Debates of Nov. 7th, 1997

Criminal Code

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair is not certain what the Chair heard, so the Chair will repeat the request.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

[An hon. member]

On division.

(Motion No. 2 negatived)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I declare the motion defeated on division. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 4 and 6 defeated.

Debate is on Motion No. 3. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I will deal with Motions Nos. 3 and 5, and I do realize that they have been separated. You separated Motion No. 3 from Motion No. 5, with unanimous consent. There will be a separate vote on these motions.

Motions Nos. 3 and 5 are similar, but Motion No. 3 deals with the warrant for arrest. I realize that the member wants more flexibility and would like police officers to have more powers to serve a warrant for arrest. However, it should be remembered that with respect to the warrant for arrest itself, which is outlined on page 6 of the bill starting at line five, the police officers already know who the person involved is. This warrant for arrest applies to a known individual. We know his age, his address, his date of birth, his social insurance number, etc. Therefore with respect to the warrant for arrest that the member of the Conservative Party would like to broaden somewhat, I wish to say here that this is not necessary, since the police officers already have the information. So it is not necessary to give all those details. We will vote against Motion No. 3.

As for Motion No. 5, and I will speak to it now so that I will not have to rise later, on the warrant to enter a dwelling-house, we agree with this and we will vote for this amendment because in this case, this is useful and it gives police officers more powers to obtain a warrant to enter a dwelling-house without necessarily knowing the name of the individual who is there, as long as they have a description. For example, he is tall, he is dressed in a blue suit, he has brown hair, he has brown eyes, he belongs to the Bloc perhaps. In this way we have more information and we can enter a dwelling-house without necessarily having the name of the individual, his date of birth and other similar information.

Therefore, for these reasons, we will vote against Motion No. 3 but we will vote for Motion No. 5.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on Motion No. 3.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

[An hon. member]

On division.

(Motion No. 3 negatived)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I declare the motion defeated on division.

Resuming debate on Motion No. 5.