I would like to state the position of the Official Opposition on Bill C-8, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
First of all, this bill would amend section 25(4) of the Criminal Code, which specifies the degree of force peace officers can use to apprehend a fleeing suspect or an inmate trying to escape from a penitentiary.
Second, Bill C-8 would amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to provide express authority for an officer to use force to disable a foreign fishing vessel whose captain is trying to escape.
As members undoubtedly know, this far-reaching piece of legislation has been a very controversial issue in Canada for a number of years now.
I will start by addressing the first part of the bill. The use of force by police officers to arrest fleeing suspects involves a number of social issues.
Obviously, law enforcement is at stake. For the public's sake, criminal law must be enforced and offenders must be arrested and prosecuted.
I recognize that we need to provide police officers with the tools they need to do their work, to protect themselves and to protect the citizens. However, law enforcement goes beyond ordinary police work. According to a very basic principle, it is up to the legal system to try the accused and to sentence the guilty.
When police intervention causes death, as it does from time to time, that principle is encroached upon at the expense of society.
Sometimes, it also goes against the will of the people who are asking for an overall reduction in the force used by police officers.
When less violent and objectionable police techniques can be efficiently used, it is in the interest of society to do so. There is always the possibility that an innocent individual, mistaken for a fleeing suspect, can be killed or harmed.
The population must also think about its own security. Two possible scenarios come to mind. On the one hand, dangerous criminals trying to avoid being arrested can put people at risk.
In such a case, there may be good reasons to risk causing grievous bodily harm to the offender, given the likelihood that he would inflict a lot of pain on people if he escapes.
On the other hand, when you are dealing with an offender who is not a public threat, or at least not a very serious one, public security would be more at stake if police officers were to use force to arrest the suspect, either by firing in the air or aiming at a fleeing car, instead of using less violent measures, at the risk of losing their suspect.
In the last few years, we have had to face another public policy issue following allegations that police forces are mistreating visible minorities.
When people are under the impression that the police are treating visible minority suspects differently, it can often create tense situations.
It is in the best interest of our society to reduce the use of force so as to avoid provoking anger among minorities and touching off a crisis.
So, we agree with the bill, which clarifies the criteria set for the use of force by peace officers against fleeing suspects, thus confirming the practice applied in the last few years.
Nonetheless, the use of the terms "imminent or future" in section 25(4) leads to abuse.
We would have liked the government to clarify these terms, which appear rather ambiguous to us.
The second part of my speech concerns changes to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Indeed, according to the Criminal Code, peace officers are allowed to use force in arresting an escapee.
We support this principle in the context of the Criminal Code, but we consider this approach not to be convenient for the fisheries.
We feel there is a huge disproportion between the various aspects of Bill C-8 and the scope of these measures.
The situation is tense in the fishing industry and the use of force to disable a foreign fishing vessel could result in an escalation of violence.
Moreover, the bill does not provide for the use of necessary force to disable a Canadian vessel, on grounds that other measures exist to track down offenders in Canada. This is an outright negation of the very purpose of this bill.
The use of force to disable a vessel is not the most efficient means to put an end to foreign overfishing. In the past, the use of warning shots has not permitted officers to board delinquent foreign vessels to inspect them.
Consequently, protection officers could be tempted to use more force, which could in turn lead to an escalation of violence.
Trying to show the international community how determined Canada is to put an end to illicit practices is a commendable objective. However, there are risks attached to it when the problem of unlawful fishing is not solved at the root.
Illegal fishing cannot be stopped without the help of foreign countries. Negotiations with the international community should continue since, as we all know, Canada cannot legislate in an international zone. Therefore, negotiations are the only recourse.
Madam Speaker, it is possible, through bilateral and multilateral agreements, to obtain the support of foreign governments in order to penalize shipowners who would chance to fish illegally in Canadian waters. Sanctions would have to be severe enough to deter offenders.
Although such cases are rare, we can put an end to this without jeopardizing the life of crew members. Disabling a vessel at sea is not as simple as it seems.
Even though we have all the necessary means to identify offenders, the government should rely on the cooperation of foreign governments instead. The amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act does not give the Canadian government the power to intervene in an international zone where agreements are not respected. The only way of settling the matter is to put in place, with other countries, a system of sanctions.
The addition of clause 8(1) could prompt the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to better equip its vessels so that they have enough striking power to intimidate foreign vessels. These investments are not a priority at this time considering the crying needs of the fishing industry.
Since I do not want to dwell on this, I will conclude by saying that the term "to disable" a vessel must be better defined and that the regulations must put some restrictions on the use of force in order to prevent abuse.
I hope the government will take these remarks into consideration. The use of force involves risks that cannot be taken lightly.