Debates of April 21st, 1994

Canada-Hungary Income Tax Convention Act, 1994

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-8, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (force) as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I have a ruling by Mr. Speaker on Bill C-8, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (force).

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

There is one motion in amendment on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-8, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (force).

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-8 be amended in Clause 1 in the English version by replacing line 30, on page 2, with the following:

"grounds that the inmate or any other inmate of the".

Madam Speaker, the amendment I am proposing this morning is very simple not only because it is short and self-explanatory, it is simple in every way. It proposes a simplification of the wording of the bill. In other words, I am suggesting we express what is clear in clear terms and that we state the two possibilities separately in both official languages. I am trying to give the legislative purpose of the bill a comparable, equivalent and similar form in the two official versions, French and English.

I am not questioning the content of the bill because I agree with it. I do not feel that these amendments to the Criminal Code will modify the state of the law. They simply give a structure to parameters the courts have already established around section 25 concerning the use of deadly force by policemen.

I am not convinced that all policemen will submit themselves to the five-step test imposed by the bill when faced with a life and death situation; on the other hand, I do not think this new legislation is changing anything much. Our consultations with

the judiciary and police forces have shown us that the spirit of the bill is accepted almost unanimously. It is not the content which is questionable but the form.

This bill gives us the opportunity to discuss a very serious legislative problem, a problem in the drafting of legislation. For a few years now, federal bills have taken on a very specific style in each of the two official languages and I am not talking about their literary aspect. I invite members to read at random parts of federal legislation.

Earlier this week, during the debate on Bill C-7, I commented on this obscure new drafting technique. I will certainly come back to it some other time. Let me just say for now that any piece of legislation, particularly in the case of criminal law, must be easy for ordinary people to understand.

What concerns me in the case of Bill C-8 for which I am proposing an amendment, as for all federal legislation, is the fact that the French and English versions generally do not match. My amendment is very simple and proposes to make both texts identical, not only similar or comparable but absolutely identical.

The statutes of Canada are enforced all over the country and both versions are equally official. They are enacted, printed, and published in both official languages. According to the Official Languages Act, both versions are "equally authoritative".

It must then be concluded that, where the English and French versions are diametrically opposed, two different laws must apply. Besides, the Official Languages Act itself illustrates that point perfectly as it includes its own contradictory clauses. Members of the House will understand what I mean merely by skimming through that act.

In Canada, we really have two official languages acts, just as we usually end up with two laws whenever we adopt a particular piece of legislation. No doubt, this situation is unique in the world, and we must make do with it, for better or for worse.

As I just said, even the Official Languages Act has two different official versions. Section 13 of the Act, which declares both versions equally authoritative, does not say it with the same meaning and effect in French and in English.

As one might expect, since the Official Languages Act has two official contradictory versions, so do all federal enactments.

For example, in the English version of Bill C-8, section 25(5) authorizing the use of deadly force against an inmate who is escaping reads as follows: "any of the inmates- poses a threat of death- to the peace officer or any other person-"

In the English version, the threat of death comes from all inmates and is directed against the peace officer concerned and any other person. In the French version, the peace officer can use deadly force against that inmate and any other inmate.

We understand that "all inmates" includes the inmate who is escaping. We also understand that, in spite of a different wording, the peace officer is justified in using deadly force whenever he is threatened by an inmate who is trying to escape.

But why must we say it differently in English and French? Why must we always complicate things and risk creating confusion? "Any of the inmates" does not mean " ce détenu et tout autre détenu ''. We must say clearly <em>un détenu</em> '' to translateany of the inmates'', or this inmate and any other inmate'' to really translate ce détenu ou tout autre détenu ''. Let us stop complicating simple things.

That is the purpose of my amendment. As I said, it is simple and it is aimed at ensuring simplicity, and, if I may say so, at ensuring clarity and agreement between both official versions.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, the member for Saint Hubert is proposing to amend the English version of Bill C-8 to bring the wording closer to the French version.

Legislative drafting takes place parallel in English and French. Each official version conforms to and reflects the genius, spirit and rules of each language. Neither version is the literal translation of the other nor is it meant to be. Therefore, formal discrepancies are inevitable.

The language in clause 1 as in other clauses is meant to be in plain language to the extent possible. The language in the French and English versions is used to express the intent of the legislation with the utmost clarity and precision, respecting grammatical rules and seeking to avoid undue repetitions and the use of more words than are necessary.

The use of the words "any of the inmates" in line 30 is short and clear and easy to understand. To add the extra words in English, as proposed by the hon. member, just in order to achieve a literal English translation of the French, adds nothing of substance and serves only to detract from the current English plain language version and therefore cannot be supported.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The question is on motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion negatived.

(Motion No. 1 negatived.)

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Madam Speaker, there has been agreement by the three parties that we proceed now with third reading.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak on behalf of Bill C-8 at third reading. I hope this bill will receive support from all sides of the House.

Bill C-8 marks a significant advance forward from the anachronistic fleeing felon rule. In addition, it preserves the ability of the police to protect themselves and the public from serious harm or death. As well, this bill balances the ability of police officers to maintain the safety and security of the public while respecting the rights of Canadians.

Hon. members should know that Bill C-8 has the support of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police believes that Bill C-8 responds to the need for change in a way that provides police officers with the necessary tools to do their jobs in dangerous situations, while at the same time places on police officers the responsibility when using deadly force against fleeing suspects to do so in the circumstances which would be permitted by the proposed new subsection 25(4) of the Criminal Code.

The Canadian Police Association expressed the view that the legislation is balanced and accords with commonly accepted police practice. It deals with the uncertainty caused by a decision of a court in Ontario that concluded that the present subsection is unconstitutional.

Both the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association are comfortable with the wording in the proposed new subsection 25(4).

Bill C-8 also addresses the types of situations that arise when peace officers in federal penitentiaries use force to prevent potentially dangerous inmates from escaping custody.

With the proposed new subsection 25(5) of the Criminal Code, Bill C-8 strikes a sensible balance between individual rights and community needs and guarantees that peace officers in our penitentiaries will continue to enjoy the authority they need to carry out their responsibility for the protection of society.

Finally, the bill would also amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to provide express statutory authority for a protection officer to use disabling force against a fleeing foreign fishing vessel in order to arrest the master of the vessel. This amendment will ensure that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is able to maintain this deterrent to foreign vessels' fishing illegally inside Canada's fishing zones.

The amendment includes the authority to create regulations establishing the procedures governing the use of disabling force.

The government intends to develop these regulations so that they will be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with recognized and reasonable international practice in the use of disabling force at sea.

This will include a guaranteed use of force to ensure that only the minimum level of force necessary to carry out an arrest is used.

I hope that hon. members will provide this bill with their support.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, Reformers will support Bill C-8. We admit we had reservations as the bill seemed at first to be limiting the discretion of the police to do a difficult job. The bill was seen as circumscribing the law around the use of force for fleeing criminals. On hearing the various witnesses and delegations at the committee stage, we are satisfied that the bill responds in a reasonable manner to unfinished business of the charter argument and the ruling of the Lines case.

The bill also clarifies the use of deadly force against escaping prisoners from medium and maximum penitentiaries. Additionally it provides authority to disable foreign vessels fleeing from Canadian authorities.

The bill is a culmination of a process that started in 1979 in the Ouimet committee. In 1989 Ontario race relations and police task forces made observations on the topic. Over the years there has been concern from the Law Reform Commission and the subject was brought to a head by the Ontario Lines case in April 1993 wherein existing sections of the Criminal Code were declared unconstitutional.

The bill catches up to the court and to the manuals of practice and training of current police operations. We had concerns that there was not sufficient consultation at the front line level of peace officers. We still hold that to be true. The bill, although appearing inherently sound, still is a "top down, we know best" piece of work.

It is interesting to note that the civil libertarians and the prisoners rights representatives we heard at committee stage opposed the bill. They want peace officer powers much more strictly circumscribed, as is presented here. Most interestingly it seems that Bloc members were very worried about the fleeing foreign vessel section as they may envision themselves in the future as being categorized as foreign vessels fleeing from Canadian authorities as they challenge sovereignty in disputed waters. The separatist agenda was coming through.

The basic premise of the bill relating to peace officer use of force in the three areas of fleeing criminals, escaping inmates and runaway foreign vessels is proportionality. We hope the bill will bring the right balance. On the one hand peace officers must have the capacity to do their job with authority and on the other the rights of individuals must be protected.

In closing I want to make a strong point to wake up the government. Reformers will vote for the bill as a housekeeping measure. However we hope the justice minister will soon bring forward more than just promises to tighten up the criminal justice system, for in so many other areas all proportionality has evaporated.

The public demands action in view of what it sees as the bleeding heart justice agenda of the government.