House of Commons Hansard #254 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cmhc.

Topics

National Housing ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

National Housing ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those opposed will please say nay.

National Housing ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

National Housing ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

National Housing ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, November 6, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

National Housing ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find a disposition on the part of the House to call it 1.30 p.m.

National Housing ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Shall I call it 1.30 p.m.?

National Housing ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

National Housing ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

So ordered.

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

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

November 3rd, 1995 / 1:20 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

moved that Bill C-343, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest without warrant), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-343 which I am happy to address today is not a lengthy bill. I do not believe it will require a lot of debate. I would like to read the actual amendment:

Subsection 495(1) of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following immediately after paragraph (c):

(d) a person who has committed the offence described in subsection 740(1) or who on reasonable grounds, the peace officer believes has committed or is about to commit the offence.

The purpose of this bill is to give the police or a peace officer the power to arrest without a warrant a person who is in breach of a probation order binding the person.

This is not an idea that was dreamed up out of the blue. It came to me from talking with a number of police officers during many of the ride-alongs I had with various police units throughout the country including Calgary and particularly Toronto. The officers had mentioned to me on a number of occasions that if they had the power and authority to arrest individuals who were in breach of a probation order, it would be a good preventive measure to stop a lot of crimes.

Let me give a couple of examples. When I was riding in a Toronto police car a couple of officers identified a young offender who walked by on the street at two o'clock in the morning. They named him and said he was a young offender who was on probation for dealing drugs. He was not even supposed to be on the streets past six o'clock in the evening.

I asked what they would be able to do. They said that they would take the name and report to the probation unit that this individual was in breach of probation. However, they had no authority to do anything. A young fellow who had been convicted of drug dealing being out at two o'clock in the morning probably meant that something was not right. It is the belief of those officers, and they have a number of cases they can name, that had they had the authority and the ability to take the person into custody for breach of probation that the crime, which was committed later in the evening by the individual, would have been prevented.

Another example. An individual, because of an alcohol problem, was on probation for either a domestic dispute or for committing crimes while under the influence. Whether there has been a court order or this individual is under probation, the individual is not allowed to enter a bar or a drinking establishment. This is part of the probation order. Police have told me that a number of times they see such individuals breaking their probation orders by either being seen consuming alcohol or going into places where they were directed not to go.

All the police can do is report to a probation officer which may take as much as one or two weeks because of the lack of manpower. Had they been able to just arrest the individual on breach of probation, summary conviction, that it would have prevented problems later in the evening.

A number of other times in one particular area there had been young offenders arrested on 52 counts of break and enter. These are young offenders who are required to attend school, are required to be at home by six o'clock in the evening and are required to do a number of different things. They were obviously in breach of probation on a number of occasions by being out very late at night. There were 52 charges of break and enter but only one conviction. They were found guilty on all charges. There was the one conviction but they were not incarcerated. They were put on probation and were expected to follow the rules.

More break and enters followed because these individuals were out late, clumped together and kept stealing. The police said: "If only we had the authority and the power we could have prevented some of these problems". They do not even have to arrest and lock them up. The fact that they would have the authority to stop them and ask them what they are doing breaking their probation orders, maybe giving them an opportunity to get the heck out of there and go home, would help. However they need the authority to do it.

This small little bill is just one measure that would help a great deal in the prevention of crime throughout the country. It is something the police have asked for. It is something that I have agreed to submit on their behalf. It was awhile before my name was drawn. I was lucky enough to get it drawn so I am putting this forward.

In the near future I will also be putting forward legislation that would give police the authority to arrest people who are in violation of parole and statutory release. Whenever there are conditions to a release somebody should have the authority to do something when they are in obvious breach of those conditions.

I do not believe any member in the House can say for a moment that it would not be a good idea to stop crime before it happens. There is no doubt in the minds of all the enforcement officers I have talked to that if they had the authority, which they do not have now, if they had the ability, which they do not have, they would be more than pleased to do these things because they feel that would be a major part of their job. Let us face it. Enforcement of the law is a major part of their job, but so is prevention. If those in the enforcement agencies can prevent it from happening, they do so.

That is why they stop drunk people from getting behind the wheel of a car and driving off. They do not wait until a drunk person drives off, they prevent it by trying to stop that person from getting behind the wheel.

This is a perfect example of something this House should do by adopting this kind of measure. I do not have much more to say on it. It is a common sense measure and does not encroach on anyone's rights or privileges. We always seem to be worried about the charter and the interference we may run into on a charter challenge.

The supreme court judges surely would get the message from legislators that this kind of legislation is serving a purpose. This purpose appears in the red book. It is in the Reform Party policies. It is in the Bloc policies. One of the policies of every party in this House is to make Canada a safer and better place in which to live. This kind of legislation would do that.

I encourage support from everyone in the House to put into the hands of the police departments throughout the country, the power and the ability to do this. They do not have it now. I repeat, they cannot do it now. Let us make it possible for them to do so. Let us take the burden off the understaffed and undermanned probation departments. They are running at an unbelievable pace trying to keep up with all the difficulties they now have.

It is a way of accomplishing what we all said we would do in our policies. It is a small way, but a good place to start. I suggest that we adopt this bill immediately.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Resuming debate. I see the member for New Westminster-Burnaby rising. It is not for me to manage the operation of the House but of course in private members' hour the mover of the motion has 20 minutes and the other speakers have 10. I do not believe the member for Wild Rose gave any indication as to whether he might be splitting his time. He did use only 10 of his 20 minutes. Perhaps the member for Wild Rose could help the Chair.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:25 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, I did not make any arrangements to split my time. It does not take 20 minutes to talk on this topic. I am willing to share my time with either one of my colleagues, with agreement.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Upon that clarification, certainly if another member of the hon. member's party wishes to split that time, there is 10 minutes remaining. I will recognize the member for New Westminster-Burnaby.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:25 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, after further consultation with my colleagues, let us go in the rotation order.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

As you wish.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Ian Murray Liberal Lanark—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-343. Let me begin by acknowledging what I understand to be the objectives of the member in putting this bill forward.

The objective is to make it easier for a peace officer to arrest someone who is breaking the terms of a probation order. The target group for this measure is anyone who is under a probation order. Such an order could include many types of conditions, for example, that the probationer refrain from alcohol, stay within the jurisdiction, avoid use of firearms, or attend counselling.

We may be talking about family situations where someone is convicted of an offence and is ordered to keep away from other

family members. It might be a situation where an offender is ordered to keep away from public parks or school yards.

Failure to comply with a probation order is an offence under the Criminal Code. I suggest that this is good criminal justice policy. Under the current provisions, an offender's probation can be revoked because of a serious breach of a probation condition. He can be arrested and charged for the distinct offence of breaching a condition.

Let us examine some situations and where it leaves a police officer who encounters someone who appears to be breaching one of the conditions of his probation. The police officer's authority is defined in section 495 of the Criminal Code which authorizes the peace officer to arrest without warrant a person found in the course of committing a summary conviction offence.

Say for example the peace officer finds someone loitering around a public park where children are playing. If the peace officer is suspicious of the person he sees loitering at the park, he can investigate in the usual way. If he finds that the person is bound by a probation order which forbids the person going near public parks, he may actually be in a position to arrest him on the spot. Just being present in the park may constitute an active criminal offence.

At the moment, breach of probation is a summary conviction offence and the peace officer's authority to arrest without warrant is limited. To arrest without a warrant the peace officer currently must satisfy the conditions set out in section 495 of the Criminal Code which states that a peace officer shall not arrest a person without a warrant where on reasonable grounds the public interest may be satisfied without so arresting the person at the time.

In making this judgment the peace officer must have regard to all the circumstances, including the need to establish the identity of the person to secure or preserve evidence concerning the offence, or to prevent a continuation or repetition of that offence or another offence. In effect the peace officer has some discretion to arrest on the spot but he must exercise that discretion according to several criteria laid out in the Criminal Code.

Bill C-343 would make the policeman's job easier by freeing him from having to satisfy these conditions. If breach of a probation order were an indictable offence, fewer conditions would need to be satisfied. In that case the police officer could arrest the person if he believed on reasonable grounds that the person had committed the offence or was about to commit it.

This is precisely what Bill C-41 does. Bill C-41 deals with Criminal Code amendments to improve and modernize our system of sentencing. It makes failure to comply with a probation order under section 740 a hybrid offence, that is, one that can be proceeded with by way of indictment or by summary conviction procedure. Hybrid offences are considered the same as indictable offences for purposes of arrest without warrant.

The bottom line is that the police officer will now have the flexibility the member for Wild Rose would like. The police officer can arrest without warrant where he believes the person has breached or is about to breach a condition of his probation and not just during the course of the offence.

Bill C-41 received royal assent on July 13, 1995 but is not yet in force. Therefore the first part of Bill C-343 will be unnecessary as soon as Bill C-41 comes into force.

I would also like to bring to the attention of this House another relevant modification included in Bill C-41. It is a modification to section 740 that may make it easier for the police officer to do his job. Section 740 refers to someone who "wilfully" refuses to comply with a probation order. Bill C-41 changes the wording to "without reasonable excuse". This may make it easier for a police officer to legitimately challenge a person, in the situation I have described, to provide a reasonable excuse for being in the park or near the school yard in apparent violation of the probation order.

Bill C-343 would give more freedom to arrest than Bill C-41 would give. Bill C-343 would create an exception to the general rule for this offence of failure to comply with a probation order. The arresting officer would not have to bother considering the overall circumstances, or whether it was necessary to take the person into custody in order to establish his identity for example.

It is evident there is a preference in our criminal law for using appearance notices or summons as opposed to arresting persons on the spot. Taking someone into custody without warrant should only be done where it is necessary. Alternatively the peace officer is expected to seek a warrant or issue the appearance notice.

Why should we make the breach of a probation order an offence different from most other offences in the Criminal Code? Why should the peace officer not be bound to respect the safeguards placed into the code to guarantee basic rights and liberties?

It is unacceptable to exempt this particular offence from the rules governing arrest powers for other criminal offences. I am not sure whether an argument could not be made that such an exemption is arbitrary or otherwise excessive and therefore contrary to the charter of rights and freedoms. The real issue here is controlling the risk to the community or to particular individuals presented in various situations.

Probationers are subject to the active supervision of probation services and this supervision provides an additional measure of control. Probation officers are experienced in judging when a breach of probation order is merely a technical violation or

something more serious that deserves revocation of the probation or an arrest and separate charges under section 740 of the Criminal Code.

Police and probation officers work together to monitor these conditions. I believe peace officers have what they need to handle almost every situation. If a suspect is actually committing the offence of breach of probation, they have authority to arrest that person without a mandate. Similarly, they have that authority when they believe the suspect has committed the offence or is about to commit an indictable offence. Alternatively, they may choose to issue an appearance notice or even seek a warrant.

They are not overly restricted in their ability to arrest someone who is hanging around a park or drinking alcohol or attempting to approach the residence of a former spouse without a reasonable excuse. If they believe a loiterer is about to repeat that offence or commit another one, they can exercise their good judgment and arrest that person.

I do not believe the criminal law modifications proposed in Bill C-343 are necessary.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

Reform

Paul Forseth Reform New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few extemporaneous, spur of the moment observations to make.

Perhaps I can provide some perspective on the bill, seeing that my previous profession was that of probation officer and I was in a situation where administratively I dealt with the relationship with the 24-hour contact agency, which is the police, and saw the behaviour of probationers. Often on a Friday or Saturday night things were happening in the community, but the probation officer generally worked in an office in a day situation.

Certainly the well meaning intention of this private member's bill comes from legitimate police concern. It also can be seen that it comes from public concern. I am adding that it also comes from criminal justice probation officer concern.

The bill gives some reasonable discretion for giving additional tools to the police. That is not to say, as the member for Lanark-Carleton would say, that this is unjustifiable in the panoply of what is available to police officers. However, we must look at what are the administrative instructions to police specifically concerning their justice time and the allocation of dollars. They are under administrative control to be very careful not to arrest on a summary conviction unless they are absolutely pushed over the limit and it can be justified.

The operational difference between what happens on the street and the permutations that may be technically possible under the Criminal Code are quite different.

I am saying that the bill is going in the right direction because it conforms to the principle of minimal intervention and intrusion to achieve a public good. Rather than trying to change the offence from summary to an indictable offence, it looks at a specific exception to the law, which is a minimal change. It is the minimum possible to achieve the objective. It provides an exception to the summary procedure in a special case where the police officer decides for the general social good that it needs to be done. Currently, because of administrative procedures those are simply avoided and discounted by saying we really cannot intervene. Why should we do this?

The administration of justice has been brought into disrepute by the current operation in the streets. Probation orders are often seen to be not worth the paper they were written on. Orders are given and they must be obeyed. They will be obeyed increasingly if there are regular consequences that flow. We are talking about general deterrence and the community reputation that develops around the operation of these court orders, especially conditions of probation such as not to enter premises where alcohol is sold or not to be out after a certain hour, not to frequent a particular bus exchange where it seems that criminals have a tendency to meet, geographic prohibitions or prohibitions to stay at least one block away from a girlfriend's residence because of a history of assault or threats. The community expectation is that these orders will be obeyed and can reasonably be administered without unnecessary administrative barriers. We see in the newspaper that the offender received a sentence and was placed on certain conditions, and the public can feel good about it. However, when we investigate it, we find the administration of the order actually breaks down.

The probation order must have some real meaning. The public delegates to the authority and then has an expectation that the order will be administered properly. The orderly operation and administration of court orders are very important. I think the public reputation is that court orders are not that well administered.

We have to overcome the community notion that the order is not worth the paper it is written on. There are administrative barriers that could be put aside by this measure. The bill is minor in size but I am saying it is very meaningful in its practical form.

The member for Lanark-Carleton outlined in some technical sense how this bill went beyond the current bill before Parliament. I am recommending it is an additional permutation that would be very helpful for the administration of criminal justice in the community.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

Reform

Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will take a few minutes to express some of my feelings and concerns about the area addressed by the bill.

For what purpose do courts issue prohibition orders? They feel under the circumstances it is the adequate action that should be taken to protect society. Probation is a comforting term, an order of probation. It is not unlike mandatory supervision term we hear.

Is it comforting that someone will be released before his or her time on mandatory supervision? The state is to conduct supervision over the person to ensure the safety of the public. We have seen how absolutely useless that type of condition is in protecting the Melanie Carpenters and the Sylvain Leducs from the kind of action the court has surmised will never take place.

I support the bill. If the court issues a probation what is it asking? It is asking the accused person to obey certain requirements: to stay away from bars, perhaps to stay away from the classroom or perhaps to stay away from a spouse who has been subjected to abuse, physical or otherwise. Does the court expect the person will simply obey those orders? What happens if he or she fails to obey? Probation officers do not have the manpower to deal with circumstances late at night. We also know police officers are usually there. At least they are on duty 24 hours a day. The public has access to them in case a probation order is violated.

If a wife realizes her husband is to stay away from liquor under probation and he is at a bar at two o'clock in the morning and she is sitting at home in fear of his attendance, what protection does she have? Should she phone the probation officer? Nonsense. That is impossible. She could phone the police under the circumstances. The police do not have any authority whatsoever to intervene to protect her from her husband even though he is in violation of a probation order set as a result of his violation of her.

I listened to the hon. member across the way speak about the laws being in place now to prevent that. If that were the case we would not be receiving feedback from police officers about the violations of individuals they have brought before the courts and the courts have placed on probation. They have seen the violation of those probation orders and can do nothing about it except to report the situation to the probation officer on Monday morning and if the probation officer has time he will follow it up perhaps two or three weeks later.

This is a common sense response to the cries of the police to give them reasonable tools to prevent crime and criminal acts from occurring. I suggest violation of probation is a criminal act. I do not think anyone will deny that. Why not place within the hands of our peace officers the power to do something about it? Therefore I support the bill.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the time of preparation of the bill I discussed it with a number of people, particularly those of legal mind, who felt it was an important bill to pursue. They also felt that it completely qualified under the 12 or 15 points that clarify whether a piece of legislation is votable or non-votable. It certainly met the criteria in all their eyes. I have also talked to a number of police authorities about it and they said it was the kind of thing they could use to help prevent crime.

I do not believe it is in contradiction to or identical to Bill C-41. I have been advised that is not necessarily the case. Therefore, with the idea that all of us are here to do whatever we can to prevent crime, it would be a small step in the right direction if we all supported it as a votable item. If there is unanimous consent I would move that Bill C-343, for the sake of the safety of Canadians, become a votable item.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The House has heard the terms of the motion by the hon. member for Wild Rose. Is there unanimous consent?

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

There being no unanimous consent, there being no further members rising for debate and the motion not being designated a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper pursuant to Standing Order 96.

It being 1.52 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 1.52 p.m.)