House of Commons Hansard #21 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was arrest.

Topics

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Morris Bodnar Liberal Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I will get the questions, which I have just asked, in reverse.

Bill C-8 poses a very interesting question to all of us. Generally in drafting such legislation and granting powers to whatever body, whether it is a police force or any other force, we must be very vigilant in making sure that the intent we wish to be carried out does not go to far. The Minister of Justice must be complimented for bringing forward legislation with restrictions so that it does not go too far and the intent of the legislation is carried out.

As we know, the intent of this legislation is to provide for the legal protection of police officers. It is not there for any other purpose. It is to provide for the protection of police officers, persons lawfully assisting police officers and those who use force that is intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to fleeing suspects who pose a threat of imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm. That is the purpose.

In drafting such legislation we have to look at the values in our society and what we need in our society. What we do need in this society is a prevention of crime and the control of criminals but it has to be within certain prescribed rules. Unless those rules are in place we will end up with a situation in which different members of society can run a little footloose and fancy free if the rules are not in place. For this reason we do require rules.

What should these rules do? They are laws that have to be fair. Fair is a very loose word to use. Then we go on to say that it must strike a balance. What is a balance? It has to be a balance between the rights of the fleeing suspect and the ability of police officers to protect themselves and the public.

This is what has to be dealt with in the legislation that is proposed. It is very important that this be drafted carefully because we are not dealing with just a minor matter. We are not dealing with some minor legislation. We are dealing with giving the right to kill. That is what we are doing. We are dealing with

the most serious of force. We are dealing with the granting in certain circumstances a right to cause the death of an individual.

We cannot allow such a right to be put in place without restriction which describe the conditions under which that right can be utilized. In drafting such rules we cannot avoid common sense because common sense obviously is required. We must rely on it in the drafting of the legislation.

It is quite important in drafting such legislation that we look at what we want to do. Of course, we do not want to cause agony for police officers and we do not want to cause them to have undue concerns. We do not want police officers to feel that they are restricted in their enforcement of laws. We understand that police officers have to make split second decisions. Sometimes they do not even have that much time to make a decision.

However the rules still have to be there so that police officers can, after having thought through this legislation, be able to make that automatic decision as to what to do in the circumstances. They have to know in that split second or less what they are doing because in training they know what their parameters are.

That is what is so important about this legislation as well. It has clarified to a large extent what police officers or peace officers can do. If it clarifies it for them then they know what they can do and where they can go.

It is so important in such legislation to have certain restrictions so that a police officer can understand what can be done and what cannot be done. Perhaps the legislation is not perfect, perhaps it needs some modifying and perhaps we can foresee certain problems that arise with this legislation but that can perhaps be cleared up in committee with a few alterations.

However, the general intent of the legislation is good. The intent is one of protecting the law enforcement people. We must go through it. It has been gone through by a number of members in the House already. However, there are certain aspects that have to be looked at.

Of course there are restrictions because the law as it is proposed in subsection 4 says that the police officer or peace officer is justified in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. As I have already indicated, the most serious of matters is taking a person's life or causing grievous bodily harm. That is not just bodily harm. It is grievous bodily harm in many cases causing permanent disability, et cetera.

Under what circumstances can a peace officer do this? It has already been enunciated that such a peace officer must be proceeding lawfully to arrest. That is not an undue hindrance on a peace officer because peace officers know when they can arrest and they know when they cannot. They know under which offences they can arrest. They know under which offences they can arrest without a warrant. They know where they require a warrant, et cetera. That should not be a problem to a peace officer.

Second, the offence for which the person is to be arrested is one for which that person may be arrested without warrant. Again that should not be a problem for a trained police officer to determine.

Third, consider when the person to be arrested takes flight to avoid arrest. That is a fairly obvious one where the police officer is trying to arrest the individual and he turns and starts running or the police officer announces that the person is under arrest and the person all of a sudden turns 180 degrees and is literally in full flight.

One has to question this situation. What if the person does not know the police officer is trying to arrest him? We get into these special exceptions depending on the facts of each individual situation as it arises. Again, that is a matter that can be dealt with in our court system. The courts have generally and very reasonably set out additional rules if they are necessary. The legislation is not sufficient.

The fourth aspect is with regard to the peace officer or other person using the force who believes on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the purpose of protecting the peace officer, the person lawfully assisting the peace officer, or any other person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm.

I must admit I have some sympathy with the hon. member from the Bloc who spoke previously indicating concerns with the wording of future. There has to be a concern. What does future mean? What does future death mean or future grievous bodily harm? Does it mean tomorrow? Does it mean 10 minutes from now? Does it mean six months from now? Does it mean a year from now? How imminent does that have to be? It does distinguish between imminent and future death.

That is a matter that perhaps can be looked at in committee. Of course the flight cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.

That is reasonable too because through experience I am sure that all know that police officers do not want to cause deaths of individuals. They will use precautions. They will take whatever steps are necessary. They will fire in the air. They will yell at the person. They will radio ahead for someone to get the person who is headed in a particular direction.

Generally the flight cannot be prevented if such drastic action is taken but a provision like this is important in case there is one police officer who decides otherwise.

I suggest there are concerns once we get into the other subsection dealing with the penitentiary provision for the peace officers in the jails. I will raise these simply as food for thought for some members.

The subsection deals with peace officers being justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm against an inmate who is escaping from a penitentiary. Then it says if the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that any of the inmates of the penitentiaries pose a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the peace officer or any other person.

That is a strange section. When a guard comes to work in the morning in a penitentiary he has to think who is being held in custody. Is there any person in custody who poses a threat of death or grievous bodily harm to anybody? If that person is even sitting in the special handling unit or in secure custody, if that person is within the penitentiary, that allows that guard to shoot a person who is escaping from the prison even though that person may not be an immediate threat.

That is a matter that has to be looked at. That section appears to give a right of stopping an escaping inmate simply on the basis of who is in the prison population, even though the person in the prison population may not be doing anything.

That is something that has to be looked at and that is why we look at this legislation. It would be quite unfair if the guard decides there is a person who would pose a problem, who may cause bodily harm, and he decides he can fire at that person who is escaping and then finds out that that person was released during the day and is no longer in the jail. All of a sudden the provision does not apply to him. It could be just as unfair the other way.

If the intent of that subsection is to allow a peace officer to cause death or grievous bodily harm through an escaping inmate when no other reasonable means that are less violent are possible then it should be said in that clause rather than having the cumbersome procedure that is available.

I support the legislation because it is so important to peace officers. The clearer the legislation, the better the legislation.

The amendments to the section before the House clarify to a large extent what peace officers may wish. It certainly places restrictions on them, but at least they know where they stand with the legislation. If there is something that is not clear and can be clarified, that can be dealt with further in committee.

I would suggest that for once we have legislation that police officers can look to. They can read it and say here are the circumstances in which we can do something and here are the circumstances where we cannot. Once they have that, it will help them react much quicker and much better in emergency situations. When that is the case we will have much better police officers.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker I have a question for the hon. member, recognizing that the hon. member is steeped in the traditions of law and is familiar with many charter cases that he undoubtedly has handled.

Several times in his presentation he mentioned "if the intent". That is my point in questioning this law, the fact that the charter will come into play. If the intent is unknown then we will be subject to all kinds of wrangling. The police officer will not have the traditional support of the common law principles in case law. He will be subject to the introduction of other questionable material and the case may go in another direction.

Will the hon. member please comment on exactly what he means when he tells this House that now police officers can be satisfied that they have some definite rules to follow. That is not the case if we do not have any case law to fall back on.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

February 14th, 1994 / 4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Morris Bodnar Liberal Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK

That is true. Until we have some case law to clarify particular matters, at times we will have to rely simply on the legislation so that we can interpret the legislation.

Let us not forget that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not change the common law. To commit an offence one still has to commit a particular act and a person must have a particular intent. That has never been changed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If a police officer runs into problems under this section and at any time is charged with a criminal offence, the police officer has the same protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as any other individual.

I can advise the hon. member that police officers are just as insistent on having the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as any other member of society.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB

Taking it one step further, if we are going to be looking at a piece of legislation such as this, it must answer the concerns of Canadians. Are Canadians happy to see more restrictions placed on police officers?

I do not believe they are. They have made that clear right across this country. We are going to be answering as parliamentarians many, many questions relating to crime and the way things are going with regard to criminal offences in this country. I do not see this legislation fitting the bill.

How will this member address those particular concerns of the Canadian people when in fact it is not going to serve them in a more efficient manner?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Morris Bodnar Liberal Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK

That is an interesting comment made by the hon. member, that this may not fulfil the wishes of the public. One has to question what the public wants.

The public wants efficient police enforcement. It wants people brought to justice when they should be and it wants individual rights protected. The public does not want police officers brandishing firearms and firing in every direction for any reason under the guise of protection. That would not happen. I am not saying police officers would do it, but individuals may. That would not happen. We want good enforcement. That is why we need a balancing. That balancing is between the protection of individuals and police enforcement and bringing people to

justice. That is what the Canadian public wants. The Canadian public will get it with this legislation.

It will get it within this legislation which I suggest to the hon. member police officers will support once it goes through the House.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn mentioned that police have the same protection as any other member of society under this law. I would suggest to him that the police may have the same protection, but they have more responsibility when it comes to enforcing the law.

I can recall as a youngster that if a policeman said stop, we stopped. That was the rule of the day. Nowadays it seems that if the policeman says stop, the criminal element says catch me if you can. The law will defend them if they say that.

I would suggest to the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn that if the government was interested in justice on this matter that it would increase the penalty for fleeing. In other words, it would try to make it very unattractive for people to flee from the law when they are caught red-handed in crime rather than penalizing police officers and making the police officers jump through a series of hoops to defend themselves if they happen to be attempting to enforce the law.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Morris Bodnar Liberal Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK

Mr. Speaker, the laws are there dealing with escaping from lawful custody. The penalties are in place. The penalties are certainly not light. It is a matter of those laws being enforced and enforced in the sense of having the appropriate sentences. If the sentences do not appear appropriate, they are taken through the proper legal channels so that the courts can deal with it at an upper level to deal with the penalty fitting the offence. If that is not appropriate then Parliament can deal with it.

The laws are in place now to deal with that particular aspect and to deal with it very adequately with respect to sentence so long as the judiciary deals with it appropriately in the circumstances.

We cannot overlook that each situation is different. When judges look at situations they look at them differently. They will look at one situation, look at the extenuating circumstances if there are any, and impose what they believe is the appropriate penalty. It may be quite different from another situation in which near the maximum penalty is the appropriate sentence. That is where the judges vary in sentences and that is where prosecutors decide or decide not to proceed through the appellate routes in appealing sentences.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta, BC

I would like some clarification from the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn. He suggests that there is a penalty for fleeing. I would suggest that there is also a penalty for using firearms in the commission of crimes.

I may be wrong and I ask him for clarification, but it seems to me that rather than these laws being enforced rigorously or definitely, quite often these matters are dealt away with in the judicial process: "If you'll do this, I'll do that" so the law in fact has no force in its effect.

I wonder if the member could perhaps clarify that.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Morris Bodnar Liberal Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK

Mr. Speaker, with respect to dealing these matters away, I am not familiar with that. I can tell him that I have worked as an assistant for 21 years. The way it is dealt away with is usually with a consecutive jail sentence. It is a question of how long.

On the question of using firearms in the commission of an offence, for the information of the hon. member there is a minimum jail sentence prescribed in the Criminal Code. It is a one-year minimum and it must be consecutive to any other sentence, not concurrent.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Terrebonne, QC

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-8, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (force), tabled for first reading on February 4, 1994.

I would like to start by emphasizing the need for providing a framework for the use of force, as indicated in the Criminal Code. There are two concepts in clause 1 of this bill that seem rather ambiguous.

The first concept with which we have a problem is that of reasonable grounds. What are reasonable grounds? Do they depend on an individual's personal judgment? Good question.

Two recent incidences are a good illustration of what I mean, and I am thinking of the Richard Barnabé case, where the police may have acted on what it felt were reasonable grounds, in a situation that did not necessarily warrant such action, and the case of three residents of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon who were accused of illegal fishing in Canadian waters, a case which fortunately had no serious consequences. The interpretation of reasonable grounds is therefore rather puzzling.

The second concept we would like to see clarified, as it applies to the fisheries situation, is the interpretation of necessary force. Again, the individual's personal judgment is supposed to guide him in the use of force to the extent that he judges necessary. However, a stressful situation may affect one's judgment.

As Hegel wrote when considering the principles of the philosophy of law, what is reasonable is real and what is real is reasonable. Hence this request for clarification of the concepts of reasonable grounds and necessary force.

We in the Bloc Quebecois would also appreciate some explanation of the use of the term "désemparé" in the bill itself. The Petit Larousse illustré 1994 gives the following definition of the term, as it applies to the fisheries: "Qui ne peut plus manoeuvrer, par suite d'avaries". ["The state of being disabled, of being unable to manoeuvre, as a result of damage."] This definition of the term as used in Bill C-8 would seem incomplete in the case of human lives.

The importance of the precision takes a whole new meaning when you consider that the same clause says: "-intended or... likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm-" In the Bloc Quebecois we believe that human lives should never be endangered by the decision of a single individual responsible for enforcing the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. We accept the principle of the use of force, but we must adapt it to the field of fisheries.

Our amendment is intended to limit the use of force, in order to avoid any dangerous situation that could lead to an escalation of violence.

The wording of our amendment bears some resemblance with a recommendation of a report from the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veteran Affairs, chaired by the Hon. Arnold Malone, and tabled in November 1990.

The recommendation said, and I quote, "-that research be conducted as a high priority into methods of stopping unco-operative boats on the high seas without endangering human life". What happened to that recommendation already four years old?

Second, I would like to stress the importance of attacking at the source the problem of poaching. But we must face the fact that we will not be able to do it alone, without the help of other countries. Negotiation efforts must be pursued with the international community.

If fishing outside the 200-mile limit hinders reproduction of fish stocks, the amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act will not solve the problem. Canada cannot legislate over international areas. Accordingly, negotiation remains the only possible avenue, hence the necessity of involving the Department of External Affairs.

Therefore, the Bloc considers that the solution is to be found primarily in negotiated multilateral agreements providing for compliance measures by various interested parties. The Concordia incident proves that that kind of situation cannot be solved by the use of force but by precise and clear agreements between various interested parties.

It should be recalled that in that precise case, there was no agreement in force between two sovereign countries, namely Canada and the United States. The ridiculously timid penalty given the master and owner of the Concordia shows the regulations' flaws. The fact is that Canada has to show clearly that it is determined to defend vigorously its sovereignty over Canadian waters. Now, as far as the concept of sovereignty is concerned, members from the Bloc Quebecois could most likely advise the Canadian government on the definition of that concept, even if it deals with Canadian waters, because we have some experience in that area.

Still, if only multilateral agreements had to be negotiated, we could possibly find a solution to the problem in a very short period of time. But no, once more we are confronted with a problem of overlapping-we are sorry if we always seem to come back to that issue but that is part of the problem-not federal-provincial overlapping but, as I mentioned in my first speech on environment, overlapping within the federal government itself. As a matter of fact, three departments could not agree on a single solution regarding the environment.

As for fisheries, and in particular in the present bill, four departments are trying to find a solution to a single problem which is, I admit, a big one.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and, in this instance, the Department of Justice are all working to find a solution to the problem.

This conflict between the various federal bodies goes back a long way. In fact, the same aforementioned report about maritime sovereignty, drafted under the chairmanship of the Hon. Arnold Malone and tabled in 1990, made this recommendation: "The Committee recommends that the government institute a program of regularly exercising interdepartmental coordination procedures, particularly for emergency situations, with a view to identifying problems and reducing necessary consultation time. Such exercises should include all responsible individuals and their alternates". This way, there would be no seven and a half hour delay before an emergency decision could be taken, as was the case in the Concordia incident.

Any amendment would be useless if the various federal departments are not even able to co-ordinate their action, so this is a critical factor.

In conclusion, we concur with the bill provided the amendment suggested by the Bloc is agreed to. I say again that I believe in a strict control regarding the use of force, as prescribed in the Criminal Code.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Terrebonne. Although he spoke mostly about the coastal aspects of the bill, I will direct a

question to him on the broader question of the situation faced by our enforcement officers in moments of crisis.

Unfortunately I was a victim of a gun crime many years ago. I would like the member to consider my question from the point of view of a victim or a potential victim and the relationship of the police officer at that point in time to the potential victim. If we put faith in our officers we have to accept that they face a very difficult decision in a crisis.

Even though the questions of the hon. member for Terrebonne are very good, does he not feel it is better to start with something like this? As has been raised before, we have to build some history, some common law, as a result of this legislation. Are we not better to start from this point and build from here rather than leave our enforcement officers in what is now a very difficult situation?

We have to stand behind them. We have to recognize that crime and violence are out of hand in some areas of our country in particular. Does the hon. member still feel this is a step forward even though he may not agree with every provision in the bill?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Terrebonne, QC

Mr. Speaker, as stated by my colleague, my remarks were not directly linked to that part of the Bill that amends the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and deals with necessary force.

My comments were aimed at coastal fisheries protection, as he pointed out, and I took that opportunity to highlight our amendment stating that at no time should human lives be jeopardized when disabling or boarding a vessel. If indeed there is illegal fishing, we must find a way to disable the vessel, make the necessary arrest and bring it to port, without ever putting any lives in danger.

My colleague, the Solicitor General critic, spoke earlier on the part of the bill dealing with the Criminal Code, and I will add that I am in total agreement with what he said. I will therefore refrain from making any comments on the Criminal Code, having chosen to address instead the issue of coastal fisheries protection.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are discussing does indeed have two parts but I will comment only on the second part, that is the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

The bill seeks to give fisheries protection officers the right to disable a foreign fishing vessel or to attempt to do so, within the limits of the regulations. As my colleague said before, the expression "to disable" a vessel is what is creating a problem here because definitions vary from one dictionary to another.

I checked the Robert dictionary and it says that to disable is to make unable, unfit, ineffective''; hence, to disable a ship means to cause damage that will prevent it from manoeuvering, for example cause damage to the helm, the motor or other essential instruments. The purpose therefore is not to sink the ship but to keep it from causing harm or sailing away. So that we may be sure of the meaning of the term, the bill should include a definition of the worddisable''; that way, there could be no confusion in the interpretation of the act.

A foreign vessel under arrest could then be disabled if it were in flight. If, while inspecting the vessel or interrogating its crew, the protection officer discovered illegal actions, the owners and the captain of the ship could then be forced to face Canadian justice.

We must admit straight off that foreign fishing vessels have been sailing for a long time in what are recognized today as Canadian territorial waters; they did so even before the discovery of Canada.

Therefore, they acquired historic rights which enabled them to obtain a permit to fish within Canada's 200-mile zone, provided they complied with the attendant regulations. Among other things, the regulations spell out the species that can be caught, the allowable size of the catch, where parties can fish, the need to keep a log, and so forth.

Some foreign vessels are occasionally suspected of fishing illegally. The Concordia affair which occurred on December 11, 1989, comes to mind. A US vessel, the Concordia , was fishing illegally in Canada's exclusive economic zone, on George Bank off the shores of Nova Scotia. Detected and photographed by a Canadian Forces Tracker aircraft, the Concordia did not respond to the Tracker's radio transmissions. It also ignored the Canadian Forces destroyer Saguenay , which it even rammed before retreating toward US waters.

Back in Ottawa, as my colleague mentioned, External Affairs, Fisheries and Oceans, DND and the Privy Council needed seven and one half hours to consult with one another before giving the Saguenay permission to use force to stop the Concordia . In the meantime, the Concordia had plenty of time to take refuge outside Canadian waters. The owner and captain of the vessel were fined $9,000, considerably less than what they took in as a result of the illegal fishing activities.

It is important for a country to protect its territorial waters. The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act now before Parliament gives fisheries protection officers the right to disable a foreign fishing vessel suspected of carrying out illegal fishing activities.

In speaking to this debate, I want to draw the government's attention to the importance of having regulations that spell out clearly when and how force is to be used to disable a vessel. I realize that regulations to this effect are being drafted, but regulations are not voted on. In my view, it is important that these regulations be tabled in the House prior to the adoption of

this bill on third reading. If this is not possible, then the restrictions that go along with this power should be spelled out clearly in the act.

Fisheries protection officers are being given this new power in an effort to halt illegal fishing by foreign vessels in Canadian waters. In the absence of any extradition provision with regard to fisheries, it is all too easy for a foreign vessel that has committed an offence in Canadian waters to escape scot-free by sailing out of the economic zone, keep its cargo and cash in the profits.

As we have just seen, it is difficult to disable a vessel. So, notwithstanding the necessity to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the government must continue to explore new ways of resolving the problem.

For instance, it could negotiate bilateral arrangements with other countries to arrest on arrival at their home port the captains of vessels suspected of illicit fishing in Canadian waters. It could insist that deterrent penalties be imposed on the owners and captains of vessels contravening the regulations governing their fishing licences. In that regard, it should be pointed out that since 1991, the fine imposed on nationals guilty of illicit fishing is $100,000 in the United States, while in Canada it can be as high as $750,000.

Finally, illegal fishing is not the prerogative of foreign fishing vessels. While pursuing ongoing efforts in the UN to ensure better protection for our resources through arrangements, it would be important that the Canadian government initiate a project to develop a national, if not international, code of ethics, the primary purpose of which would be to make everyone accountable and responsible for the conservation of our fishery resource.

Fisheries management must be decentralized. The industry must assume responsibility for itself and regulate itself in terms of the enforcement measures or penalties to be applied to those who contravene the code of ethics. For example, the fisherman who exceeds his fishing quota one year could see his quota reduced the next year. For illegal fishing, his fishing licence could be withdrawn or suspended for some time.

The Bloc Quebecois supports this bill from the Minister of Justice. Nevertheless, this bill should include an amendment forbidding the use of force if the lives of the crew of the fleeing vessel are in danger. The door to the use of force which we are opening today must in no case be used to excuse blunders which could be committed by protection officers using the right given to them today.

Canada must show its political will to enforce its 200-mile jurisdiction over its territorial waters. This alone justifies the bill today, although it is regrettable in some respects for moral and social reasons. Unfortunately, it seems that force is still the only language which some people understand, although it is not the most effective way to end illegal fishing practices. The aim of showing the international community that our country is determined to end these practices is quite laudable. However, the use of force is always risky. That is why the Bloc Quebecois's amendment is meant to limit the use of force so as to avoid unfortunate incidents.

I hope that the government will consider this amendment, especially since there is no causal relationship between illegal fishing and the Atlantic fisheries crisis. The government must restructure the fishing industry and develop new commercial practices to promote underused species.

Finally, we cannot stop illegal fishing practices without the other countries' co-operation. Negotiations with the international community should continue because today's amendment to the Fisheries Protection Act in no way solves the real problems of fishermen in Eastern Canada.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Reform

Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate this afternoon because I have spent some time on the ocean off the west coast of Canada and have participated in the fisheries in the early 1970s. I would like to share some of these things, especially with members of the Bloc, this afternoon.

Serving in the Canadian navy we had a very important role in protecting the 200-mile limit. It is important we understand that fish are a natural resource of Canada. We must protect our natural resources. As a matter of fact it is our sovereign right to do so.

I get a bit upset when I hear people say: "You have to be careful; you don't want to disarm or disable a boat because you might hurt the crew". I have some problems with that. First, the person responsible for the crew is the captain of the ship. It is not the responsibility of the people trying to enforce the law of the country; it is the responsibility of the captain of the vessel to ensure the protection of the crew.

I will use the analogy of a drunk driver for a minute. A man may sit in a bar and drink too much alcohol so that he is over the .08 level. Then he gets in his car and obviously is in contravention of the laws of Canada. Because he does not know the law does not make him not guilty; he is guilty under the laws of Canada.

I would agree with the section of the amendment as far as disabling force is concerned. I have looked at all the things here. There is adequate warning. There are flags and flashing lights. All these things are very typical to communication on the high

seas. It is very much the responsibility of the captain of the vessel to ensure the crew remains safe. If they are breaking the laws of Canada then they must pay the consequences.

The last point I would like to state is that in our national anthem we sing: "we stand on guard for thee". It is our sovereign right to protect our resources and this must be done. This is a good example of things we should be undertaking.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment made by the hon. member who used to be in the Canadian navy and had the responsibility of protecting Canadian territorial waters. It is imperative that the government protect its territorial waters. There is no doubt in my mind; however, we must not think that if we give the right to cripple a vessel, this responsibility will exclusively be assumed by the captain.

Competition is very stiff; fishermen must earn a living; they must catch as many fish as possible in the shortest possible time, and then they must move on. But these people have permits after all. In my opinion-correct me if I am wrong-illegal fishing in itself is not an act of piracy. However, I think it is important that these measures be taken with a maximum of guarantee as regards the protection of human lives. In my opinion, it will never be worth risking a person's life to arrest someone who is fishing illegally.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The time allotted for the debate is now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, I must now inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Court Challenges Program; the hon. member for Provencher-Small business; the hon. member for Wild Rose-The Environment; the hon. member for Kamloops-Small Business.

I understand there are no speakers left from the Bloc Quebecois, the Official Opposition, on this bill, nor from the government, except the hon. parliamentary secretary, who will conclude the debate. Consequently, two members from the Reform Party may speak on this bill. I have no objection. The hon. member for Wild Rose.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with mixed feelings in respect of Bill C-8. Although at the present moment I am leaning toward supporting the bill, I do so with some reservation.

I am concerned that no police official in my riding has been consulted with regard to this change to the Criminal Code. Further, having contacted the superintendent of K Division in Red Deer, Alberta, to his knowledge neither he nor any other official representing the RCMP in Alberta has been contacted for input into this bill. This strikes me as rather strange when the news release with this document states that it was derived from consultation with police officials all across Canada.

I am also having difficulty deciding in my own mind that this change will strengthen the ability of the police officer in making the necessary apprehension of criminals. In fact I am looking for assurances that the legislation will do exactly that. However, my gut feeling tells me that this could possibly reduce the ability of the officer to do his job, primarily due to the loss of precedents over the past few years.

In a nutshell, is the legislation for the good of the police or for the good of the criminal? I really cannot make up my mind what is the answer to that question. What was the motivation to bring in this legislation? Was it to make Canada a safer place for its citizens or was it brought about by pressure from special interest groups? They seem to have had a major impact on governments of the past and apparently are having an impact on the government of today.

If we were to talk to Canadians across the country, I am quite certain their feelings would be to strengthen the power of law enforcement. I am almost certain in their minds this legislation would not do that.

My colleague from B.C. and fellow Reformers brought the attention of this House to three deaths which have occurred at the hands of killers who had their charges reduced to manslaughter because they were drunk and did not know what they were doing. Research proves these types of offences are quite high. Does this legislation address these types of problems? I am quite sure the answer is no.

I am certain Canadians want to know when legislation is going to be put into place to stop or at the very minimum attempt to stop the killing of Canadians at the hands of first degree murderers out on day pass or early parole from this country's prisons. I have stated in this House I know of 23 killers who fit this category and have murdered 32 additional people and these are only the ones I know of. Over the last five years I wonder how many criminals have been killed during the process of arrest. I would guess the number would be significantly lower than 32. If that is the case, then where are our priorities? Are they truly for the victims and their families, or are they for the criminals?

If this legislation is brought about to protect criminals, then let us wake up and do what the red book says. Let us concentrate on the victims for a change and truly make this country safer for its citizens. Taking away authority from the police is not the way to achieve this goal. If this legislation is going to do that then I would have to oppose the bill.

In conclusion I want answers to the following questions. How many police officers have died in this country in the line of duty as compared to the lives of criminals lost? If more police have died then I would suggest this legislation must be geared toward protecting them. Is that the case? If not, then why are we doing something that may jeopardize our law enforcers even further while at the same time fattening the wallets of lawyers? I certainly hope that is not one of the motives for this kind of legislation.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity to voice my concerns regarding Bill C-8. I will listen carefully to the debate to hear the answers from my colleagues to my many questions and concerns.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will be quite brief. I raised the points I wanted to mention while questioning other members.

In preparing for this afternoon's debate I did talk to fisheries officers on the west coast who I thought probably should have been aware of any consultation which had taken place with the government before this bill was brought forward. My questions to them were the first ones they had heard on any change of this nature. Not only did I talk to fisheries officers in the field, I also talked to people with some authority in the department who should have been aware of the changes being talked about.

The question raised by the member for Wild Rose is one which we must keep asking-what is the motivation for this bill? Is the bill there to make law enforcement more effective? Is it there to make the streets safer? Is it there to protect our police officers? Will it make them feel more confident when they go about their duties knowing that the force of law is on their side and that the authorities and their supervisors will back them up when they make the tough decisions they have to? That is where this bill falls down. The bill does not offer police officers, whether they are fisheries officers, city police or the RCMP, the confidence they need.

Police officers in this country are not like members of the Gestapo. They are our neighbours. They are our sons. They are our friends. They are not authoritarian figures by far. They are people committed to public service. Yet they are people who put their lives on the line more often than not. They are people who put themselves into very dangerous situations making sure that Canada is a better country in which to live. That is where this whole bill falls apart. It does not offer these people the protection they should get. It does not offer them the kind of encouragement they need to continue their duties. I find it very disappointing.

It is difficult for us to imagine what it would be like pursuing someone down the dark alleys of one of our major cities or pursuing poachers in the dark of night along the banks of the Fraser River or in some isolated inlet on either the coast of British Columbia or Nova Scotia. It takes a particular kind of courage to do that work day after day. These people need our support and encouragement.

As I suggested earlier, if the government were truly interested in making the streets safer in this country, if it were truly interested in enabling law enforcement people to do the job Canadians expect and want them to do, we would be putting the onus on the criminal to stop. We would make it very difficult for a criminal to say: "I am going to try to get away from this thing". The penalties should be severe for those who do not obey the orders of police officers, whether they are guilty or innocent.

The onus is on us to expect that other members of our society will stop when a police officer asks them to and leave the determination of their guilt or innocence to the courts. That is what it is all about. We as Canadian citizens must recognize the very basic fact of life that the onus is on us to obey authority figures and leave the determination of guilt or innocence to the judicial system which I have a great deal of confidence in.

In conclusion I would like to say again that this law needs some work. We should be offering our police officers the encouragement they need. We should be coming down heavy on the criminal element that wants to escape the lawful requests and demands of the police authorities in this country.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Mr. Speaker, the two previous speakers talked about law and order, and I am in favour of law and order. However, in the last few years, we have seen a number of police mistakes, like the incidents that happened in Montreal and Toronto. I am aware that, under most circumstances, the majority of police officers do their job in a manner that is beyond reproach and deserves respect. Nonetheless, in the events I am referring to, as an ordinary citizen-even if I am a member of Parliament today, I remain at heart an ordinary citizen-I still have this feeling, this aftertaste, that things were not done right.

Of course, to better understand a given situation, I must have a number of criteria, of limits. What should a police officer do under the circumstances that led to these mistakes? Did the police act correctly? Without limits or criteria, it would be difficult for me to appreciate the consequences of their actions and that worries me.

On the contrary, if the limits are clear, if there is a definite rule to follow and if I am comfortable with this rule, like I am with the rule proposed in this bill, I will be in a better position to appreciate the behaviour of the police under these extreme circumstances. The police themselves may be in a better position to know clearly what society expects from them.

As a result, I do not agree with the comments made by the last two speakers, but they could perhaps help me to better understand their position now that I have explained mine.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member. I hold him in high regard and appreciate the sincerity of his comments.

To answer specifically from my point of view, the limits are quite clear. Referring to the events in Montreal and Toronto as I recall them the people involved were ordered by the police to stop and chose not to. That is where the problem lies.

Somewhere society has the idea that when the police order someone to do something, it is all right to try to play cops and robbers and try to get away. That is where the problem lies. I do not know whether it is too much TV or too much publicity for those people trying to get away.

I do not know what the answer is but that is the root of the problem. It is the people who flee. It is not the police officers ordering them to stop. We have to direct our efforts at encouraging people to have more confidence in this country's legal system. Maybe they are fleeing because they have too much confidence in it and know where they are going to end up. That may very well be, but that has to be where our efforts are directed.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Harold Culbert Liberal Carleton—Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, listening to my hon. colleague speak relative to Bill C-8, I am wondering whether he has read it and studied it carefully.

My impression is that it very clearly gives those parameters he has mentioned. It sets the parameters for our policing agencies to go about their duties in a very responsible fashion. It leaves no question. It refers to reasonable.

We have to interpret the word "reasonable". If one looks at the bill it follows through in trying to give the best explanation possible of what reasonable is which is, in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless that person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of anyone under that person's protection from death or grievous bodily harm. It is pretty straight forward.

I would ask my hon. colleague across the way if he feels that improves the situation we are in right now in which that police officer has that question in his mind. Now he has some jurisdiction to look at it to see if in his opinion at that given time, and it has to be opinionated because he is the only person who is going to be in that particular situation, it provides reasonable grounds.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, as I said before I am not a lawyer. My understanding from listening to people here this afternoon who are is that this law will be put in place and somehow or other the courts will interpret the law as it is read here today.

The difficulty I have with this law is that it does not address the problem it purports to address, the problem of people fleeing from police officers when ordered to stop. I do not think it addresses that problem. I think it simply makes it much more difficult for the policeman who has to take action. If that action involves bodily harm or involves the death of an individual, it makes it much more difficult for the police to justify their action.

It is very easy for us to sit here in this very safe environment, read the bill and say that it covers this and that problem and addresses this and that shortcoming. However, that is not where the action is played out. The action is going to be played out in some back alley in the city of Toronto or Montreal or, as I said earlier, in some dark corner of the Fraser River canyon or some place like that. This is where the whole bill falls apart.

We should be offering our police officers more encouragement than this bill currently does.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Cape Breton—The Sydneys Nova Scotia

Liberal

Russell MacLellan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all hon. members who agreed to partake in the debate today on Bill C-8. I would like to deal with some of the concerns as I understand the bill and to express my opinions as they relate to the legislation.

First of all I would like to discuss some of the questions that were brought forward regarding the fleeing felon legislation, in particular police officers and criminals.

After that, I would like to talk about fishing off the coasts of our country.

The member for Delta said that we really have to be concerned more with the safety of the police officers. This legislation is not meant to do everything in the criminal field to deal with all of our concerns.

The member for Wild Rose said it is unfortunate that the first piece of legislation the justice department brings forward deals with reducing the power of the police.

First, it does not reduce the power of the police. Second, the reason this legislation is coming forward now is because of the negotiation and consultation that has taken place over the past two years by this government and the preceding government. There was a lot of dialogue, going back to 1992. The consideration of this subject matter has gone on. The Department of

Justice now feels that the time has come to put this legislation before the House of Commons. I think to delay it further would be totally unnecessary.

It does not take away from the powers of the police. What we have is legislation that is overly broad in the Criminal Code. The current provision does not direct police officers to consider the danger posed by the escape of the suspect before using deadly force to attempt to prevent the escape.

It appears from the literal reading of subsection 25(4) that deadly force can be used to stop a suspect from avoiding arrest even though the suspect poses no risk of physical harm to anyone, including the police officer, provided of course that the escape cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent matter.

What we are saying here is that we are not risking the life of the police officer. We are not going to risk the life of anybody for whom the police officer has the role of protection. If it is felt that anyone's life or safety is threatened or grievous harm could come to that person, deadly force would be used. There are certain crimes which by their very nature would not pose a threat to the police officer or to the public if that suspect escaped. There would be other means of arresting that suspect.

We are not letting anyone go. We are not endangering anyone's life. We are saying that the law as it is now is so broad that the police can use deadly force for any offence that they wish. That is not in the interest of society and, from the discussions I have had with the police, it is not in the interest of the police. Every time somebody who is suspected of a crime is shot, people automatically say: "Ah ha, the police are gun happy. They just shot somebody for no reason at all". That is often not the case at all. Maybe now and then, in a very isolated incident, a policeman or policewoman uses his or her firearm unnecessarily. Very seldom will a police officer even draw his or her firearm unnecessarily.

I would be the last one to say that we are changing this legislation because police officers are using this section in the Criminal Code unnecessarily. They are not. They are being very responsible about the use of their firearms. There is no question about that.

This law has been in the Criminal Code in this fashion for a long time and we feel the time has come to change it. We are not in any way trying to reduce the effect and the force of the police.

The situation is that we have consulted with police officers in this regard. They feel that this provision in the Criminal Code should be changed. We also say that any doubt whatsoever is going to be given to the police officer. This is very clear in the provision as it relates to penitentiaries.

It was stated by the member for Scarborough earlier today that only certain guards in penitentiaries are armed. The fact is they are armed for a reason. If there is an escape from a federal institution-not a provincial or municipal institution because it is not felt that escapees from there are going to pose the same threat as from a federal institution-the guard cannot by the very nature of the institution take the time to find out if this is one of the more hardened criminals or one of the less dangerous criminals. Because there are hardened criminals in that institution, the guard has the right to use his or her firearm.

We have to look at this legislation. We have to look at it not from the point of view of changing it because the law has already been changed by the court decision. On April 26, 1993, the current subsection 25(4) of the code was ruled to be an unconstitutional violation of a suspect's section 7 charter right to life and security of the person. This was decided by the Ontario court in the case of R. versus Lines.

We have a charter decision in which the court said that if somebody has committed a crime and is fleeing, they can be shot. This very provision puts the life and the rights of the criminal in danger. I do not think anyone in this House would say that even suspects do not have rights under the charter. Every Canadian has rights under the charter.

We do not want to see criminals escape. I agree with the member for Delta that it seems to be more involved now to test the determination of the police to make the arrest, and more and more people are thumbing their noses at the authority of the police. That in itself does not warrant the person being shot. We have to keep that in mind. We have to look first of all to the fact that public safety is our most important consideration. We have to look too at the role of the police officer. As I see by this legislation, the police officer is not having his or her role interfered with or handicapped in any way.

I agree with members opposite that if that were the case then I too would have to look at this legislation in another light altogether. Because this is not the case, we have to make this change.

What happens if, although it has not gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, this provision of the Criminal Code is designated as being unconstitutional in accordance with section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Once that happens, effectively the provision is null and void.

What we will have here is a provision which is ineffective if we do not make a change. By not making the change we are hindering the operation of the police because they do not have any guideline now. The existing guidelines have been determined to be contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have an obligation now to make this change, to take away the

grey area, and to explicitly say in constitutionally acceptable terms what it is the police can do. That is all we are doing here.

I think we owe it to the police and to society to do this.

Something else is really important here too. The member for Gaspé, for example, says that he wants to move an amendment to the bill. It is a good idea because the standing committee will sit soon, maybe next week. It will be appropriate to present amendments in committee, and I would like to assure the hon. member here that his amendment will be considered and I thank him for his interest.

I do not promise that his amendment will be adopted, but it will receive our consideration.

It is a really serious situation, as the last speaker for the Bloc Quebecois said. We have a serious situation with the fisheries off Canada's Atlantic coast.

In Atlantic Canada now, we have more than 45,000 unemployed people. It is really serious and it is bad for the people of Atlantic Canada as well as for Quebecers, because there is really no more fishing now. We have a feeling that fishermen off the coast of other countries have the same problem. It is really necessary to have something, so that we can tell fishermen in Quebec and Atlantic Canada that there will be laws and regulations which will be applied in their interest.

We have to do something to tell the people we know there is a problem with foreign overfishing. We are not changing the laws here. We are not bringing forward something that does not exist right now. We are putting this into what we are considering in Bill C-8.

We are saying that we are not going to bring forward confrontation with foreign vessels. That is not the intention. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans outlined in detail the process we go through in confronting a foreign vessel. It is very detailed. Every chance is given for the master of the vessel to bring the vessel to a stop or to turn it around. Sufficient time is given for the crew to vacate a certain part of the vessel so that what has to be done will be done without endangering the lives of the crew of the vessel.

If something is not done then we are telling the foreign fishing vessels to come in and overfish and make a clean getaway. That is not the message we want to send. It is getting far too serious for that right now.

We do not want confrontation and it has not been done to date but we have to do something to enforce the fishing rules in our jurisdiction.

The last speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, has a great deal of experience and he was an admiral in the Canadian navy. He will give us some indication of how this can be done and how the Canadian government and the authorities would confront a foreign vessel.

I want to thank the members of the House for their participation. We welcome all their considerations in committee. We welcome any suggestions they may have. We want to have a good hearing on this. We want to call some witnesses. We are not going to call an unlimited number of witnesses but we want to get good witnesses who can make a contribution. The minister will appear to answer some questions that members of the committee may have. We want to take this to committee so we can begin this study.

I feel that there is a good reason for this legislation and we are going to aid the enforcement of our fisheries laws and regulations. We are going to give to the police officers a good provision that is constitutionally correct under which they can act. We are going to do this without hurting or inhibiting the security of the Canadian people.

I think what we are doing with this legislation is in the interest of all Canadians.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for a very interesting speech, to which I listened very carefully. However, there was no mention of regulations. Could the parliamentary secretary tell us how we will deal with the regulations? Could he describe how we are going to proceed, just for my information? How does it work? The hon. member told us we would be able to table amendments, which would be considered in committee, but what about the regulations?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Russell MacLellan Liberal Cape Breton—The Sydneys, NS

Mr. Speaker, there are under consideration right now by the minister of fisheries quite comprehensive provisions relating to the fishery on the Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence which is going to have quite a sufficient effect on the fishery, its future and how we are going to deal with its problems.

We are trying to deal with the foreign vessels fleeing the jurisdiction without getting into actual protection in other areas of the fishery.

Because of the nature and the complicated aspect of the fishery considerations that the minister is now pondering and the time it is going to take to put the final package together, that will come a little later.

I hope the hon. member can understand that we do not want to take a part of this away from the minister of fisheries because it is going to be a part of the whole package we expect.