations by giving the provincial and municipal police forces the powers to effect enforcement in our society.

The tenth criterion is that bills relating to a question that is substantially the same as a question already voted on by the House in the session should not be selected as a votable item. This issue does not relate to any question that has been voted on in this House in this session, not at all.

The eleventh criterion is that items relating to a question that is substantially the same as a question contained in an item already selected as a votable item in the session should not be selected. Once again, no bills on criminal justice reform were chosen as votable items. Therefore this is not infringing on any other item.

This bill certainly meets the criteria and then some. It would have affected everyone in the judicial process. Ultimately it would have given our frontline workers the authority they need in order to make our streets safer and to save lives in the process. This will not happen because of a select few who behind closed doors deemed that it was not important enough to give our police officers the power to fight against crime.

The problem with our justice system is perfectly expressed in a Mackenzie Institute occasional paper entitled: "Streets of Fear: The Failure of the Canadian Criminal Justice System". It states: "One of the principal functions of organized society is the protection of all members from physical harm. Over long centuries,

western societies struggled to establish the supremacy of the rule of law. The state was to enforce the law on behalf of the law-abiding, thus protecting the individual and giving him the freedom to live and work in peace. The surest measure of any government is how well its criminal justice system serves the citizen. By that criteria, the Canadian government is a failure. This government certainly does not serve our citizens by giving such measures as this bill any credibility in our discussion on crime".

Having looked at all the criteria and realizing the criteria are written out, they say quite plainly to each and every member that when we prepare our member's bills they are to meet these criteria in order to be votable. I have been assured by all the experts that my bill has certainly met all the criteria and yet it is deemed not votable.

I ask that we do not deny the Canadian people to have a voice in this decision or in many others, as far as that goes. We do not deny them by giving them a vote. We give them a vote through their members of Parliament. That is democracy. That is something the Canadian people have been asking for a long time, to have a stronger voice. We are their voice. Let us express it through a vote.

The bill meets all the requirements as written by the government. It has passed the test. I ask for unanimous consent to make this a votable item.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Does the House give its unanimous consent to make Bill C-224 votable?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had 20 minutes and I put forward that motion before my 20 minute period was up. I would like to have the opportunity to finish my speech.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Regrettably, when a member puts a question to the House and in so doing retakes his seat, for all intents and purposes that intervention is completed. We make the request to the House based on the original request of the member.

If there is a bit of time left at the end, from time to time under right of reply members have had the opportunity to make a closing statement about their bill, particularly when it is not a votable item. Should that be the case later in the hour and if the hon. member wishes to avail himself of that privilege, the Chair will deal with it at the appropriate time.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House on private member's Bill C-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the arrest without warrant provisions.

The hon. member has spoken, as is his wont to do, with quite a bit of passion about the bill. In reality his bill does two things, one of which was done a long time ago in the Criminal Code.

He is trying to set out in section 495 of the code the authority of a peace officer to arrest without warrant someone who on reasonable grounds is believed to have breached or who is about to breach a condition of probation. Second, he wants to amend the same provision to give new authority to the peace officer to arrest without warrant an offender who on reasonable grounds is believed to have breached or who is about to breach a condition of parole or unescorted temporary absence.

What is interesting about this is that while public protection from conditionally released offenders is a matter of very serious concern to the government, an area where we have already made several legislative and practical improvements, there are some misconceptions which have to be cleared up.

With respect to violation of probation conditions, I stress that section 740 of the Criminal Code, which the hon. member may not have directed his attention to, already authorizes a peace officer to arrest without warrant persons found to be breaching a condition of their probation. More specifically, his bill tries to put the same condition into another section, which is redundant. This provision defines breach of probation as a criminal offence, which is very important.

Pursuant to Section 495 of the code, is the focus of this private member's bill, police have the authority to arrest without warrant any person who is caught in the act of committing a criminal offence. A breach of probation is a criminal offence.

Nevertheless, this is an important public protection issue which the government has taken many steps to effectively address. I really would like to set the record straight on this.

With respect to breach of a probation order the government has tightened the provisions in the code to promote stricter compliance with these orders. Bill C-41, which was opposed because of the two little words sexual orientation by the member who proposes this bill, comes into force in the next few months, allowing a breach of probation to be prosecuted, not just summarily but also by indictment, which means much higher penalties.

This change means police will have the authority to arrest without warrant any person who on reasonable grounds is believed to have breached or is about to breach a condition of probation.

This fully addresses the first amendment proposed by the hon. member, and quite frankly makes clause 1(1) of his bill redundant.

Bill C-41 also increases the penalty for breach of probation on summary conviction to 18 months. The hon. member opposed that bill. In the case of an indictable conviction it increases it to two years. It actually goes much farther than Bill C-224 does.

With respect to breaches of parole and unescorted temporary absence conditions, the current legislation provides authority for the National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada to issue a suspension warrant for the offender's arrest by police. This authority for a suspension warrant is provided under section 116 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act for unescorted temporary absences from an institution and under section 135 of the same act for breaches of parole.

Both the correctional service and the parole board have the authority to issue suspension warrants for an offender on an unescorted temporary absence where grounds for granting the absence have changed or no longer exist or when new information becomes available that would alter the original decision.

With respect to an offender on parole, Correctional Service Canada and the parole board can issue suspension warrants at any time when they believe it to be necessary and reasonable in order to protect society.

I agree that some may reasonably question why the police do not have the same direct authority to arrest parolees as they do for probationers. There is an answer to that. It lies in the fact that a condition of probation is set out in a court disposition. It is the breach of that order or the expected breach of that order which gives the officer the right to arrest without warrant.

A breach of probation becomes a criminal offence because it constitutes a violation of a court order or defiance of a court order. When a breach of probation occurs, police have the authority to arrest without warrant, as they would any other person committing a criminal offence.

Parole and temporary absences, on the other hand, are not court orders. They are conditional release terms granted by the parole board or Correctional Service Canada which are designed to facilitate the reintegration of offenders into the community of law-abiding citizens. These conditions place limits on the freedoms of parolees while they are out of the correctional facility. They could apply to a variety of matters, conditions such as the requirement to return to a halfway house at a specific time, curfews, restrictions placed on the offender that assist the parole supervisor in managing him or her. Their mobility may be limited to a certain part of the country, their freedom of association and many other factors.

Breaches of these conditions do not constitute criminal activity. Board members and Correctional Service Canada staff are people in a position to determine when they have to suspend.

The real question the hon. member's bill raises is whether current police powers and correctional practices are sufficient to enable police to respond promptly to situations involving conditionally released offenders.

There have been several initiatives to improve the flow of information from the correctional service and the parole board to police to allow the police to better manage conditionally released federal prisoners and to keep the parole board and the correctional service more efficiently informed in the event something like this does happen. These steps include a new correctional policy ensuring that the police are notified in advance about every offender who is being released. They include a requirement ensuring that police receive all relevant correctional information about any high risk offender being released at sentence expiry, and this is enshrined in law under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Also included are a computer link that gives police direct access to information on conditionally released offenders, including the conditions of their release, and a national network of correctional officers that police can contact 24 hours a day whenever they suspect a federal offender has breached a release condition.

Upon being advised by police of a breach or a potential breach of parole, the correctional officer can issue the suspension warrant on the spot to ensure the police can then respond as quickly as possible.

The act further authorizes the facsimile transmission of warrants, giving police officers the authority to arrest offenders without warrant on the knowledge that one has been issued. This is simply a case of the law catching up with technology but doing so for the protection of society.

There have been amendments to the code to enable police and courts to better intervene in situations in which a person's conduct may be potentially threatening. Section 161.1 allows a court to make an order prohibiting an offender who has been convicted of a sex offence involving a child from being in the vicinity of a school or playground. Section 264 addresses the new offence of criminal harassment to cover stalking.

Bill C-42 the government passed to make it easier for those who are victims of domestic abuse to seek conditions of a recognisance to keep the offender away.

Through these changes, policy improvements and information mechanisms police officers have sufficient authority and the means available to promptly intervene whenever they observe federal offenders in breach of the conditions of their release.

Although the hon. member suggests police are limited in the actions they can take or face unreasonable delays in taking that action, I emphasize he has brought no concrete evidence forward. In the absence of such evidence, giving police broader authority to

arrest without warrant for non-criminal conduct runs the risk of being defeated by a charter challenge.

The hon. member's bill draws attention to the important issue of better protection from conditionally released offenders. The government supports this objective fully and has moved on many fronts to ensure that police officers are well informed about the release of offenders and can intervene in a timely and effective manner whenever necessary.

In considering new legislative initiatives, however, we have to be mindful that they address real gaps and rectify real problems that cannot be dealt with by other mechanisms. There is simply no basis and no foundation for the amendments proposed in this private member's bill.

I will comment on the what the justice committee has done with respect to private member's bills and correct a couple of things the hon. member has said.

At the present time there are four proposed amendments to the Criminal Code in that committee, not all from the hon. member's party; one from an independent member, two from the Bloc and one from the Reform Party. The committee, because of the new freedom in terms of government members voting freely on private members' bills, has put in place with the consent and the approbation of the Reform Party and the Bloc a procedure so that these bills cannot get buried in committee, that they will be treated with the respect they deserve. This bill, however, simply misses the mark.

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in order to briefly discuss Bill C-224, presented by my colleague from Wild Rose, I propose a rather cursory, and somewhat simple, analysis. First, we shall analyze the difference between what should happen by the book and what happens in real life. Then, we shall attempt to address the problem in order to take some position on it, even though the bill is not votable at this time. There is, however, nothing to stop us from having an opinion.

First of all, the question of arrest without warrant. Although it is a rather cursory way of looking at a bill, that is more or less what it comes down to. This situation is of enormous concern to us.

Let us look at how things are done. A policeman arrives at the scene of the crime, and runs into an individual whom he suspects to be in breach of parole for instance. If there is some doubt in his mind, he can take the suspect to headquarters, question him and try to check out the situation.

If everything checks out OK, he releases him, but if something is wrong, he can charge him. However, real life seldom goes by the book. Let us imagine the most common and most critical situation, perhaps the one that led to this bill.

Same scenario. A police officer arrives on the scene of a crime, on a Friday night, and stops an individual. We know that parole officers who could inform the police work 9 to 5 weekdays and are off during the weekend. Very often, problems arise the night and police officers must wait till the next day. The thing is, on weekends, it means they must wait till Monday morning. The police officer stops an individual and, if he doubts his innocence, takes him to the police station.

Police officers already have the power to detain an individual for 24 hours without a warrant. They already can do that. Of course, if a crime-other than breaching the conditions of parole-is committed, the main crime takes precedence. A charge will be laid.

Let us imagine that the only crime is a breach of the conditions of parole, as is often the case. I know because I worked for some time in this field. Let us say that this individual is forbidden to be in such and such a place and is seen there by the police. This is the main issue. The only crime committed by this individual is to be in this place.

Since it is Friday or Saturday night, the probation officer cannot be reached. Even with the current 24-hour period, the police must release the individual since it is still not enough time to reach the probation officer who only returns to his office on Monday morning.

I understand that, in order to solve that problem, correctional services have developed an emergency response system allowing a police officer to get a probation officer to fax him warrant in short order, thus enabling him to arrest a parolee who has violated a probation order or a condition of parole.

A very specific and touchy situation was described. We realize that the issue has been somewhat simplified as regards what could go wrong. The computer-since everything is done by computer, fortunately-could break down, the communication system allowing us to check whether the individual is committing an offence could break down. In that case, the police officer would need a bill like this one. We agree on that point.

Let us say there is a vote and the bill is passed, then arrests without warrant will be allowed. The Bloc Quebecois does not agree with arrests without warrant for very obvious reasons; tomorrow we might ask for searches without warrant. I think that people who must enforce the law want to protect the public and ensure its security. I think they have enough tools right now not to need this one.

In my opinion, such a measure would open wide the door to taking certain liberties and maybe even lead to abuses much worse than those which might occur because this small detail is missing.

The House will recall the famous firearms bill that was introduced. I do not remember the specific clause, but the initial bill specified, in terms that were almost clear, that police officers could, if they thought there were firearms in someone's home, seize them without a warrant. In the end, even the minister and therefore the government amended this provision because they felt it went too far. It went too far because quality of life is included in individual rights. There are ways to do things and, for a start, police officers must learn to do them right, with the tools they are given, of course.

In my opinion, it is when these things happen on a weekend, returning to the example I gave at the start, that there is likely to be a major problem. Then it becomes a conflict between the parole officers' collective agreements and the government. Here, instead of creating legislation to deal with this problem, they are putting the cart before the horse, or however you might like to put it. Legislation ought not to be altered to compensate for shortcomings in collective agreements. Instead, the government should say: "One parole officer will be on weekend duty in such and such a region, because it has a higher incidence of weekend incidents". I have no problem with its passing legislation to that effect, but legislation ought not to be altered because of flawed collective agreements. Instead, the collective agreements must be brought in line with the legislation. That is more or less the logic of this.

Someone also mentioned overpopulation. As you are indicating that I have two minutes left, Mr. Speaker, I will not move on to the next topic, although I would dearly have loved to.

I will conclude simply on this point by repeating that we could not have given our approval, even if this bill had been voted on, because it would permit arrest without warrant thereby opening the door to searches without warrant, which would be totally unacceptable.

Finally, in our opinion, it is much more a problem of lack of availability of parole officers, and therefore a collective agreement problem, and a law does not adapt to a collective agreement, but rather the reverse.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my colleague's private member's bill. It is a good bill. Therefore it is regrettable that it has not been deemed votable. When my hon. colleague from Wild Rose asked for the support and consent of the House, two people said no, the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River and the member for Windsor-St. Clair.

We are very secure as we sit in this House. We have security all around us. We cannot go anywhere in this building without seeing the security. If we were threatened in any way in this House you had better believe we would hasten to enhance the power of those people who provide for our security. Yet we are not prepared to do that for the people we represent which is absolutely regrettable and unacceptable.

When I hear the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair, who sits as the chair of the justice committee, making the kinds of comments she made against the principle of this bill, of giving peace officers the right to arrest someone who they find in violation of their parole conditions, I cannot believe it nor can I understand it.

During debate on Bill C-68 the justice minister said this: "If you want to learn something or if you need information about health care, ask doctors. If you need to know something about law, ask lawyers. If you need to know something about policing, ask police officers". Police officers were the motivation for this bill. However, the justice minister and his colleagues obviously only want the input of police officers when it suits them, not when they are making a recommendation which will help them to protect society.

Back home in my constituency a person said to me: "What we want you folks to do is to stop the fighting and just get on with the business. We need changes in our legislation in a number of areas, including the area of justice".

What is wrong with giving a peace officer the power to arrest someone at four o'clock in the morning who is violating the conditions of his or her parole? Why are these members prepared to deny the police the power to protect the abused wife, to protect children and to protect society from people who have demonstrated by their past behaviour that they can be a threat to society under certain conditions?

When people are out on parole, the conditions of that parole are such that they must avoid sitting in a bar or being in the vicinity of a playground or children. Why is it that these members are not prepared to grant the police the power to take those people into custody when they have violated the very conditions which have allowed them freedom from prison? I cannot understand it.

The mugwumps I have heard today have spoken against the bill which is surprising and disgusting to me. They pretend that they have the best interests of society at heart and they want to create conditions which will protect society from those who, for one reason or another, are a threat.

I have seen the justice minister stand time after time in the House to say that he has done this, he has done that and he has done the next thing to make society safer, and yet a very simple amendment to the Criminal Code that would grant peace officers the power in the middle of the night to protect an ex-spouse, children and society is being denied. For what reason? It is regrettable.

The Liberals campaigned on a promise to give backbenchers more weight in the government through added private members' bills. That was the promise. I suppose it was a bit like the GST promise, which they simply broke.

By admission of the Liberal member for Mississauga East this promise has been broken. The government backbencher accused the Liberal dominated, four-member committee that determines which private members' bills will be votable of short circuiting controversial bills. The Mississauga East MP said: "We supposedly have open government, but we have secret committees and I'd guarantee that no member of that committee would oppose the bill openly. They were just encouraged in secret. I'm not suggesting it's a kangaroo court, it's more like a cockroach court. You can't see them at work and they run".

My hon. colleague, who is the chairman of the justice committee, spoke about the four private members' bills that have made it through the House and now sit in committee. Where are they? The bill that would eliminate section 745 of the Criminal Code has been sitting there for a year and a half.

I told the member in committee that I respect every member of that committee, but if that private member's bill is still lying dormant by the time Clifford Olson has the opportunity to spend between $200,000 and $1 million of taxpayers' money appealing to have his parole ineligibility reduced, I will be ashamed of the committee and its work. Those bills are there, but they are being let lie. Yet when Bill C-33 came along, it was rammed through the committee in eight days. I am wrong. It was not rammed through the committee in eight days; it was rammed through first, second and third reading, all stages in eight days.

If we wanted to move on those four private members' bills that are languishing before the justice committee we would move on them. They are good bills and they should come back to the House and be considered by the members of this House. Why are we not moving on them?

Mr. Speaker, you ought to sit with us in the steering committee that makes those decisions and then come back when the steering committee's recommendations come before the committee. We get our marching orders. I have said to the committee that when the people of Canada elect a majority government, it has a mandate. I do not debate the mandate. I do not challenge the mandate but I sure challenge the manner in which that mandate is used.

I am not going to challenge our committee to push these private members' bills through. There is no point in doing that. It is incumbent upon us to move those bills through but they are not being moved. They should be back in front of the elected representatives of the people.

Concerning the bill that deals with section 745, over 70 members of the Liberal Party stood and voted in this House on second reading in support of the bill. Why has it been almost a year and one-half and the bill still has not come back to the House?

I can go along with the mandate of the government, but I cannot support the marching orders it seems we have in some of the committees. We set up a procedure. I acknowledge what the member for Windsor-St. Clair said. We looked at that and set up a procedure so that the bills would not languish. If that is the case, why are they still languishing? Why are they still there? That is the question everyone in Canada should know is being asked in this House and there is no answer.

Why has the bill sat for a year and one-half? It is a bill that caused people to come to public meetings across the country by the hundreds and thousands because they are concerned. They do not want to see first degree murderers like Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo given the opportunity to waste taxpayers' money in an attempt to reduce their parole eligibility after serving only 15 years of a so-called life sentence.

What are we doing here today? We are talking about an issue and we do not have any hope of moving it forward. Number one, they would not deem this bill votable; number two, members of this House who are present here today when unanimous consent was requested, denied it. They denied it not only to the sponsor of the bill but also to the people represented by the bill in Canada: the police officers who know what they need to protect us, who know what they need in the middle of the night or on a weekend when a parole officer is not to be found as the hon. member from the Bloc pointed out.

What do the police officers do? They see a person on parole who has committed dangerous and violent offences sitting in a bar at two o'clock in the morning contrary to the parole conditions. What does that police officer do to protect society, to protect that person's children or that person's ex-wife who may be in danger because of his intoxication? What does that police officer do? This bill would give the police officer the authority to arrest that person because he has violated the very condition he agreed to to get out of prison and to live a peaceful life. He has violated it.

What has happened in this House today is disgusting to me. We will take this message into that constituency called Windsor-St. Clair. We will take it into Prince Albert-Churchill River. We will tell the people: "This is what we tried to do but this is what your member refused to allow us to do".

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I must say a few words in response to a number of the suggestions that have been put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot.

The member seems to take great exception to the fact that this private members' bill was not deemed votable. The bill went before a committee, as do all other private members' bills from all of the parties and all the independent members. That is where a determination is made as to whether or not these bills are votable.

The committee determines in a unanimous fashion which bills are votable and which are not. This is not an unusual procedure. It is not a procedure that the hon. member is not familiar with. This is a procedure that has been followed and has been very successful in ensuring that the best private members' bills come forward for full debate and are voted upon by representatives of the people in the House. This government has done a great deal of work to ensure that private members' bills which come forward are debated. Individual members of Parliament have their say significantly increased.

This government, for the first time, has made votable private members' bills free votes which allow each and every member to express their viewpoints either for or against the piece of legislation. There have been a number of other types of free votes in the House. There will be more to come. On this side of the House we are very supportive of that initiative, to give individual members of Parliament more access to free votes.

Many of the bills presented by hon. members of the Reform Party with respect to criminal justice come forward. Many of these bills obviously have not been given very much thought. On the face of them they are not legal, they are inconsistent with other provisions of the Criminal Code, or they are in some other matter completely unacceptable, making a mockery of law making in this country.

It is my view that when we put forward legislation, in particular criminal legislation, great care must be taken to ensure the integrity of the Criminal Code, the consistency within the Criminal Code. We must ensure to the best of our ability that changes recommended to the Criminal Code are to be for the betterment of the criminal law as a whole and not some superficial piece of politics simply designed to arouse emotions and not really get at the root of the problem.

In addition, it just simply does not matter if these provisions are legal or not. A little more respect needs to be paid to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada rather than making it a political plaything for the purpose of political points.

The justice system in this country is something we all hold in high esteem. Our purpose ought to be when we see real problems to respond to the needs of the people. I must say in relation to the constant criticism by the Reform Party that the Minister of Justice has put forward more reforms and more significant reforms in the field of criminal law in this country than has been done in the history of any previous Parliaments. This is a tremendous accomplishment.

Criminal law and criminal law amendment are not simple matters. We must on a continual basis be consulting with all the parties affected, whether they be victims groups, the crown lawyers, defence lawyers, the provinces, the provincial authorities who under the Constitution have the responsibility for the administration of justice. Each of these items and changes needs to be the result of extensive consultations. Not only has the minister brought forward many significant pieces of legislation, but in each case the proper consultations were undertaken.

There was never such energy in the Department of Justice until the present minister took over. For instance, he has already taken steps to improve the Young Offenders Act by increasing the sentences for the most serious crimes and for reversing the onus on 16 and 17-year-olds, making it more likely that they will be tried in adult court.

He has left the further review of the Young Offenders Act to the justice committee which will be touring the country, hearing from stakeholders from coast to coast who are involved in the criminal justice system. As well, the committee will be working, in addition to the federal, provincial and territorial task force on youth crime, to make recommendations for appropriate further adjustments to the Young Offenders Act.

In addition to the above, many amendments have been made or are being proposed to the Criminal Code. The Minister of Justice has proposed that section 745 be toughened up. Provisions to ensure long term offenders are more appropriately dealt within the system are being introduced. These measures to deal with long term offenders will ensure there are significant community controls for up to 10 years after the individual comes to the end of a finite sentence to ensure that within the community the controls are in place.

There is also the possible extension to the window for bringing a dangerous offender application, which will make these types of provisions more available. A flagging system has been introduced nationally to allow crown prosecutors to see which of the likely candidates could be brought forward for a dangerous offender application.

There have been improvements to the gun legislation which will ensure there mechanisms in place to make our society safer. They will give the police mechanisms, with due process involved, to remove firearms from individuals who have committed or threatened violence. All these types of measures have significantly improved the criminal justice system.

Many changes have been introduced within legislation to enhance the role of victims within the criminal justice system. Many of these measures are designed to make our homes, communities and streets safer places. There are also changes to enhance the role of victims within the criminal justice system.

Reform does a lot of talking and makes a lot of noise about safe streets, but every time these recommendations or laws are brought forward the Reform Party votes against them. All it can think about is caning and spanking people. We need a little more creativity in our criminal law than that. We need to ensure strong criminal laws. In addition, we need to ensure we are getting at the root causes of crime at an early stage so we can truly have a safer society.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Colleagues, let me put this before you. I have three options. I do not believe the first option will fly, which is that we call it 2.30 p.m. The second option is that I look to the opposite side for someone to speak, keeping in mind the member under whose name the bill stands could take the last minute. Or I could go to the member for Calgary Northeast, who is seeking the floor.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being able to address this private member's bill, put forward by my colleague from Wild Rose. The purpose is to give a peace officer the power to arrest without warrant a person who is in breach of a probation order binding the person or a condition of the person's parole.

I was a police officer for 22 years serving in the city of Calgary. I listened to the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister spout about the great laws we have in the Criminal Code and on our books. The unfortunate part about that is it has all been made up by lawyers, special interests. The people of this country have not been listened to.

They desire to have safe streets and safe homes. The Liberal government, the justice minister, the solicitor general and the Prime Minister do not want that to happen. They are catering to the special interests, and that is the bottom line.

I could cite all kinds of examples of individuals-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the considered of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 2.31 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, June 3 at 11 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)