Peter MacKay

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again with respect to this amendment as it pertains to a revision or an adaptation to an amendment contained in Bill C-16. This refers specifically to form 7.1 as it exists currently in the Criminal Code. The amendment is aimed specifically at allowing a police officer in the form of the warrant to include a description as it pertains to a person the police are seeking.

That person may be found within a dwelling House and may be unknown in terms of the actual name of the person sought by the police. The acceptance of this amendment and including this in the form would allow the police to give a description to a justice of the peace that is acceptable to the justice of the peace to the extent that they might then fill out the warrant. The police could therefore go to the dwelling house named in the warrant and make proper arrest.

There is still judicial discretion. The justice of the peace will always have the discretion to refuse the police if that description is unnecessary. So there are sufficient safeguards in place.

I do not want to speak at length. The proposed amendment is very straightforward. Mr. Speaker, I believe you will unanimous consent with respect to this amendment.

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I have no difficulty whatsoever with having these two amendments split and discussed separately, that is amendment 3 and amendment 5. I am certainly prepared to agree to that suggestion by the parliamentary secretary.

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-16, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 6 the following:

“or a person with the following description (—),”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-16, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 8 with the following:

“of A.B., or a person with the following description (—),”

In circumstances where the exact name of the individual sought is unknown to police officers, rather than put in the actual written name of that individual, they could put in a physical description, thus increasing their ability in investigations where the name of the person sought by police for whatever reason could be pencilled in. Obviously this will be at the discretion of the justice of the peace. It is something that will be monitored. It is not an arbitrary or frivolous change to the form that would be included in the warrant.

I would strenuously suggest that this is something to which the government should give due consideration in its adaptation of both amendments with respect to clause 3 in the bill, as they pertain to Form 7 and Form 7.1. For those reasons I would again solicit the support of the House, including the government, with respect to this amendment.

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comment made by the parliamentary secretary that the government had to get this legislation through. There was reference to the court essentially setting a deadline without any compromise. That is not the case. There is precedent that there can be extensions. A request could have been made to the supreme court quite simply. That is my point of clarification.

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-16, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 6 the following:

“529.6 For the application of section 529 to 529.5 inclusive, and without referring to the Interpretation Act, the word “dwelling-house” shall be deemed to include “dwelling- houses” when the circumstances arise.”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-16, in Clause 3, be amended by

(a) replacing line 27 on page 7 with the following:

“house or houses);”

(b) replacing line 29 on page 7 with the following:

“to enter the dwelling-house or houses for the purpose of”

(c) replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 7 with the following:

“dwelling-house or houses unless you have, immediately before entering the dwelling-house or houses, reason-”

(d) replacing line 36 on page 7 with the following:

“dwelling-house or houses.”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-16, in Clause 3, be amended by

(a) replacing line 21 on page 8 with the following:

“in (here describe dwelling-house or houses);”

(b) replacing line 23 on page 8 with the following:

“enter the dwelling house or houses for the purpose of ar-”

Madam Speaker, I am proposing in this amendment a very practical common sense solution that would go a long way in assisting police officers when encountering a situation where they are looking for an escaped criminal, breach of parole individual, or looking for a person wanted by the police for a serious or indictable offence.

In its present form this amendment speaks of the naming of a single dwelling house. I know the government's response may include the Interpretation Act wherein the singular includes the plural. One of the purposes of parliament should be to create new, wordy and mellifluous sounding legislation and to simplify for the police, and as I said in the House yesterday for the purpose of the general public, understanding of the legislation that directly applies to them.

This amendment is quite simple in its drafting. It includes dwelling houses rather than dwelling house. It would allow a police officer faced with a situation where he had to seek a warrant to go and speak to the justice of the peace and explain. It also allows him to name specifically the areas where he is looking.

For example, if a criminal was believed to be harboured in the home of a friend, at a clubhouse or at a residence that he was known to frequent, the police could quite simply place on the warrant a number of dwelling houses or house in which they were searching for him. It gives the police more flexibility in their ability to investigate. It is a very straightforward amendment. I would be surprised if the government were not quick to embrace it.

I also want to address a question posed by my hon. friend from the NDP with respect to why this is the forum in which to make these amendments.

As I indicated earlier, what occurred in committee was a simple ramrod railroad approach to clause by clause discussion of these amendments. There was no opportunity to discuss or to put these amendments forward. It was done in the blink of an eye without any ability to put the amendments forward in any substantive way, to the point where we were so rushed in the compromise of this committee that we did not even have the opportunity to speak of the ground rules that would govern the committee itself. This was done after the fact.

We brought this piece of legislation to the committee level without having set the rules to govern the committee that was going to be making decisions on the amendments. This causes me great concern.

I do not blame the parliamentary secretary. I have empathy for her and the chairman of the justice committee who found themselves in this position and were doing the government's bidding in a very uncomfortable situation.

I put this amendment forward in all god faith and in all seriousness. I encourage hon. members of the House to look at it. I have tried to explain it in a very straightforward way. It is one which would assist police in their very necessary and very public duty to carry out and exercise arrests throughout the country.

Once again I encourage members to support this amendment and I thank the House for its indulgence.

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-16, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 45 on page 5 and lines 1 and 2 on page 6 with the following:

“529.5 A warrant under section 529.1 or an authorization under section 529 or 529.4 may be issued on an information submitted by telephone or other means of telecommunication and, for that purpose, section 487.1 applies, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to the warrant or authorization.”

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this amendment with some regret that we are in this situation. We are facing a problem within the Department of Justice when important amendments are being made to the Criminal Code that for all intents and purposes are being ramrodded through at the committee level and through the House.

As a result of the supreme court decision in the Queen v Feeney, the Department of Justice was faced with a situation in which it had to fill a gap that had been left by the supreme court when it struck down sections of the Criminal Code that pertained to the powers of arrest.

What has happened here is akin to the trampling on the right of Parliament to actively and in a substantive way participate in the debate and the process to make recommendations as they pertain to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Time was certainly of the essence. The supreme court, by virtue of a stay that was entered back in July of 1997, gave Parliament the time to react to fill the gap left by the decision handed down in the Queen v Feeney.

The problem that I have with this is that five and a half months have past. The justice department was given ample opportunity to react, to make the appropriate amendments to address this situation. By the time it reached committee stage, members of Parliament, the elected officials of this House, were given less than five days to consider it. To be precise, they were given approximately eight hours to discuss, in the presence of witnesses and among each other, these very important amendments which affect the powers of arrest for all police throughout the land.

The committee did have the benefit of hearing a number of very important witnesses. The witnesses included the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Chiefs of Police. We heard from a victims' advocate group, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime.

We also had the benefit of hearing from a very distinguished criminal lawyer, a gentleman by the name of Irwin Koziebrocki. Mr. Koziebrocki is the treasurer of the Criminal Lawyers Association of Canada. Of all the witnesses, he made a statement which I found quite startling. He deemed one of the proposed amendments to be unconstitutional. He said that it would not withstand a charter of rights challenge.

That is not to say that his opinion could not be wrong. However, when an experienced trial and appeal court lawyer makes this pronouncement before a committee, hours before the amendments are tabled and given third reading, that should give the department and all members of the committee reason to pause and to ponder whether we want to have this legislation pushed through in a flawed form, leaving it open to the possibility that within months, weeks or days we could be faced with another court challenge which may strike down, in the worst case scenario, these amendments.

The first amendment which I have put before the House pertains to the authorization of telewarrants in Canada. This amendment came about after some consultation with the Quebec bar association, which did not appear before the committee but which submitted a brief.

The amendment speaks to the evolution of new technology in communications which should be made available to all peace officers in the country.

The reality of Canada, of this vast land, is that we are not all centred in large metropolitan areas like Calgary, Toronto or Halifax. A great part of this country is spread out in rural areas. Police officers are often working out of one or two person detachments. They need to have access to justices of the peace. They need to be able to get authorization to act quickly and in a very decisive way.

Telewarrants, this new form of technology that we have with fax machines, with telephones and with cell phones, increase the possibility that a police officer can do something when faced with exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances is a newly coined phrase that came out of the decision of the Queen v Feeney. Exigent circumstances often exist in the daily lives of police officers that are faced with very serious situations.

Telewarrants permit police officers to contact justices of the peace, but that is all for naught if the resources are not allocated to make justices of the peace available. It is easy to pick up a phone or to dial a fax number, but if no one is on the other end of the line to receive the information and authorize the warrant, a real problem exists.

I would suggest that this amendment goes further than the present amendment as proposed by the government in enabling peace officers in broader circumstances to avail themselves of the ability to have a warrant granted. I want to add to that the necessity of the resources. The resources have to go cheek and jowl with the ability to get these warrants. We need to ensure that there are going to be more justices of the peace available, particularly in rural parts of the country.

I would emphasize the remarks I made at the outset. It is with some regret I find myself in this situation where we have to debate this further on the floor of the House of Commons. The committee level, had it been conducted in a more professional and timely way, would have avoided this necessity.

This amendment is one that all members of the House should consider and support. It goes to increasing the security for all Canadians and aids the police in their very important role in enforcing the criminal law within the country. As members of this House, particularly members of the justice committee, we have to be very strident in our attempts to oversee what is happening with the amendments to the Criminal Code.

The Minister of Justice, the chief executive officer for administering law in this country, can and should have at least contemplated the necessity of rising from her seat, walking down Wellington Street, knocking on the door of the Supreme Court of Canada and ask for an extension. It would have avoided the necessity of pushing this through at the eleventh hour. It would have allowed us to have proper debate at the committee level and if necessary on the floor of the House of Commons.

I speak in favour of this amendment. I would be very interested to hear the remarks of the hon. members present today.

[Criminal Code, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this bill which has been introduced by the Reform member for Langley—Abbotsford and my counterpart as House leader in the Reform Party.

As mentioned by previous speakers, Bill C-211 would amend the Criminal Code as it applies to the arresting and detaining of individuals who breach their conditions of parole or statutory or temporary release. In principle I want to state at the outset that I agree with the bill. In my view it provides our law enforcement officers an additional tool in their fight against crime.

Giving the police increased power always is a contentious issue. I believe in this instance it talks of increased discretion to be exercised on the part of the police in their ability to fight crime and to do their job as peace officers. I fully endorse this.

The changes that are talked of here in section 495(1)(a) of the Criminal Code which would allow peace officers to arrest individuals who breach their conditions of parole or release, in particular, deserve support by this Chamber and its hon. members. I say so with some experience myself.

I listened very carefully to the comments of the hon. member from the Reform Party who had from the sounds of it consulted extensively with a peace officer in his riding. I have spoken personally to a number of police officers as well.

I have spoken to Constable Kevin Scott, Constable Dwayne Rutledge and other police officers from my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I have sensed the frustration that many of our police officers sense when dealing with criminals who have gone through the process.

Criminals have been convicted after due process. They have gone through appeal processes and are serving time as their debt to society and upon being convicted and placed in an institution, having appeared potentially before a parole board, have been granted early release often with good reason. The principle to recall here is the fact that those individuals are paying a debt to society. If released early, essentially they are being given a break, a second chance, and while in society and taking advantage of the break that has been afforded them, they run afoul of conditions which for good reason have been placed upon them.

I listened again with great interest to the comments with respect in particular to pedophiles or individuals who have been told to abstain from alcohol. I would suggest that it is extremely important for police officers, who observe individuals who have these conditions placed upon them, to have the ability to act and to act quickly and decisively.

I listened as well again with great interest to the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. I agree that in its present form the Criminal Code does have provisions for police officers to act in a decisive way to get authorization to place an individual under arrest. The difficulty is in the timing. Officers do not always have the time to get the necessary authorization. They do not always have the time to get to a justice of the peace who will give them the go ahead, or to contact the parole officer involved, particularly in rural parts of the country.

In rural Canada detachments often have one or two officers. Often the justice of the peace is responsible for a vast territory. Human nature being what it is, that justice of the peace may be over at his neighbour's playing cards. He may simply be out in the barn. Unfortunately, justices of the peace are not always on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

This is a very timely debate. Another bill is presently before the House which is the so-called Feeney bill, Bill C-16. It touches on much of the same subject matter that is being discussed today.

I want to discuss another component of the amendment to section 497 of the Criminal Code. It would give the National Parole Board the opportunity to apply to keep a person, who is in breach of his conditions, in custody until the board can issue a warrant of apprehension. This is not an arbitrary detention. We are discussing the rights of an individual who has had the benefit of due process and has been convicted of a criminal offence. There is an important distinction to be made.

I do not favour voting rights for criminals, nor do I favour, in this particular instance, any sort of special treatment or special allotment or second chance. The individual is paying his debt to society. He has been afforded early release and has now run afoul of those conditions.

I generally support the change, with some reservations. Any form of arbitrary detention has to be carefully scrutinized. The key word is arbitrary. The provisions put forward by the hon. member of the Reform Party, I would suggest, are not arbitrary in any way, shape or form. The direction provided in this bill for detention may be vague and may eventually undergo the scrutiny of the charter of rights and freedoms.

I would suggest that this is true of any amendment made to the Criminal Code. That is part of the process of which we partake. It is part of the responsibility which is incumbent upon us in this Chamber. Defence lawyers, I am sure, will be ready to pounce on any detention of their clients which would later be proved unjustified. This is merely a caution that I raise.

Perhaps we could clarify the language in the bill. I am sure the hon. member of the Reform Party would embrace that, as long as it did not change significantly the principle which he is trying to bring forward.

The intent of this bill is positive. I am pleased to say that we in the Conservative Party support it.

I would also embrace another theme touched on by the hon. member, and it is that we should strive toward making the law not only more efficient but simpler. It should be more understandable, not only for police officers who have legal training, but for the public at large. I believe that the public at large is becoming alienated and, to some degree, very disgusted with our criminal justice system.

Overall there are changes that can be made to the Criminal Code. I believe this is the forum and the place for elected officials to partake of that process.

Another reason I support this bill is that it would open a window of opportunity for the National Parole Board to collect additional information on offenders when possible. It would be a responsible thing for them to do.

The offenders who break their terms of parole or conditions of release are once again breaking society's trust in their ability to respect the law. The National Parole Board consents to returning offenders to the mainstream of society on certain conditions. If those conditions are breached, then the board, in turn, must act responsibly and re-evaluate the risk to society posed by the offender. A convicted person forfeits the rights which are afforded to all Canadians.

The bill gives the National Parole Board additional authority to exercise that responsibility, and there is a larger question at play here. The question concerns the effectiveness of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, especially as it relates to the National Parole Board.

The National Parole Board is operating as effectively as possible, but is it doing so to its full ability and is it doing so to the extent where it completely protects Canadians? I suggest there are examples, but I am not going to recite them at this time, that suggest that the National Parole Board has to re-examine its own effectiveness.

The mandate of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is established by an internal board of investigation on incidents. These incidents should be brought forward and examined at length to see if the National Parole Board is living up to the standard.

I want to mention one further positive element of this bill that requires parliamentary study, the ability to exercise the arrests that these police officers are charged with. I think we have to look most specifically at whether this bill will improve the present law. Will it allow police officers to more effectively carry out the very onerous task that is imposed on them to protect society? If this will further the cause of justice, then it is something we have to work together in a non-partisan way to see carried through to fruition.

[Remembrance Day, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to pay tribute to the many Canadians who risked their lives, and for those who fell in the cause of peace and freedom that we enjoy today in Canada.

This Remembrance Week commemorates those who sacrificed their lives so that we might enjoy the ways of freedom and the many who gave their lives at an early age. Myself and many Canadians at the age of 18 or 19 were finishing school, heading off to university or starting a career. Although we share the same age, the lives of those who served may have ended. Clearly the ultimate sacrifice made by earlier generations in our country has helped to ensure peace, security and the opportunity for subsequent generations.

Historians often note that Canada is one of the few countries in the world that came about peacefully, without bloodshed. While Confederation did not directly result from military battles on our soil, Remembrance Week reminds us that today Canada was forged by yesterday's battles beyond our borders.

The muddy fields of the Somme, the dark skies over the Rhineland, the cold, murky deeps of the North Atlantic, Hong Kong at Christmas; these are the many places where our soldiers, sailors, airmen, merchant marines, nurses and doctors put their lives on the line. They fought for their families, their communities and their country. They defended Canada against aggression as members of the army, navy, air force and the fourth arm of our fighting services, the merchant navy. Many never returned from battle.

The central structure of these Parliament Buildings, the Peace Tower, houses the memorial chamber. In that chamber are the books of remembrance which hold the names of every Canadian who died for our freedom. Each day a new page is turned.

The altars hold the books for the Boer war, the first great war, the second world war, the Newfoundland memorial, Korea and the merchant marine. Some of the names on those pages today include William Locke, flying officer; Edmund Masters, able seaman; Alphonse Roy, soldier; William Worden, private; James Daniel, second engineer; Germain Houle, private.

We remember them and honour them not just today, not just this week and not on November 11 but here in Parliament each and every day. Alexander Yorkton, corporal; William Zorn, sergeant; Richard Nankervis, lance corporal; Pierre Joquet, chief engineer; Francis Holland, private; Joseph Jackman, able ordinary seaman.

These names, along with the more than 100,000 names that appear on these tear stained pages are the many reasons that we remember our war dead, our veterans and their families, not just November 11, but 365 days of each year.

[Taxation, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, during last Parliament's debate on Bill C-92 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said that the old system of deduction inclusion was not working for the benefit of Canadian children. As a result, the Income Tax Act was amended so that child support payments would no longer be deductible for the payee nor be included in the recipient's income.

In theory, these changes seem equitable but in practice it translates into smaller amounts awarded by judges. Monetary awards for children are now smaller than what used to be left in the hands of recipients. Could the minister of revenue explain to the House why taking money from poor families affected by divorce is of any benefit to Canadian children?

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to speak to a bill introduced in the House to amend the Criminal Code and the Interpretation Act, specifically referring to the powers of arrest to enter into a dwelling house.

A key objective of Bill C-16 is to provide police across the country with the power to enter a home and effect an arrest of an individual. This came about as a result of The Queen v. Feeney case in the Supreme Court of Canada on May 22, 1997. In the delivery of the decision in The Queen v. Feeney the court ruled that as a general rule police require a warrant to enter a private dwelling to effect an arrest.

This decision overturned a longstanding existing string of case law that did not require police to obtain a warrant to enter a home in arresting an individual if that police officer had reasonable and probable grounds to effect that arrest or, prior to entering the home, indicated in the presence of the accused that the authority and reason for entry was part of the normal process.

The Supreme Court of Canada found that in this situation the privacy of Canadians under the charter was not adequately protected.

The charter has been given broad interpretation by our courts and in this instance the police have been curtailed in their ability to carry out their duties as it refers to arrest. No doubt this ruling causes great concern among the police community and victims' organizations that public safety may be put at risk in certain circumstances as a consequence of the delay required to obtain a warrant.

Many members have spoken concerning this bill. I listened with great interest to the comments of the opposition parties as well as the government. There are various perspectives that have significant bearing on the issue.

One of the concerns I have is the issue of hot pursuit in a situation where a person suspected of a serious criminal offence is being pursued into a residence or business and the ability of police officers to carry out their duties by effecting an arrest. There are also concerns that tie into that with respect to the preservation of evidence and the overall issue of protection of the public through preventive measures that police officers are charged with in their daily duties.

The attorney general of British Columbia joined with other provinces and the federal government and successfully applied to the Supreme Court of Canada to suspend the judgment that was issued in Feeney for a period of six months to give Parliament the time needed to address the effects of this ruling and to fill the void left by The Queen v. Feeney.

In the meantime, police feel they are in limbo on this issue and are anxiously awaiting definitive direction and action to be taken by the government.

Today we are looking at the government's response to the supreme court decision. I acknowledge in essence—and I want to put this clearly on the record—that it is a positive position the government has taken on this decision. It is the government's attempt to fill the gap left by The Queen v. Feeney case. However I want to put comments forward with respect to the bill and I say again that I support it in principle.

The Feeney decision could not be left to stand, lest effective law enforcement, including the arresting of individuals committing crimes would be jeopardized with the existing situation were it left as it is.

Before going into the substantive effect of the bill, I would point out to the House and to the government, with the greatest respect, one of my concerns. The government's response was somewhat slow to the situation and the timeframe that was allotted by the supreme court. Six months is certainly sufficient time to respond. Obviously the country went through a federal election in that time but the business of the day has to be carried out regardless of the fact that the country is going through an election. I would suggest that a matter that is certainly of significant importance to the law enforcement community could be addressed within that time period.

In a press release dated October 30, 1997, the Minister of Justice is quoted as saying that the bill “strikes a reasonable balance between the powers available to the police to protect their safety and the privacy rights of Canadians”.

I am pleased to hear this pronouncement and this assessment by the minister regarding the legislation. However considering the fundamental implications of Bill C-16, and those implications on the rights of individual Canadians, I hope that the minister will take into account the need for the justice committee to properly and openly discuss the impact of the bill. All indications are that this will be moving to the justice committee this week. I am encouraged by that.

To be quite frank, I am unsure that this House has enough time left, with 11 sitting days, both to pass the legislation and fulfil the commitment to Canadians to act thoughtfully and responsibly with their best interests in mind. However, we are used to working under pressure in trying to respond quickly and I am pleased to say that we are going to endeavour to do this with the time allotment we have.

It is my position that this bill should be carefully studied at the committee level. That is why I raise the issue of delay. I know that the minister and her officials are prepared to hear the response of the opposition parties as well as witnesses at the justice committee level.

Those witnesses I would suggest will include the Canadian Police Association, bar associations throughout the country and crown prosecutors who will be given an opportunity to testify and give their very important and insightful views on the bill and their suggestions on how this bill might be further tightened up.

This is the time and the place to fix this bill and draft legislation that is going to effectively fill the gap left by Feeney and we should try to get it right the first time.

In order for the standing committee on justice to do all of this, the time issue is a factor and I hope we will be successful in our efforts to respond before the deadline of November 22.

By having tabled the bill today and with the debate on second reading, it would be easy to demonstrate to the supreme court that Parliament has already started serious study with respect to the work that has to be done. A suspension could be requested if required and there is precedent for this. It has happened in the past. We may have to make this request should the justice committee have insufficient time or the witnesses not be permitted sufficient time to speak to this issue.

I want to turn briefly to the bill and its objectives. What does this bill do and what should it do? Without any doubt, and I think it is common ground, the first objective should be to help to protect and serve the community. We also have to recognize that the police officers, the rank and file, the individuals with the badges that are on the beat, have to be given assistance when it comes to effecting arrest and carrying out their duties.

Does Bill C-16 do all this? Does it accomplish this and can it be improved? Again, these are questions that members of the justice committee and hopefully those bringing forward testimony are going to help us answer.

I had an opportunity to be involved in a number of cases that included search warrants and individual rights, and the balance that must be struck between the protection of the public and those individual rights was always at issue. Certainly any piece of legislation that addresses issues of arrest where police officers are entering into private dwellings or places of business to effect arrest has to be viewed in a very, very serious light.

Businesses of course enjoy a different degree of privacy than a private dwelling. Certainly the police, as in many of the situations they face on a daily basis, have to be entrusted with the greatest of discretion. We can never ever ignore the fact that police officers are looking for direction from the Criminal Code of Canada and those legislators who have input into the process.

The specific concerns I raised at the outset surrounding hot pursuit are issues which I hope will be the subject of lively discussion at the committee level.

Domestic violence and the need for all police agencies to address this will be better served when the issue is completely ironed out. Police officers are called upon daily to intervene in issues of domestic violence. They must be given the utmost support and assistance if they are to effectively combat this very, very serious problem in our country.

Drug searches are another area where the bill will have an impact. Police officers are facing an epidemic of rampant drug use throughout the country. They must be given the discretion to enter into a dwelling house or areas where drugs are suspected to be housed.

Police are always working in a pressure filled environment and there is more and more attention drawn to police and the job they are entrusted with. In my experience I have seen police exercise very good judgment and act responsibly and lawfully in the majority of instances.

Having said that, the principles that underscore the bill are sound. At present, police officers throughout the country are working under a system which is somewhat cumbersome and ineffective without a substantive position being put forward in the Criminal Code. Some of the proposals in this bill would certainly clarify it and would help the police do their job more expeditiously and would give them the knowledge that they are acting on solid ground.

I would suggest however that the bill needs to be amended or at least tinkered with in some areas. This would include when police officers are seeking an arrest warrant and the authorization to enter into a dwelling house and their ability to tell a judge about a specific residence they want to enter to effect an arrest. This information is not always available. Again it ties into the immediacy of the situation where they may be in pursuit or they may be faced with an emergency situation where they have to act immediately to prevent further injury, to prevent hiding or disposing of evidence. This is something the bill does not address effectively.

True, I certainly acknowledge that it is possible at times to speculate where a suspect may be, but this information is not always predictable. Surely in the public interest the apprehension of a suspected criminal where the police have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed outweighs the concerns about entering a hideout or a safe house where the criminal may be harbouring the proceeds of crime, drugs or weapons that may have been involved in the offence of which he is accused.

Another concern I have is with respect to the resources available to police officers when it comes to effecting a search warrant. There is really no mention whatsoever in the bill about the availability of justices of the peace or judges with respect to the issuance of such warrants. This I would suggest is a glaring omission. Without the resources it is really nothing more than lip service. If we have a very specific procedure in place as to how a search warrant can be obtained but we do not have the justices or the judges available to sign those warrants and allow the police officers to carry them out, then all is for nought.

Another concern that does arise from the decision itself, and an attempt has been made by Bill C-16 to address it, is the further definition of exigent circumstances which is the language that is used in the majority decision of Feeney. It is not clear, I would suggest, to this point what those exigent circumstances would include. The police I think are looking for further clarification on this.

True to form as in all legislation there are going to be challenges. Certainly the government cannot simply be responsive to the fact that this is going to be challenged and therefore try to anticipate every single charter challenge that may arise but clarification is needed on that definition.

Another point with respect to the listing of multiple dwellings within a search warrant and entry authorizations, the Interpretation Act seems to infer that singular means plural and vice versa within that act as the wording is set out in the current bill. I would suggest that there is still some vagueness surrounding the language as it pertains to multiple listings for residences or hideouts where a suspected criminal may be staking out.

In conclusion, I do want to say that we in the Conservative Party are supportive of this bill. I would also like to indicate that the Minister of Justice has done the right thing in responding in a timely fashion in this sitting of the House, keeping in mind my earlier remarks with respect to the work that has been done thus far to see that the bill is brought to fruition in the House. There is some concern I have in that regard.

The federal government obviously has a huge obligation when it comes to the Criminal Code of Canada. The Minister of Justice is certainly the top dog when it comes to effecting change within the Criminal Code.

I look forward to the opportunity of having a direct impact on the final draft of this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to seeing Bill C-16 through to its final conclusion which will hopefully be put forward in a way that it is going to be very effective in ensuring that police officers are permitted to do their job and to help keep the streets in this country safe and sound.