John Richardson

[National Defence, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question but it is hypothetical in nature and I am not prepared to answer a hypothetical question.

[Peacekeeping, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to pay tribute to our peacekeepers in Bosnia.

I had the opportunity to visit some of our peacekeepers last week where I saw first hand their efforts to keep peace in that unfortunate country, enabling its people to rebuild their lives after years of war.

I observed significant progress in making it safer by ridding the country of the scourge of land mines. I met with pilots and the support staff of the CF-18 squadron based at Aviano, Italy, whose task was to enforce the no fly zone over Bosnia. I had the pleasure once again of meeting them as they return today after doing a job well done in Bosnia.

The peacekeepers in Bosnia are fine examples of dedicated, courageous professionals of the Canadian forces who have placed themselves at risk to help nations and peoples to find peaceful solutions to their disagreements. I am proud of these men and women, as are all Canadians.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the process has been so long established that it would require some deep and serious thought about approaching such amendments or changes in the judiciary.

Obviously I am not a lawyer and I am not legally trained. I think there could be a process if some members of Parliament come up with ideas substantiated with solid logic and support for change and have the support of the public of Canada.

At the moment I have no instant answers for the member.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the questions brought forward by the hon. member are sound. The place for him and members of his party to ask those questions is in debate in committee to see if those kinds of things can be worked through and a consensus can be brought forward. I think the recommendations are worth while.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-16.

Before doing so I would like to thank the Minister of Justice and the officials in her department for their swift and comprehensive leadership on this issue. I also thank the previous minister of justice for the bold leadership he demonstrated during our first mandate.

Our safe homes and safe streets agenda has been a tremendous success. Our accomplishments include sentencing reform, a new national system of screening child sex abusers, amendments to the Young Offenders Act and tighter controls on guns.

The approach of the Liberal government to justice issues has emphasized prevention. Prevention is the underlying philosophy. That is why we established the National Crime Prevention Council which continues to study what leads children into a life of crime and how to stop that pattern.

We have funded a national campaign against family violence. We have also improved peace bonds to make them more effective in keeping abusers away from women and children. To protect children from sexual exploitation we have brought in legislation to get tough on pimps and customers who prey on child prostitutes and prosecute Canadians who exploit child prostitutes in other countries.

Crime is not a simple issue. The Liberal approach avoids fear mongering and the kind of simplistic solutions we often hear in the House such as flogging petty criminals and throwing more and more people into expensive prisons for longer and longer sentences. That is why that policy is doomed to fail.

Let us move to why we are here today. The bill was introduced to correct a procedural flaw in our judicial system, a flaw that has been chipping away at section 8 of the charter. The section is one of the fundamental legal rights Canadians share that many people in other countries are still fighting for. It is the same right many people undertake when they wish to make their points. I remind hon. members that the section reads “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure”.

The Feeney case presented the problem of whether Canadian police officers should have complete discretion to enter a premises simply because they are investigating an incident and then upon stumbling across incriminating evidence should be allowed to ignore section 8 of the charter and proceed with an arrest. The officer in the case did not believe he had reasonable and probable grounds for the forcible entry. Therefore the court found the law inadequate to allow the police to do their job and to protect citizens privacy rights. I think there is a general consensus in the House on that background.

Our opponents may feel these claims are not strongly founded. However the bill will neither add to nor subtract from the powers of the police. The bill is designed to clarify the process so that the legal rights our opponents take for granted are protected.

Procedures will now be clear. A peace officer will be able to apply in person or by phone to a judge or justice for a warrant authorizing the peace officer to enter a private dwelling to arrest a person, if the judge or justice is satisfied that a warrant of arrest for that person exists and there are reasonable grounds to believe a person is in the dwelling, or authorizing the peace officer to enter a private dwelling to arrest a person whose identity is known or can be identified, if the judge or justice is satisfied there are reasonable grounds for an arrest and to believe the person is in the dwelling.

The proposed legislation would also allow the judge when issuing an arrest warrant to authorize entry into a specific dwelling if the judge is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person subject to the arrest warrant is or will be inside.

After explaining this some people will say there will be instances when peace officers will not have enough time to get the warrant. We have provided for that. The bill will allow police officers to enter the private dwelling without a warrant in exigent or pressing circumstances where it is not feasible to obtain one. These would include but would not be limited to situations where there is a reasonable suspicion that entry is necessary to prevent bodily harm or death to anyone, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that entry is necessary to prevent imminent loss or destruction of evidence. In total the bill strikes the right balance between empowering police to do their jobs and protecting the fundamental right of the charter.

The government has consulted with provincial attorneys general, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Association of Police and the Canadian Bar Association to prepare this legislation. I am pleased to see a broad consensus within the House to support the bill. For that I am truly thankful.

The government has been working tirelessly for safe homes and safe streets. We will continue to fight to preserve the rights of Canadians and to maintain the best justice system in the world.

[Search And Rescue, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, they can huff and puff but they won't blow the house down. The fact is the helicopters are on line. The announcement will be made imminently. The hon. member knows that.

[Search And Rescue, October 24th, 1997]

That is right. The other fact is to wait for the announcement on the helicopters.

[Search And Rescue, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, that supercilious sort of sham reasoning is belied directly by the facts. This helicopter would not have had the range to reach from Hibernia to the existing site.

[Search And Rescue, October 24th, 1997]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The member knows that. In fact we have picked up 10 survivors. One is critical and the other is not so critical. We are flying them into hospitals. We are moving as quickly as we can to close the gap and continue searching for bodies in the Atlantic. It is a heroic effort—

[Search And Rescue, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one correction. That was 550 miles the EH-101 would have gone. That was not within the range from the platform to get to those ships and you know that.