Jack Ramsay

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up what the hon. member across the way touched on. When she indicated that anyone convicted of murder as a result of stalking would serve 25 years imprisonment, she should clarify that. She knows that under section 745 of the Criminal Code that individual would have the advantage of early parole after serving just 15 years.

I do not think that should be side stepped, it is a fact. I do not think she was absolutely frank and forthright in her suggestion that anyone convicted of murder for stalking would have to serve 25 years. They, like all murderers in this country under today's law, would have the advantage of section 745 and would be able to expend taxpayer dollars in an attempt to lower the parole ineligibility after serving just 15 years.

Nevertheless, I rise today in support of the government's bill, C-27. In 1993, 52 Reform members came to Ottawa with a commitment to the Canadian people to reform Parliament. Included in those reforms was the promise to be supportive whenever possible of government legislation. We promised not to oppose government legislation simply for the sake of opposition or to gain political points.

If a bill enhances public safety we will support it. We therefore support the government's initiative in Bill C-27. Bill C-27 is a series of amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with child prostitution, child sex tourism, criminal harassment and female genital mutilation. It will help reduce violence against women and children. Therefore we support it.

The bill is not the final answer. A number of legislative changes must be implemented if we are to continue to eradicate domestic violence and child abuse. Attention must be focused on crime prevention, starting with the identification of the cause of domestic violence.

Clause 5 of Bill C-27 amends Criminal Code section 268, aggravated assault. Under Bill C-27 infibulation in whole or in part to the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a young person under the age of 18 will be considered aggravated assault punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years. The thought that there are adults in the country who are willing to subject their children to that kind of treatment is the most abhorrent aspect of the whole issue.

Therefore we will push for an amendment under this clause of Bill C-27 to completely eliminate this barbaric and inhuman practice to protect all women in the country.

In view of the concern expressed in 1992 by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons this Criminal Code amendment is necessary. The Ontario college reported that there had been a rise in the number of requests for infibulations in the country. Infibulation is the cutting off of a young girl's genital parts, including the clitoris, and the subsequent sewing together of the opening leaving room for only urination and menstruation.

Just thinking about it, just reading about it, just speaking about it fills me with a degree of repulsion that makes me wonder why the government has waited as long as it has. As my colleague from Surrey-White Rock mentioned, we are indebted to the member for Quebec who I think spurred the government in this direction with her private member's bill. I congratulate her.

Canada has been cited by the World Health Organization as being one of forty countries involved in the practice of what has become known as female circumcision, correctly referred to as female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation causes a number of short and long term problems including excruciating pain; hemorrhaging; occasional death; exceptionally high rates of infections to the urinary tract, bladder, reproductive organs and bowel; menstrual and pregnancy problems; anemia; and disfiguring cysts that not only reduce or eliminate sexual pleasure but often result in extreme pain during intercourse and can even prohibit it.

Suffice to say, the Canadian medical community says that female genital mutilation has absolutely no benefits but is completely unnecessary and extremely harmful.

An assistant in my office watched a documentary on female genital mutilation. As the mother of a five-year old girl she says she cannot erase the horrifying impression the film left upon her. The documentary was about the cultural practice of female mutila-

tion. In the film a four-year old girl sat on what appeared to be a stool upon a dirt floor while an elderly woman from the community using a crude instrument cut off her clitoris. No anesthetic was used. No freezing was used. As the girl screamed in horror and pain, the woman proceeded without any sign of anguish on the part of the mother, who not only witnessed the barbaric mutilation of her daughter but was part of it. The mother showing no sign of emotion restrained her daughter. When the procedure was complete the girl laid on a dirty mat, sobbing, with her feet tied together and with her hands bound.

I relay this horrible story to the House because we as a nation must signal to the world that the practice of mutilating young girls is absolutely deplorable and therefore must be outlawed everywhere.

In Somalia and other countries the practice meets cultural demands or cultural standards or preserves a sense of identity to their community, or it is done to preserve virginity and family honour. It is time the UN stepped in and protected children worldwide from being assaulted and abused in the name of culturally acceptable practices. The UN has been asked to put a stop to child labour. Therefore it is absolutely imperative that the UN move to stop this most savage abuse of children.

I urge the Government of Canada to take the lead on the issue by initiating talk with those countries that would be supportive of UN action in this regard. We must take every measure possible to protect children in this country and throughout the world.

I therefore fully support the section of Bill C-27 which makes it an offence for a Canadian citizen to obtain paid sexual services of children abroad or to engage in an activity associated with child prostitution when they are out of the country.

The most alarming part of the issue is the fact that we have adults in this country who will travel to other countries to have sexual relations with children. It is alarming for me to realize there are adults from other countries who will come to Canada and take advantage of and abuse children from dysfunctional families who are prostituting themselves. There is a lot of work for us to do within our own country as well as internationally.

I would be remiss, however, if I did not question the effectiveness of this Canadian measure in eliminating child prostitution throughout the world. While it may bring Canadian citizens to justice, it will not stop citizens from other countries from engaging in sexual relations with children. Again I believe the only way to eradicate this form of sexual abuse against children would be through UN action and action of other international bodies.

I also support the portion of Bill C-27 which imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of five years imprisonment for persons found guilty of profiting from juvenile prostitution. I have some concerns regarding the effectiveness of imposing only a five-year minimum sentence. Pimping is a serious offence and as such should carry a severe penalty. I will therefore be seeking the advice of the witnesses appearing before the standing committee regarding possible amendments to this portion of Bill C-27.

Under subsection 212(4) of the Criminal Code obtaining the sexual service of a person under the age of 18 years is an indictable offence liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. Bill C-27 alters this section of the code by adding that it is an offence to obtain sexual service of persons believed to be under the age of 18 years. I support this change.

I would, however, recommend an additional change to make the procurement of sexual service of persons under the age of 18 years liable to a minimum of five years. Let us cut off the demand. If the Johns using these young children, abusing both girls and boys, knew they faced a serious term of imprisonment, they might think twice before they express their lust upon the children of our country.

Buying sex from children is just as bad as selling it. The sex trade in this country is a booming industry in which children appear to be a hot commodity. Child sex consumers demand young flesh. Pimps are parasites, some of them violent, who happily supply the demand. The demand for child prostitutes will not go away as long as child sex consumers sleep easily at night knowing their risk for arrest is minimal and if caught the penalty is only a maximum of five years.

According to the B.C. attorney general's office only eight B.C. men have been charged for buying sex from a juvenile since 1988. By contrast, 215 pimping charges were laid between 1988 and 1993. Sexually exploited children deserve protection in the Criminal Code with all other children who are victims of sexual predators.

Whether they are sexually abused on the street instead of in their homes or schools, the penalty ought to be the same. All children, especially those who are products of abusive and dysfunctional families which have forced them to retreat to the streets where they are further abused, deserve equal protection under the law.

If we ever hope to reduce and eventually eliminate juvenile prostitution, we must address the reasons children are turning to the streets where they are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Despite the justice minister's admission in the fall of 1995 that he had no money for crime prevention, we must implement preventive crime measures, particularly in relation to juvenile prostitution and in relation to young offenders.

As we go about the country reviewing the Young Offenders Act, the 12-year review, we should talk to groups and organizations doing early identification and preventive work to keep young

children out of the criminal justice system, prostitution and the drug trade. There are ways and means. We must spend more of the $10 billion that we spend at the back end of the system in preventive programs. They are there and they need our help. We can keep these young kids off the streets, out of prostitution, out of drugs and out of the criminal justice system.

Those children who are turning to the streets and a life of crime must be given an alternative safe haven where they can have some hope for and assistance in having a positive and productive future.

Finally I touch briefly upon the portion of Bill C-27 regarding harassment. We are all aware of the growing problem of domestic violence in the country and the need for the section on criminal harassment outlined in the bill. We need more legislation and more preventive measures in relation to domestic violence in the country, including more power for the police to investigate and prosecute people who abuse their spouses.

If the justice minister thinks Bill C-27 and his gun registration legislation are the only measures needed to combat domestic violence, I suggest he is wrong. Firearms registration will not eliminate or decrease this form of violence. This fact was evident in the recent and horrible shooting death of 10 members of a Vernon, B.C., family by an estranged and distraught spouse.

Now only did the police in that case not follow a 1993 government policy to investigate cases of domestic violence, including those cases where there is no co-operation by the victim, they issued a gun permit to a person who had allegations of violence and abuse launched against him.

I quote from an April 10, 1996 Globe and Mail article which states:

This mass killing of 10 people last week in Vernon, B.C., has revealed fatal flaws and everyday limitations to Canada's much vaunted gun control laws.

The two handguns used-in the killings were acquired legally because there weren't enough police officers, enough public funding and enough political pressure to pursue tell-tale doubts that he might have been dangerous.

In closing I reiterate my opening statement. We support Bill C-27, but we hope to introduce amendments that will enhance its effectiveness in eliminating juvenile prostitution, domestic violence and female genital mutilation.

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. She pointed out that under this bill those who commit murder who have first stalked their victim, if convicted, can be sentenced to first degree murder even though it is not required to prove intent and that the individual would have to serve 25 years.

In view of what the hon. member has said, would she be willing to support the elimination of section 745 of the Criminal Code which would allow that murderer to apply for parole eligibility after serving just 15 years?

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear that the minister is going to move on this very important subject.

Will the minister assure the House that the passage of the legislation to which he has referred is not just a half measure like so much of his legislation has been, and that it will be introduced in time to deny Clifford Olson the opportunity to appeal his parole before August 12 of this year?

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has not moved to eliminate section 745 of the Criminal Code that allows first degree murderers the right to appeal after only serving 15 years of a life sentence. Since we have come to this House Reformers have been asking for the repeal of this section.

Will the justice minister introduce legislation to repeal this section of the Criminal Code?

[Criminal Law Improvement Act, 1996, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-17 and I must oppose this bill. Bill C-17 contains a significant number of updates and improvements to the administration of law which are long overdue and the Reform Party supports this portion of the bill.

The efficiency of peace officers and courts would be aided through a number of the amendments contained within Bill C-17. Subclauses 4(6) and (7) of Bill C-17 will allow a peace officer to provide a statement of service without having to seek out a justice of the peace or notary to have the service sworn. This change will improve police officers' efficiency and reduce the workload of justices of the peace and redirect their expertise to where it is needed.

Similarly subclause 145(5) and a number of subsequent clauses of Bill C-17 will permit any peace officer to release an accused on recognizance. Currently only the officer in charge can do so. This

amendment improves police efficiency by negating the necessity to bring in the officer in charge for a mere procedural action.

Reform members support the changes in this bill that would enhance the way the police and the courts would be able to conduct their business. We also support the portion of the bill which strengthens the proceeds of crime legislation by ensuring that criminals do not retain the profits of their crimes, but we cannot support Bill C-17.

We do not support Bill C-17 because we are vehemently opposed to that portion of the bill which lessens the penalty for certain offences. That the justice minister felt it was necessary to slip this into an otherwise supportable bill is very regrettable in my eyes.

We oppose Bill C-17 because it places Canadians at risk through continued Liberal leniency. The Reform Party will only support a judicial system, and changes within that system, that places the punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property ahead of all other objectives and considerations.

The justice minister has been less than forthright with Canadians about the full impact of Bill C-17. The minister has touted the merits of this bill in that it modernizes the law and streamlines court proceedings, but he has been noticeably silent about the reduction in penalties for certain very serious offences.

Although Reform supports the administrative changes contained within Bill C-17, I would be remiss if I did not say that this bill is a nebulous, inconsequential piece of legislation to the vast majority of Canadians because it will be of little significance to the enhancement of the safety of Canadians, their children and their property.

Canadians are very concerned about their personal security and that of their families. These administrative changes will do nothing to protect Canadians from the murderers, rapists and other sadistic criminals that roam our streets and enter our homes.

Bill C-17 will not stop serial child killer Clifford Olson from applying for early release. Only a bill repealing section 745 of the Criminal Code will keep Olson locked up where he belongs but the minister has not brought in a bill of this nature.

Bill C-17 will not stop Robert Noyes from sexually molesting another child. The former Ashcroft teacher admitted to abusing more than 60 children. As a dangerous offender, he was sentenced to an indefinite period of incarceration on 19 sex related charges and now the justice system is turning him loose. The National Parole Board has granted Noyes escorted temporary leave and if this goes well, in nine months he will be eligible for unescorted leave with day parole following. Only a bill like the one proposed by my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley requiring the examination of sex offenders by two psychiatrists will keep people like this locked up where they belong.

Bill C-17 will not alleviate Canadian parents' fears that their children could be abducted, sexually molested or killed in any one of our communities or on our streets. The justice minister's news release at the time of the introduction of this bill stated these amendments illustrate further progress on the government's safe home, safe streets agenda. That is absolute nonsense. It is simply not true. How do you make safer streets and safer homes by reducing the penalties for crimes such as the forcible confinement of individuals and being unlawfully in their homes? I simply do not see it.

Canadians want substantive change within the justice system. They want legislation that effectively enhances public safety. They want legislation that sends a clear message to criminals that if you are going to commit the crime you must serve the time. Canadians want this legislation in the hope that it will deter ruthless thieves from entering and destroying the sanctity of their homes. Canadians want a bill which repeals section 745 of the Criminal Code. They want the Minister of Justice to vote in favour of victims and victims' rights. They do not want a minister that upholds and protects the rights of criminals to the detriment of the law-abiding, peace loving citizen.

Last year the minister voted against private member's Bill C-26, which would have extinguished the right of first degree murderers to a parole eligibility hearing after serving only 15 years of a life sentence. Canadians do not want the minister giving killers this so-called glimmer of hope. They want killers behind bars and they want them there for a minimum of 25 years as the law originally intended; not 15 years and not 20 years. Canadians overwhelmingly want murderers behind bars for the full length of their life sentences.

What is the value of a human life to the justice minister, the Prime Minister, the Liberal government? Is it just 15 years? That is what they are telling the people of Canada. They are telling Canadians their laws are enhancing public safety. Nothing could be further from the truth.

August 12, the day Clifford Olson is eligible to apply for a parole eligibility hearing, is rapidly approaching and the minister still has not introduced a bill which will deny this serial child killer the right of appeal after serving just 15 years of a life sentence. That is how this justice minister is getting tough on crime. That is how he is making our streets and our homes safer.

Olson is not the only murderer with a glimmer of hope to get out before serving his full sentence. Ralph Ernest Malcolm Power is eligible July 10 to apply for early parole on his first degree murder conviction. In 1981, 28-year old Power, an ex-con out on mandatory supervision, beat 20-year old Sheryl Gardner's face to a bloody

pulp with a hammer. He confessed that he was attempting to stun her just a little so he could rape her. Power was arrested for the murder of Sheryl after attempting to kill another woman.

The Minister of Justice should have brought in a bill that would keep Clifford Olson, Ralph Power and many others behind bars. Why is the Minister of Justice not listening to the victims of violence and the Canadian Police Association? Why has the minister not repealed section 45 of the Criminal Code? The Minister of Justice should be dealing with crime first and then administrative matters, not vice versa.

In the wake of the horrific crimes against Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, capital punishment is resurfacing as a major issue with Canadians. The evidence is growing that if Canadians were given the opportunity to vote in a binding referendum on capital punishment, an initiative supported by the Reform Party, Canadians would choose to sentence our most ruthless and sadistic killers, like Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson, to death. The Liberal government refuses to give Canadians this right and this opportunity.

Canadians also want the Minister of Justice to bring in dangerous offender legislation. They want the minister to end statutory release. They want the minister to end the automatic release of prisoners after serving only two-thirds of their sentences even when signs indicate these people will commit further crimes. Melanie Carpenter who was kidnapped, raped and murdered is one of the latest victims of this kind of Liberal thinking and mentality.

The minister has promised to bring in an omnibus bill which will encompass these two initiatives, initiatives which would significantly enhance public safety, but we have yet to see the bill. Instead, all we have been given in the last year is Bill C-2 and Bill C-42 which amend the Judges Act, Bill C-9 which reinstituted the law commission, and now Bill C-17.

Bill C-27, which we support because it deals with child prostitution and stalking, should have pre-empted all of these bills. All Bills C-2, C-42, C-9 and now C-17 do is make life a little easier for those involved in the justice system. They do not and will not make Canadians safer.

In fact, Bill C-17 will give Canadians more reason to be concerned about home invasions because the Liberal government, through Bill C-17, has lessened the punishment for this Criminal Code offence. Bill C-17 reduces maximum sentences and changes strictly indictable offences to dual procedure offences.

The redesignation of offences from indictable to dual procedure permits and encourages judges to consider those offences as less serious and therefore permissive of lesser punishment to include mere financial penalties. While most of these offences are non-violent, with the exception of forcible confinement, they involve intrusion into the sanctity of our homes and forgery which may deprive our most vulnerable citizens, our seniors, of valuable financial assets.

According to Statistics Canada, in 1994 break and enter accounted for 15 per cent of all Criminal Code offences while 25 per cent of all Criminal Code offences were for property offences. Eighty-one per cent of break and enters involved forced entry. Property was damaged in 71 per cent of the cases and property was stolen in 81 per cent of cases.

Instead of expressing concern and outrage over these figures, the Liberal government is now saying these offences deserve a lesser penalty. These offences, which infringe on the financial and mental security of Canadian citizens, are going to be dealt with more leniently because of Bill C-17.

Unbeknownst to Canadians, the Liberal government has been slowly moving in this direction over the course of its mandate, a direction we are opposed to because not only has it not been sanctioned by Canadians, it may very well lead to an increase in crime, not a reduction, which is what we in this party, as most Canadians, seek.

A shift of this magnitude in how we punish-or should I say in a politically correct manner, how we hold criminals accountable for their actions-should be reviewed and then approved by the public. Bill C-41 which passed a year ago introduced alternative to incarceration. This portion of Bill C-41 was overshadowed by the hate crime part of the bill which gave an added protection under the law to a category of citizens, including those classified by sexual orientation.

If asked today I am confident very few Canadians would known that the Liberal government has provided the means for a whole host of criminals, including sex and other violent offenders, to do community work rather than spend time in jail.

It is most unfortunate Canadians were not aware of the full scope of Bill C-41 which was described by the Canadian Police Association in the following manner: "Bill C-41 with few exceptions is unwieldy, complicated, internally self-contradictory, duplicitous and what is worse in all of it, completely unnecessary for anyone of any knowledge of or use for the common law heritage of Canada".

The police went on to say: "While it would attempt to codify basic sentencing principles, eliminating this most basic judicial discretion at that the same time it would bestow huge new discretionary powers to a whole range of persons within the justice system. The common thread in those new powers is that all are to the benefit of the offender in the sense of non-custodial consequences for criminal actions.

"Where sentencing reform calls for protection this bill offers platitudes, where it calls for clarity it offers confusion and outright hypocrisy. It will almost certainly cause the already skyrocketing criminal justice budget to expand further still."

That was a statement made to the standing committee on Bill C-41. I could not have better summarized this Liberal justice bill nor the mentality or thinking behind it which is reflected again in Bill C-17. What better words to use than those of the Canadian Police Association, an authority to which the justice minister readily turned to add credence to his gun registration bill.

Section 717 of Bill C-41, the Liberal's response to the overcrowding in Canadian prisons, was the most contentious part of the bill. Rather than attempt to reduce or prevent crime by dealing with the causes of crime, something Reform has been urging the government to do, the Liberals have decided to turn prisoners loose, a sentiment which has been echoed by the former head of corrections services, Mr. John Edwards and the head of the parole board, Mr. Willie Gibbs.

We would not have objected so vehemently to this section of Bill C-41 if the government had specified which offences may be applicable to alternative measures. We could support the use of alternative measures for specific non-violent offences to reduce expensive court proceedings and incarceration. However, no such specifications appeared in Bill C-41.

The Canadian Police Association and the Victims of Violence recommended section 717 be amended to "restrict the availability of the program to persons who have committed less serious offences and first time offenders". Specifically reflecting the opinions expressed by these witnesses, the Reform Party introduced an amendment during the clause by clause consideration of that bill to limit the use of alternative measures to non-violent offences. Our amendment was defeated by the Liberal majority on that committee.

Alternative measures have been used for years by police officers in this country. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has cautioned the police to restrictively use their discretion in dealing with offenders.

Fearing they could be violating an offender's right, the police are strictly playing by the book in many cases in arresting, charging and finally convicting an offender, whereas before if they picked someone up for a minor violation, they may have dealt with the matter informally, providing only a stern warning and exposing to them the threat of being charged the next time should they violate the law again.

I agree with the Canadian Police Association. We cannot limit police discretion in this area by creating an expensive unnecessary bureaucracy, such as that imposed by Bill C-41, which will potentially allow violent offenders to go free under the guise of alternatives to incarceration.

We cannot lessen the penalty for criminal offences as proposed by the justice minister in Bill C-17 and say to the people we are getting tougher on crime.

I draw to the attention of the House the sections of Bill C-17 which make it impossible for Reform to support this bill, a very small portion of an otherwise supportable bill.

The existing laws dealing with forceful confinement of a human being makes this offence an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years which classifies this as a very serious offence. If Bill C-17 passes unamended the severity of this offence will be lowered significantly. The maximum penalty will still be 10 years. However, it will become a dual procedure offence which may be processed by either indictment or summary conviction.

This means that under a summary conviction procedure this offence can be reduced to a maximum sentence of 18 months or only a fine of up to $2,000. The criminals who held in confinement a B.C. woman who was nine months pregnant could receive as little as a fine under this new amendment.

Is this making our streets and communities safer? I do not see it. I do not understand how. This Criminal Code amendment clearly signals to the courts this type of offence is to be treated in a less severe manner than is currently the case.

Admittedly, the Liberals may argue, the decision on whether to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction is made by the crown. The courts will undoubtedly be influenced by this downward trend in sentencing.

Section 348(1)(e) of the Criminal Code regarding breaking and entering for places other than a dwelling house will also be changed to a dual procedure offence. The maximum sentence will be reduced from 14 years to 10 years under indictment. Not only that, it can be tried by summary conviction with a maximum penalty of 18 months or simply a fine. What does this say to society? What does it say to the criminal element?

The offence of being unlawfully in a dwelling house, Criminal Code section 349(1), has also been changed to dual procedure with imprisonment up to 10 years or processed by summary conviction, again with a maximum penalty of 18 months or simply a fine.

Currently unlawfully being in a dwelling house is an indictable offence with a maximum imprisonment of up to 10 years. This is another downward trend in sentencing and flies in the face of the statement made by the justice minister that he is getting tough on crime.

Similarly, section 367 of the code regarding forgery and section 368(1), uttering forged documents, will be amended to dual procedure offences with imprisonment of up to 10 years or processed by summary conviction whereas the current punishment is indictable only with the imprisonment of up to 14 years. This is another unacceptable downward trend in sentencing that lessens

the penalty for serious crime which will not be lost on those who prey on innocent people.

Canada is faced with rising crime rates, particularly violent crime, rising fears regarding personal safety, escalating costs to administer justice and to house prisoners and, to top it all off, a growing debt which severely limits spending. The task of the federal Minister of Justice to deal with these problems in unison will be difficult but not insurmountable.

Bill C-17 is not at this time part of the answer. It does not address the increase in crime in Canada and it does absolutely nothing to confront the cause of crime.

Bill C-17 if enacted unamended will lend itself to an increase, not a decrease, in crime thereby threatening, not enhancing, public safety.

Bill C-17 is living proof the justice minister does not-I say this with respect-seem to know what he is doing. On one hand he states he will get tougher on crime, that he will make our streets and homes safer when what he is actually doing is making it easier on criminals by reducing penalties. I cannot do anything other than oppose Bill C-17.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 1996]

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".

[Justice, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the justice minister is not considering this to be an important issue.

Yesterday the Ottawa Citizen stated: ``Judge Isaac's actions constitute one of the most serious erosions of judicial independence in Canadian history''.

My final supplementary question is this. The Minister of Justice admitted yesterday that he learned of the judicial interference involving his deputy assistant one week after the March 1 meeting. Why did he wait almost three months to make a ministerial statement in the House? Why did the minister not immediately reveal to the House and Canadians the inappropriate actions of Ted Thompson and Chief Justice Isaac.

[Justice, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the justice minister was asked if he was prepared to lay a complaint against Chief Justice Isaac with the Canadian Judicial Council. He said no, claiming it was not up to him to order the council to investigate the irresponsible actions of the chief justice.

Section 69(1) of the Judges Act explicitly gives the federal Minister of Justice the responsibility and the authority to order an inquiry by the judicial council into inappropriate behaviour by a federally appointed judge.

Why did the minister not fulfil his responsibility by following the appropriate course of action? Why did he not order the inquiry by the judicial council?

[Justice, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Assistant Deputy Minister Ted Thompson's letter to Chief Justice Isaac, dated March 1 states: "Further to our meeting this morning in which I advised that the Attorney General of Canada is being asked to consider taking a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine some preliminary points of law, primarily because the Federal Court trial division is unable or unwilling to proceed with the subject cases expeditiously".

Who asked the justice minister and what was the basis on which the minister was asked to consider taking these revocation cases from the hands of Justice Jerome and referring them to the Supreme Court of Canada?

[Justice, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his response. If there was an internal inquiry done, as the minister has assured the House, could the minister please tell us who authorized this meeting between Mr. Thompson and the chief justice, and who authorized the written correspondence that followed?