Debates of Nov. 6th, 1997

Supply

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

British Columbia, as well.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

British Columbia, as well. Does she share the views of the premiers of British Columbia and Saskatchewan on harmonization? And, if they are not in touch, they should pick up the telephone a little more often.

What is happening, Mr. Speaker?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member does a great disservice to the vast majority of Canadians who share our concerns when it comes to the government's very regressive tax policies.

I remind the Liberal member that at the time the government was promising to abolish the GST after having seen the effects of it under the Conservatives, only 10% of Canadians thought it had any possibility of benefiting the economy. Ninety per cent of Canadians knew at the time how harmful such a tax would be on ordinary working men and women. Those are the people already feeling tremendous unfairness in our tax system, where the burden has shifted so much from corporations and individuals to the shoulders of low and middle income Canadians.

The comments I made today dealt specifically with the needs of children who may not have mothers or fathers. Of course we support them. We will stand up any day to support the needs of survivors and the needs of children without parents. I hope the member opposite would share in standing up for such individuals.

I end by saying this issue is not narrowly defined and it does not affect a few people. It affects the vast majority of Canadians who want to see change.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I sat through this debate today as did the other members in the House.

Quite frankly I am a little exhausted, extremely exhausted, with the partisan rhetoric and the comments from the government side and the opposition side. Perhaps if we could have a bit of attention we can set the record straight. The comments of the Reform Party leave me perplexed. The member for Portage—Lisgar and the member for Calgary Southeast have both stated that the Reform Party would get rid of the GST. That is shocking. It is amazing. This is the tax critic. I want the explanation. I would like to see the numbers.

Let us go back to this little history lesson. The history lesson is very simple. We were in a situation in this country where we were looking at having free trade with the Americans. In order to have free trade with the Americans the Parliament of Canada, the government of the day, had to face the fact that Canadian businesses were faced with an extremely harmful and punishing tax called the manufacturers sales tax. It was 13%. Our companies which exported to the U.S. were penalized 13% on everything they sent across the border.

The only way we could have growth in this country, the only way we could have any possibility of a fair and level playing field to bring in free trade was to get rid of the manufacturers sales tax.

This is a simple lesson in economics. If you have this much money in one hand and you have this much money in the other hand and you are willing to throw that away, you have to replace it. You just cannot draw it out of thin air.

Therefore the GST was brought in to replace the manufacturers sales tax. We could continue to gather revenue. We could continue to pay down the deficit. Some day we could even think about tackling the debt.

Now we are in the situation of listening to a bunch of overblown rhetoric about getting rid of the GST. I am wondering if we are going to get rid of free trade too. Is that the way we are headed? I question the wisdom.

[An hon. member]

No partisan stuff coming from over there.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

What I am saying is very partisan and I am not a bit ashamed that it is partisan. Of course it is partisan. I will tell you what else, it makes sense. You cannot go out there and tell Canadians you are going to get rid of the GST and not think you are going to replace it with something. You are not going to pay down the debt overnight by snapping your fingers. It takes a plan and it takes action. You have to have both.

We have seen the Liberals flip-flop on the GST. We have seen Reform flip-flop on the GST. They were going to get rid of it. They loved it. They thought it was a good idea. We had to have free trade. Now they want to get rid of it.

Let us be practical. There has not been any thought provoking, innovative ideas on how to replace the GST. It is just plain rhetoric. There has been enough time wasted on rhetoric here today.

We have listened to the NDP, we have listened to all the parties, and there is no replacement here. There is no magic here. There are a lot of hard decisions to be made and that is all. Part of it is that this country has to continue to move forward, and moving backward is not moving forward.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed those comments and I would like to be educated a little further.

I know the Conservatives really believe in cost cutting. They paid for 212 Conservative members for two terms and then they only paid for two members. What kind of a plan do you have to follow to do that? That really helped us here in the House. That relieved the debtload quite a bit.

What do we have to do to follow that plan? I would like the formula.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately there was quality and substance and it did not get replaced with quality and substance.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated listening to the comments from the hon. member to the right. I know he was not here from 1984 to 1993, but his former colleagues were given a strong mandate by the people of Canada to get the House in order and to take some fiscal responsibility with the country. However they continued in the same vein as the previous government they replaced. In fact they went from such large numbers to two, as my hon. colleague mentioned, because of that.

My hon. colleague mentioned a plan of action. His former colleagues were given a plan of action and they did not follow through on it and were reduced to two members.

I just have to ask my hon. colleague how it is that he can talk about the policy of our party when in fact they are not willing to even look at the information and see what it is. To hear half truths and to say something does not mean that it is going to become true.

I would just ask my hon. colleague to take a look at the information and make an informed decision because that is what Canadians across the country are doing. They are taking a look at the facts and past performances and asking for a plan of action and some vision and people are coming to Reform. That is what is happening.

Take a look at the numbers in the House, my hon. colleague, in your caucus and in this caucus. Then we will see what will happen in the next four years.

I will just wrap up my comments and question by asking the regional party to the right what it is that it would propose to do to alleviate taxation in this country and to stimulate the economy. What is its plan because it did not do anything in the nine years it was here previously.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, the answer is very quick, very simple and to the point. Where is the plan? We are living the plan today. The success of this country today is directly from free trade. That is why we are cutting our deficit. That is why the government that happens to sit on the benches today can bask in the glory. However, it is not their policy, it is Tory policy that is already in place and here.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, am I to understand, and I am sure I did not just hear this, that we are all benefiting in this country and basking in the glory of parties past because of all of the good things they have done for us? I know it is hard for people watching this to understand, but I just wanted to get a clarification from this party from Jurassic Park over here. Does the hon. member truly believe that we are basking in the sunshine of the Tories and Liberals past? Is the sunshine in the order of $600 billion worth of debt?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, repetition becomes boring after a while. Obviously the member did not listen to the answer the last time. The success of the country today is based 100% on the fact that the Conservatives brought in free trade. We had to bring in free trade. It is the policies that were put in place that allowed the deficit to be cut. That is why the economy is on an upswing. It will continue to do that. That is not a tough equation. Take a look at it.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, if it is Jurassic Park it is not for me. We already have a Star Wars trilogy because it is from another planet too.

When someone tries to take credit, and we know that there was a deficit of $42 billion when we came to office, and that their economic policy was to bump up the deficit by $10 or $12 billion annually, I think he should watch those films. There will have to be another sequel.

What does the member want to do with the GST? Does he think the GST is good and does he think we should give the $2 billion to Quebec? That is what I would like to know.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure but I think I may have just heard the member refer to the economic upswing the country is in, to low inflation and low interest rates. I think he was obliquely taking credit for it.

I think he had better back up a little bit and look at who put those policies in place and understand why he is able to take credit for them today. The Prime Minister may take credit for free trade and the GST, but low inflation, a better economy and low interest rates did not happen overnight. And they did not happen from policies which have come in since 1993 either.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am hearing this litany of all the wonderful things we have to be thankful for in this country. I wonder, do these include in the hon. member's opinion an unemployment rate above 9% for the past eight years, a $600 billion debt and record bankruptcies. Is this, in his opinion, the glory, the success of the two old parties?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I spoke in the simplest terms I could find. I reached back as far as I could to put it in the Reform style mantra, that ABC type of thing that they like. I have explained it as best I can. I cannot explain it any more. It is quite simple. Look at the facts.

Along with that there has been an increase in the business climate and the economy of the nation. We do have unacceptable unemployment, absolutely. Something needs to be done about it, a lot more than just talking about it. We have to take some action.

[An hon. member]

But you did not do anything about it.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

I can repeat it one more time and then maybe we can put it to bed.

Free trade was brought in by one party. That allowed economic growth. It drove the manufacturing sector of this nation. It allowed this country to benefit from low interest rates, from low unemployment, from low inflation that we have today. If it had not been for that, we would have been in three or four times worse shape than we are in now.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a very interesting debate going on over there. It is quite comical.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and to describe the many ways that Quebec benefits from the actions of the Government of Canada and especially from the social spending benefits that Quebec gets. One of the most obvious benefits is being part of the country that the United Nations has recognized as the best place in the world to live. As Canadians and Quebeckers this is a shared privilege, one that we can all be proud of.

Canada is a respected member of the G-7, of the OECD, of NAFTA, of APEC and other international organizations. Membership in these important organizations provides Canadians with the commercial linkages that are necessary for success in a competitive global economy. This is something that benefits all Canadians and especially Canadian companies doing business in world markets.

The Minister of Human Resources Development recently attended a meeting of employment and labour ministers of 29 countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. At that meeting his colleagues from these other countries referred to Canada as the Canadian miracle. Our ability to meet the challenges of economic, political and social change that so many others are going through is quite remarkable and has added to Canada's international strength and reputation.

At the federal level we have been successful in restoring the nation's finances. The deficit this government inherited will be eliminated no later than 1998-99. The Canadian dollar is sound. There is a feeling of confidence and optimism in the national economy. Quebeckers have been major beneficiaries of these positive developments through lower interest rates for mortgages and consumer loans, as well as in many other ways in business and improved prospects for export sales.

Because of the dramatic improvement in our financial situation, we have regained some flexibility in our social program planning. One of the most significant examples of this is the national child benefit that was presented in the last federal budget. This novel idea is an example of a new style of Canadian federalism that works. All levels of government of every political stripe are working together to bring forward a new social program to help children and their families. This may be the most important new program of this generation. There will be many potential benefits for the people of Quebec.

The mechanics are simple. The Government of Canada will increase the federal child tax credit and thus the income of low income families. This will reduce demands for social assistance payments at the provincial and territorial level. Each province or territory can then take its savings in social assistance and reinvest them in programs and services to directly help parents on social assistance move into employment, and low income working families to stay in the labour force. Thus each province will have new money freed up to use for its special needs.

Under the program as it is now conceived, beginning in July 1998 Quebec will have the use of an additional $150 million to provide programs and services directly to Quebeckers. This program shares the same objectives as the family policy proposed by Quebec and it will help Quebec to implement it. The national child benefit is good for Quebec families and children, but the Government of Quebec so far has opposed it.

Fortunately, Quebeckers are able to fully participate in the national employment insurance program and are among its major beneficiaries. The legislation passed by this House one year ago to set up the new employment insurance system introduced several new measures to improve the employability of Canadians.

For example, a system of targeted wage subsidies was introduced to encourage employers to hire EI claimants by offsetting a portion of their wages. We expect this will help some 8,000 Canadians to gain valuable on the job experience this year and many of these will be Quebeckers.

The new EI program also includes a self-employment assistance component to support unemployed individuals who want to start their own businesses. An estimated 6,000 new entrants will be supported under this part of the program this year, and many of them will be Quebeckers. Some 35,000 are taking training courses while receiving EI benefits, and many of these are Quebeckers.

It is clear that Quebeckers are benefiting very much from the new EI program. Of the $880 million that will be reinvested annually in active employment measures across Canada, by the year 2002 about $252 million, almost one-third, will be going to Quebec.

We are also concerned about providing support for areas of the country where unemployment is high and where jobs are hard to find. In these areas employment insurance eligibility requirements are the lowest and the benefit entitlements are the highest. A number of these special areas are in Quebec. We have introduced the transitional jobs plan to work with local partners to invest together in creating lasting jobs in high unemployment areas.

At the national level about 400 transitional job fund projects have been approved and 188 of them are in Quebec. There have been 22,500 jobs created and 14,500 of them are in Quebec. The Government of Canada has invested a total of $158 million in these projects to date, $81 million of it is in Quebec. The objective of the transitional job fund is to lever other source funds to create long lasting employment in high unemployment areas. It has proven to be a very useful program for employers and workers in the province of Quebec.

I refer to the labour market agreement that was signed by the governments of Quebec and Canada earlier this year. As well as demonstrating that federalism can and does work, this agreement signalled a transfer of active employment measures funded by the employment insurance account from the federal to the provincial levels of government. For the first five years of the agreement, the province of Quebec will receive some $500 million a year to offer to its residents a tailored employment program and measures that will help them integrate into the labour market. That is a historical agreement, a major change in the way things are being done in the federation.

Over the next five years we estimate that the Government of Canada will have made available more than $2.7 billion to Quebec under the labour market agreement.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 5.50 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings. Pursuant to order made earlier this day all the questions necessary to dispose of the business of supply are deemed to have been put and the recorded divisions are deemed requested and deemed deferred until Tuesday, November 18, 1997 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

(Divisions deemed demanded and deferred)

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper .

Criminal Code

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

moved that Bill C-211, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest of those in breach of condition of parole or statutory or temporary release), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I believe this bill is before us today because as members of this House we are truly concerned with the need to improve the safety and security of our citizens.

This bill was not my idea. It is a product of many discussions between police officers and politicians across the country. I hope to be able to influence members of the House enough so that we get this bill into committee. I do hope members opposite do not take the view that this is already law because it is not.

Police officers in all of our ridings need our help on this issue. I will explain why. But first we should know that many politicians look at new ideas and ask, why? Good politicians should look at new ideas as a challenge and say, why not? That is where we are today.

I will first explain what Bill C-211 does. The bill establishes that a police officer may arrest without warrant, detain and bring before a justice a person the officer reasonably believes is in breach of a condition of a bail or a probation order, a condition of a conditional sentence or a condition of statutory release, parole or unescorted temporary absence.

Why is this necessary? Today if an offender, perhaps a pedophile, is in your community on unescorted temporary absence from a prison, and is at a children's playground, where he is not obviously permitted to be under the conditions of his unescorted temporary absence and someone recognizes him in the playground where children are and calls a policeman. That policeman must attempt to get a warrant for his arrest before arresting him.

Most of us understand the rationale of what it takes to get a warrant for arrest. It is difficult and it is time consuming. That is to say the least. It is abundantly clear that such a pedophile will not stay in that area very long knowing full well that a policeman is on his track.

To try to apprehend a pedophile on a release, on conditions, who is at a playground by getting a warrant signed by a judge somewhere in a community is just unreasonable to expect. The outcome of such a story unfortunately is all too often the same. The police do not apprehend the individual who is breaking the condition because they do not have a warrant. They know they cannot get it fast enough and the criminal gets away. Worse yet, in many cases, some unsuspecting person becomes a victim.

Our police need our help and understanding, not our fighting. Let us get this bill to a committee and have the police speak to it. They will tell us all in the justice committee exactly what the problems are. We will surely hear stories that will shake Canadians across the country.

We are today in a situation where I have police coming to me describing time and time again situations that are happening. Let me give some of the conditions imposed that a police officer may operationally find himself confronting when the officer encounters an offender in our community during the course of his duties. In the course of a policeman's duties, he may respond to calls of service, traffic enforcement, field interviews, all those sorts of things that a policeman does in his everyday business.

Conditions given to a person on UTA, unescorted temporary absence or on parole, are like this: remain at all times within the territorial boundaries fixed by the parole supervisor. There are times when policemen find somebody outside those boundaries. Obey the law and keep the peace: they often find a person on UTA in a fight.

The person on UTA must at all times carry the release certificate and the identity card provided by the releasing authority and produce them on request for identification to peace officers. In many cases, police may ask for that identification card. If a person does not have it on them, what do the police do? They have to get a warrant. They have to say “Excuse me, would you wait here for six hours? I will be back”. It just does not work.

A person on UTA cannot own, possess or have control of any weapon as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, except as authorized by a parole supervisor.

A person on UTA has to abstain from the use of alcohol. This happens in my community many times where a person out on a temporary absence or out from one of the many prisons we have in my area—at least seven federal and something like 10 provincial—is found in a bar. They know they are not supposed to be there.

It is not rational for a policeman to say “Just hang on there. Don't drink. Stay there. I'll be back in a little while”. The reason the condition is put on that person in the first place is because that person got into trouble and ended up in a prison because they were drinking.

What happens when the policeman goes? Typically, the individual gets into trouble and it is an unsuspecting individual who is on the wrong end of the stick.

Another condition for a person on UTA is submitting to a breathalyzer on demand of a peace officer where reasonable grounds exist to believe the offender is breaching a condition of abstinence from alcohol or abstaining from the use of drugs other than prescribed medication and over the counter drugs.

Non-communication with specified individuals. More than once an individual out on UTA is right back with the bad crowd again. The police officer comes across the bad crowd in his normal course of business, knows the individual is there but cannot do anything about it.

Another condition is not to own or operate a motor vehicle. These conditions go on and on but I wanted to give the House an idea of all of the restraints or conditions that are on people who come out of prison where a police officer is basically hamstrung because he needs a warrant to arrest.

For example, an offender is released on parole with a condition to abstain from alcohol. Some of these examples actually have been given to me by police operating in this country. During contact with the police, the offender is found to be intoxicated, a direct violation of his parole.

The police officer has no authority to arrest the offender as a result of the condition of breach. Instead, the offender's parole supervisor must be notified. The parole may be suspended and then the police officer may take action if the offender is subsequently located again and arrested on the authority of a warrant issued pursuant to sections 118, 135 or 136 of the Canada Corrections Act.

Members can see why policemen basically look at the situation and say “I just can't get a warrant” and this is going to happen. It is in the process of happening so no action can be taken.

In the meantime, the offender has posed a risk to the community, say most police. To further frustrate the situation, the offender may have to submit to a breathalyzer on demand. If the offender is intoxicated and is demanded to submit to a breathalyzer but refuses, the police officer has no immediate authority to take the offender into custody.

Peace officers are given the responsibility to protect life and property, prevent crime, apprehend criminals and enforce the law.

A peace officer may arrest a person and assist in the prosecution of that person. Where the offence is disposed of by conviction, there are several avenues open to the court in dealing with the person.

If the person is placed on probation various conditions may be imposed on the person. Section 495 of the conditional release act permits the arrest of the person, without warrant, when a peace officer finds the person breaching any of the conditions of probation. However, an offender who is convicted and sentenced to a term of incarceration in a penitentiary, which is generally reserved for those more serious offences and repeat offences, may subsequently be released into the community with conditions.

Ironically, many of these conditions of release are similar to the conditions of probation. However, a peace officer has no authority to apprehend the offender whom the peace officer finds in violation of the condition. They can be actually very similar to the conditions of probation, yet they can arrest.

I talked to a young policeman in my riding, Mike Novakowski, who will be receiving a meritorious award for working so hard on this particular bill. He gives me this example.

He gives this example. If a person steals a chocolate bar from a grocery store and is charged and convicted of theft, it is not uncommon that when the person is sentenced they are placed on probation. When the person violates a condition of their probation and is caught by the police, police may arrest the person without a warrant and detain that person according to the law. That person may be charged and convicted of an additional crime, which is breach of probation.

However, says Mike, if a person is charged and convicted of aggravated sexual assault and is sentenced to a penitentiary, he or she may be released prior to expiration of the sentence on parole, on statutory release or unescorted temporary absence with conditions. If that person violates a condition of that release and is caught by the police, the police may not arrest that person without a warrant. Canada corrections must make an after the fact judgement, issue a warrant and then that warrant may subsequently be executed by police.

I know what I might hear from the other side, that this can be taken care of through other routes. That is what I am trying to explain. The other routes are going to Canada corrections, trying to get action taken for the particular situation the police are in and perhaps they might get a warrant or an after the fact judgement. The problem is you could be dealing with, in many cases are dealing with in my community, pedophiles, sexual offenders. Policemen cannot wait and even expect the convict, the offender, to stay there while they fetch a warrant. It is unreasonable to even ask.

The purpose of this bill is to protect our citizens even more by helping our police. This is really, and should be, a non-partisan issue in this House, an issue that can be resolved with the help of my colleagues. There are no financial implications to this bill and no inappropriate power given to our police officers; just more protection for you, me and our families as a Canadian people.

I know in this House that private members bills are an interesting subject and the subject of much debate. There is much controversy with private members bills because many of us believe they do not go anywhere unless the cabinet agrees. Many private members bills are not votable. Those that are seem to end up dying after second reading.

If they get to committee we seldom see them get out of committee and return to the House for report stage and third reading. I recall very few bills which have been successful. These bills would help ordinary Canadians.

The motivation behind this bill did not come from a politician, it came from the police. They are asking for our assistance.

What we have to do is wake up to the fact that the people out there in the communities, the grassroots people, are going to their members of Parliament and asking for private members bills. They want them to be debated, voted on and carefully assessed.

I have seen bills enter this House which most people in Canada do not relate to in any way. Quite frankly, they could not care less. Many of the bills I see coming from my colleagues in the House are grassroots bills. They are effective. They do things. They protect. They change our society.

On April 29, I introduced a private member's bill in the House on victims rights. I guess I was a little naive at that time. I thought that when we all accepted it in the House it would go somewhere. Several million Canadians were hoping that one day they would see a national victims bill of rights.

We had a great debate in the House that day. Everybody agreed with it. It got stuck somewhere in committee. Parliament was dissolved for an election and the bill died on the order paper. No one on the government side resurrected it.

We had an interesting discussion in the House the other day when we debated a private member's bill on drunk driving. It was a votable motion put forward by the Reform Party. My concern at the time was what was going to happen next. Everybody in the House agreed with it. Where will it go? What assurances do we have when these bills go to committee that they will be put into effect?

Constable Novakowski, an Abbotsford policeman, put a lot of work into this bill. He did a lot of research. He and his colleagues believe in the House. They believe in what we are doing. They believe we can effect change for them and for their families and our families. We cannot disappoint these people time and time again. If truly good private members bills are introduced, regardless of who introduces them, we cannot continue to disappoint these people.

This is a practical common issue. I hope my colleagues on the other side do not once again say that it is already in place, that there are laws which affect it and that we can arrest these people. I can assure them that if they let this get to committee they will have police from every force in the country come to the committees to tell them that it does not work.

We must have change. There is nothing more frustrating than a policeman coming on the scene, knowing that an offender is ready to snap, ready to break, ready to reoffend, and there is virtually nothing they can do until that person perpetrates yet another crime.

That says nothing at all about our willingness.

I ask my colleagues to look at this and trust that we will do something within committees and bring these peace officers forward and say we will try to help them and try to help ourselves in doing so.

I ask members to vote positively for Bill C-211.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-211, a private member's bill, which seeks to amend the Criminal Code provisions relating to arrests without warrants.

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss an important aspect of criminal law which is not always well understood.

The bill, as introduced by the hon. member, would have two consequences. First, it would amend the Criminal Code by making a breach of a condition of parole or statutory or temporary release an indictable offence.

This means the police would have the power to arrest, without a warrant, an offender concerning whom it would have reasonable grounds to believe that he made or is about to make a breach of a condition of his parole or statutory or temporary release. This power is already provided in the Criminal Code for breach of probation.

The bill would also amend the Criminal Code by giving a parole board the power, following the arrest of an offender, to release him or to ask a judge to keep him in custody until it is able to issue a warrant of apprehension.

The present government has protection of the public at heart, protection from the potential risks of paroled offenders, and it has adopted several legislative measures or practices in this respect.

I would like to dispel certain inaccuracies and false ideas on which the hon. member's bill is based.

As far as the breach of conditions of parole, statutory or temporary release, as well as the prevention of such breaches,are concerned, I would like to point out that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act already gives correctional authorities all of the powers necessary to suspend an offender's parole.

[An hon. member]

No, it does not.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Read the law. This makes it possible for the police to arrest the offender and to place him in custody.

As for an offender who has received permission for an unescorted temporary release, an order for suspension may be issued if the reasons for which the permission was issued have changed or no longer exist, or if there is fresh information which would have altered the initial decision if available at the time it was made.

As for offenders on parole or statutory release, Correctional Services Canada and the National Parole Board may, at any time, issue a suspension warrant if they deem this necessary and reasonable for the protection of society.

Such a mandate would permit the reincarceration of a delinquent until his case could be examined by the National Parole Board.

Some people might wonder why the police do not have the same power of direct apprehension with respect to delinquents under federal responsibility who are on parole as they do for probationers.

I would like to clarify a few points on this matter, by explaining the significant differences between probation under provincial jurisdiction and parole under federal jurisdiction, whether we are talking of conditional release, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence.

Probation is a court disposition which is not granted by the parole board. It is a breach of probation and is a criminal offence because it constitutes a violation of a court order. And when a breach of probation occurs, police have the same authority to arrest the person without a warrant, as they would any other person who is committing a criminal offence.

Parole, statutory release and temporary absence, on the other hand, are not court orders. They are forms of conditional release granted either by the National Parole Board or the correctional service of Canada. All three types of releases are designed to facilitate the reintegration of offenders into the community as law-abiding citizens.

Conditions of parole, statutory release and temporary absence constitute restrictions placed on the offender that assist the parole supervisor in managing the offender's risk while on conditional release. Because breaches of these conditions do not constitute criminal activity, board members and Correctional Service Canada staff are in the best position to determine when it is necessary to suspend the conditional release in order to manage the offender's risk and protect the community.

A person on parole, for example, may have advised his supervisor that, for good reason, he will be 15 minutes later than the time set for his return to the halfway house. In such a case, the supervisor can, in full knowledge of the facts, decide not to suspend parole.

Without such information, however, a police officer could arrest the delinquent for failing to meet the condition, even though he may be no immediate threat to society.

This would conflict with the parole plans approved by the National Parole Board and would weaken the board's authority.

Although it could be argued that the member's bill is aimed at more serious offences, I would like to stress that, when police officers surprise an offender on conditional release in the act of committing a criminal offence, or when they have reasonable grounds to believe that a particular offender has committed or is on the point of committing a criminal offence, they already have all the power necessary to arrest him again without a warrant.

Therefore the issue raised by the member's bill is not whether the powers of the police should be broadened in order to allow them to make arrests without warrants, but rather whether the powers they now have, and the correctional practices in effect, are sufficient to allow the police to take rapid action in situations where offenders on conditional release present a risk to the community.

Our priority is the protection of the public, as I have already mentioned, and our government has taken many measures in this regard. There have also been a number of initiatives in recent years to improve the transmission of information between the Correctional Service of Canada and the police, in order to ensure better management of offenders on conditional release under federal responsibility.

One key information sharing improvement is the ability to enhance information of the Canadian Police Information Computer Network, commonly known as CPIC. Through a link between CPIC and the Correctional Service Canada offender management system, police forces have direct access to information on conditionally released offenders including their conditions of release.

To enable police to respond promptly whenever they suspect a federal offender has breached a condition of parole or unescorted temporary absence, Correctional Service Canada has a national network of duty officers who are available 24 hours a day seven days a week.

This network is in place in each region of the Correctional Service Canada and all police departments have been notified of the duty officer's phone number. Upon being advised by a police officer of a breach or potential breach of parole, the duty officer can issue a suspension of warrant right on the spot, which gives the police the authority to arrest the offender and promptly bring him or her into custody.

Again, to ensure the police can respond as fast as possible, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act also authorizes the facsimile transmission of warrants and gives police officers the authority to arrest the offender, without warrant, on the knowledge that one has been issued.

As the hon. members will note, the police already have the powers and the means they need to intervene quickly when they see that a federal delinquent has failed to meet the conditions of his release.

The member's bill assumes that the police are limited in the measures they can take to protect the public or that they are subject to unreasonable time frames, but the fact is that this has never really been proved.

I would point out that, in the absence of such proof, provisions that would give the police broader powers to arrest without warrant people on parole who have not committed a criminal offence will most likely not stand up to a challenge based on the charter of rights.

In conclusion, the government fully supports the objective of better protection for the community, and we cannot support this bill.