Debates of Nov. 6th, 1997

Criminal Code

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, when there is talk of parole, probation orders and so on, I believe that there is misunderstanding among the public and I believe that the Reform Party also has a poor understanding, or perhaps it suits them not to understand, because it is such a juicy topic. They can drag out specific cases, and really talk altogether off topic.

The bill we have before us is a type of bill that does not reflect reality. I am not saying there are no problems in the parole system or in application of the Criminal Code. On the contrary, I believe there are shortcomings. I believe there is room for improvement in the Criminal Code and in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I do not believe, however, that Bill C-211 is what is going to solve the problem.

What is important here? Whether it is the Criminal Code and its provisions relating to probation orders, or the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the criterion is protecting society. At this time, do the courts, the law enforcement bodies in Quebec and Canada have the proper tools to do their job properly? My answer must be yes.

Are the police officers, the correctional system, the courts, making the proper use of those tools, applying them in the way they were meant to be used? Maybe, maybe not. That depends on the circumstances.

I sincerely believe that, with sections 494, 495, 496 and 497 of the Criminal Code, a broad range of cases are covered, as the Reform Party said just now.

I cannot sit by while they distort the facts. I am a member of an opposition party, but an opposition party that is fair. I try to do my job as honestly as possible, to be as realistic as possible, and I cannot, even though I am in the opposition, sit still and listen to nonsense spouted in the House. I will give you four examples that I heard during the Reform Party's discourse.

The first, and this is a favourite topic of the Reformers, was what they had to say about pedophiles. They say that a pedophile on conditional release who is near a playground will jump on the first victim he sees. I know it does not suit you to hear the facts. I know there is an immense gulf separating us, but I would ask you as politely as possible to at least listen to what Quebec has to say.

That having been said, with the provisions of the Criminal Code—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, would you please ask that bunch of Reform members to keep quiet.

[An hon. member]

Maybe you don't have institutions like we do.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Would hon. members please give everyone a chance to hear the speeches.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that there are four items of misinformation and I will name them right off. Then I will give them the right information.

The case of the pedophile. The case of the person who is on probation and ordered to stay out of bars, and ends up drinking in a bar. The individual who is impaired and is arrested by a police officer, who can do nothing because the person is on parole. That is another such case. The thief who cannot be arrested even if caught in the act. These are all inaccuracies.

As far as the pedophile is concerned, if there are conditions attached to his parole and he is found by a playground, it is false to say that the police can do nothing. The police officer will use what I have here, the Criminal Code. Maybe I should give them a copy, as they seem not to have one.

It indicates very clearly—under section 497—that a police officer, in fact, any person may arrest another person if he has reasonable grounds to believe that—

Provision is made in the Criminal Code for pedophiles and for a person in a bar too. On top of that, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act contains a mechanism respecting individuals released under certain conditions or on statutory release, who fail to meet the conditions. There are revocation mechanisms, the police can go and get them and so on.

The worst I heard concerns being under the influence. When an individual is on parole or statutory release and drives under the influence of alcohol, the arresting police cannot take him to the police station even if he refuses to take the breathalyser test.

Did the Reform Party recount anything more inexact or grosser this evening? I do not think so. Under the Criminal Code, under all the provisions pertaining to driving under the influence, anyone refusing to take a breathalyser test is committing an offence and can be taken to the station and charged with refusing to obey police.

Is it usual to twist the facts in such a way for political purposes? I think it is for political purposes.

The final example is theft, and breaking and entering. It is very true that the police may arrest an individual, as may anyone under section 494, whether or not he is a police officer, who notices an individual in the act of committing an offence arrest that individual, and particulary if he is a police officer. I think that there is a misunderstanding, or that they are deliberating distorting the meaning of these sections.

That having been said, I do not want to repeat what the parliamentary secretary to the Solicitor General said regarding the mechanism envisaged. It can perhaps be improved.

As I said at the outset, there is undoubtedly room for improvement, but this is not the kind of improvement needed. The more I listen to the Reform Party members, the more I can see where they are headed. In the end, what they want is a justice system that is a bit like a robot, that is programmed to apply the right sections. The judges would be replaced by a computer. All the evidence would be fed into the computer and out would come the answer, an inhuman answer that does not take into account every relevant fact and serves but one specific goal: scoring political points.

I may be a sovereignist, a nationalist, a Quebec nationalist, still I can recognize that some things work in this system. I think that, all in all, as flawed and imperfect as it may be, these things we should work at improving over time, our justice system is an excellent system.

I do not think that amendments like the one proposed in Bill C-211 before us this evening will do much to improve on the current system. On the contrary, I think it would confuse the courts, complicate things to achieve what the Criminal Code and the relevant legislation already provide for.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against private member's Bill C-211.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I remind members that this is private members' hour. I regret to say that from time to time we seem to get into the sort of debate which assumes that a bill put forward by a private member of the Reform Party is somehow a Reform Party bill and it is the Reform Party that is being supported or criticized. I would hope that private members' hour would not become politicized in that negative sense.

It may well be that many members of the Reform Party support the bill that has been put forward by the hon. member and it may well be that members from other parties will want to oppose that bill. But I caution against falling by default into a way of debating this bill that replicates the way we debate government legislation.

Having said that, I am here not to speak on behalf of the NDP but to share some of my own thoughts about this. I begin by saying that actually I am quite open minded about this. I do not claim to understand the law in this regard. I have heard conflicting claims.

There are people who say that the law as it stands provides adequate tools for meeting the problem that the hon. member has identified and he is bringing forward a bill in order to address it. I have heard the hon. member say otherwise. I have heard him accused of not paying attention to reality in the things that he has had to say. I do not know.

I do not understand enough about how parole is administered and dealt with in order to say with authority whether I think the hon. member is right or is wrong, or whether he is operating simply out of a political agenda, but I do not think so. I sense from the hon. member and from others that there is a lot of concern, not just on the part of the hon. member but on the part of many Canadians. They are mystified on occasion by how it is that people who are on parole get to be in some of the places that they are and get to do some of the things that they do while they are on parole.

If the police, the courts and the system as it currently stands are able to deal with this or have the powers to deal with this, it still remains an open question as to why it appears to so many Canadians that they do not, and that occasions arise in what seems to be a persistent way. I say seems because I do not have the research at hand, but it certainly seems this way to many Canadians and they feel the justice system is somehow letting them down in terms of public safety.

My attitude toward this bill at this point is that I have not made up my mind yet. That is why we give votable items three hours of debate. It is so that we do not all come in here in the first hour of debate with our minds made up. Some people's minds are made up. That is fair enough. For my part, I intend to review what has been said today, to look at what is said in the second hour and indeed in the third hour.

Having said that, I just want to indicate that if what the hon. member who has put this bill forward is saying is true, I am concerned. I would be concerned when the police identify someone who is on parole in a situation which is in breach of those parole conditions.

If the police are saying that they cannot really do anything about it, that by the time they do whatever it is the law requires of them the person has noticed that the police have noticed them and has already been able to move on, then this is something that should be of concern. It should be of concern to people who are concerned about public safety, particularly if the circumstances of the breach of parole are such that it would cause us to worry about the safety of others.

I share the hon. member's concern about that situation but I am open to be persuaded as to whether or not the law as it currently stands has the ability to deal with this. But even that is not good enough in the sense that I would like to know that if it does have the ability to deal with it, why is there such a widespread perception that it does not use those tools.

It is not enough to say that there is the capacity to do a certain thing. We need to know that the system is designed in such a way as to create the will to use that capacity and to use the tools that are available to the police and to the courts now.

It may be that there is some flaw in the design of the system as it now exists which discourages police from using the powers that are now at their disposal. The member's bill might be an answer to that or it might not be.

There might be some other way of addressing this, which would argue it seems to me for why it might be a good idea to send such a bill to committee. The committee could report either that it is a good idea or that the problem the member has identified and which he is trying to address with this bill is a real problem but the bill itself for a variety of reasons does not do the trick or does not stand the test of scrutiny. There may be other alternatives.

All these things are open to us, and I look forward to listening to the debate in this hour and as it progresses. I hope other hon. members will do the same because we are all going to be called to vote on this at the end of the day, not at the end of this day but metaphorically speaking whenever the three hours is up.

We hope hon. members who speak next will have some light to shed on this. I am certainly hoping that I will be able to learn something on both sides of this debate from members who will speak after me.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this bill which has been introduced by the Reform member for Langley—Abbotsford and my counterpart as House leader in the Reform Party.

As mentioned by previous speakers, Bill C-211 would amend the Criminal Code as it applies to the arresting and detaining of individuals who breach their conditions of parole or statutory or temporary release. In principle I want to state at the outset that I agree with the bill. In my view it provides our law enforcement officers an additional tool in their fight against crime.

Giving the police increased power always is a contentious issue. I believe in this instance it talks of increased discretion to be exercised on the part of the police in their ability to fight crime and to do their job as peace officers. I fully endorse this.

The changes that are talked of here in section 495(1)(a) of the Criminal Code which would allow peace officers to arrest individuals who breach their conditions of parole or release, in particular, deserve support by this Chamber and its hon. members. I say so with some experience myself.

I listened very carefully to the comments of the hon. member from the Reform Party who had from the sounds of it consulted extensively with a peace officer in his riding. I have spoken personally to a number of police officers as well.

I have spoken to Constable Kevin Scott, Constable Dwayne Rutledge and other police officers from my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I have sensed the frustration that many of our police officers sense when dealing with criminals who have gone through the process.

Criminals have been convicted after due process. They have gone through appeal processes and are serving time as their debt to society and upon being convicted and placed in an institution, having appeared potentially before a parole board, have been granted early release often with good reason. The principle to recall here is the fact that those individuals are paying a debt to society. If released early, essentially they are being given a break, a second chance, and while in society and taking advantage of the break that has been afforded them, they run afoul of conditions which for good reason have been placed upon them.

I listened again with great interest to the comments with respect in particular to pedophiles or individuals who have been told to abstain from alcohol. I would suggest that it is extremely important for police officers, who observe individuals who have these conditions placed upon them, to have the ability to act and to act quickly and decisively.

I listened as well again with great interest to the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. I agree that in its present form the Criminal Code does have provisions for police officers to act in a decisive way to get authorization to place an individual under arrest. The difficulty is in the timing. Officers do not always have the time to get the necessary authorization. They do not always have the time to get to a justice of the peace who will give them the go ahead, or to contact the parole officer involved, particularly in rural parts of the country.

In rural Canada detachments often have one or two officers. Often the justice of the peace is responsible for a vast territory. Human nature being what it is, that justice of the peace may be over at his neighbour's playing cards. He may simply be out in the barn. Unfortunately, justices of the peace are not always on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

This is a very timely debate. Another bill is presently before the House which is the so-called Feeney bill, Bill C-16. It touches on much of the same subject matter that is being discussed today.

I want to discuss another component of the amendment to section 497 of the Criminal Code. It would give the National Parole Board the opportunity to apply to keep a person, who is in breach of his conditions, in custody until the board can issue a warrant of apprehension. This is not an arbitrary detention. We are discussing the rights of an individual who has had the benefit of due process and has been convicted of a criminal offence. There is an important distinction to be made.

I do not favour voting rights for criminals, nor do I favour, in this particular instance, any sort of special treatment or special allotment or second chance. The individual is paying his debt to society. He has been afforded early release and has now run afoul of those conditions.

I generally support the change, with some reservations. Any form of arbitrary detention has to be carefully scrutinized. The key word is arbitrary. The provisions put forward by the hon. member of the Reform Party, I would suggest, are not arbitrary in any way, shape or form. The direction provided in this bill for detention may be vague and may eventually undergo the scrutiny of the charter of rights and freedoms.

I would suggest that this is true of any amendment made to the Criminal Code. That is part of the process of which we partake. It is part of the responsibility which is incumbent upon us in this Chamber. Defence lawyers, I am sure, will be ready to pounce on any detention of their clients which would later be proved unjustified. This is merely a caution that I raise.

Perhaps we could clarify the language in the bill. I am sure the hon. member of the Reform Party would embrace that, as long as it did not change significantly the principle which he is trying to bring forward.

The intent of this bill is positive. I am pleased to say that we in the Conservative Party support it.

I would also embrace another theme touched on by the hon. member, and it is that we should strive toward making the law not only more efficient but simpler. It should be more understandable, not only for police officers who have legal training, but for the public at large. I believe that the public at large is becoming alienated and, to some degree, very disgusted with our criminal justice system.

Overall there are changes that can be made to the Criminal Code. I believe this is the forum and the place for elected officials to partake of that process.

Another reason I support this bill is that it would open a window of opportunity for the National Parole Board to collect additional information on offenders when possible. It would be a responsible thing for them to do.

The offenders who break their terms of parole or conditions of release are once again breaking society's trust in their ability to respect the law. The National Parole Board consents to returning offenders to the mainstream of society on certain conditions. If those conditions are breached, then the board, in turn, must act responsibly and re-evaluate the risk to society posed by the offender. A convicted person forfeits the rights which are afforded to all Canadians.

The bill gives the National Parole Board additional authority to exercise that responsibility, and there is a larger question at play here. The question concerns the effectiveness of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, especially as it relates to the National Parole Board.

The National Parole Board is operating as effectively as possible, but is it doing so to its full ability and is it doing so to the extent where it completely protects Canadians? I suggest there are examples, but I am not going to recite them at this time, that suggest that the National Parole Board has to re-examine its own effectiveness.

The mandate of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is established by an internal board of investigation on incidents. These incidents should be brought forward and examined at length to see if the National Parole Board is living up to the standard.

I want to mention one further positive element of this bill that requires parliamentary study, the ability to exercise the arrests that these police officers are charged with. I think we have to look most specifically at whether this bill will improve the present law. Will it allow police officers to more effectively carry out the very onerous task that is imposed on them to protect society? If this will further the cause of justice, then it is something we have to work together in a non-partisan way to see carried through to fruition.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address this motion.

The hon. member's bill as drafted would do two things. First, it would amend the Criminal Code to make a breach of a condition of parole, statutory release or temporary absence a criminal offence. As a consequence police would have the authority to arrest without warrant an offender who on reasonable grounds is believed to have breached or is about to breach a condition of parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence.

This authority already exists in the Criminal Code for breach of probation, as the parliamentary secretary did indicate earlier.

Second, the bill would amend the Criminal Code to authorize a parole board, following an offender's arrest, to either release the offender or apply to a justice to detain the offender in custody until the board could issue a warrant.

Public protection from conditionally released offenders is a matter of serious concern to this government and an area where we have made several legislative and practical improvements.

I would like to clarify some inaccuracies and misconceptions on which the hon. member's bill is founded.

With respect to violations and preventions of breaches of parole, statutory release and unescorted temporary absence conditions, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act already provides ample authority for an offender's conditional release to be suspended by correctional officials. This enables police to arrest the offender and bring him or her into custody.

With regard to an offender on an unescorted temporary absence, a suspension warrant can be issued where the grounds for granting the absence have changed or no longer exist or when new information becomes available that would have altered the original decision.

With respect to an offender on parole or statutory release, a suspension warrant can be issued at any time by the correctional service of Canada and the National Parole Board when it is believed to be necessary and reasonable in order to protect society. Execution of this warrant provides sufficient authority to return the offender to custody until the case can be reviewed by the National Parole Board.

Some may reasonably question why police do not have the same direct authority to arrest conditionally released federal offenders as they do for probationers. I would like to briefly address this question by explaining the key differences between provincial probation and federal conditional release, be it parole, statutory release or an unescorted temporary absence.

Probation is a court disposition which is not granted by a parole board. A breach of probation is a criminal offence because it constitutes a violation of a court order, as was pointed out earlier.

When a breach of probation occurs police have the same authority to arrest a person without a warrant as they would any other person who has committed a criminal offence.

Parole, statutory release and temporary absences, on the other hand, are not court orders, as was pointed out earlier. 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. We know very well the position of the Reform Party on that.

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—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, on October 29, I raised the question where do we sit as government with respect to a bill passed in the last Parliament known as the MMT bill, Bill C-29 or Bill C-94.

Members and people watching should know that this legislation came forward in the last Parliament for various stated reasons. The first time it came in, the government said it wanted to have a uniform blend of gasoline. To do that it had to remove MMT from Canadian gasoline because it did not exist in the United States. But the government knew or ought to have known that the American Environmental Protection Agency was about to license it and indeed it did.

Instead of pulling the bill at the time, the government proceeded to change its rationale. Instead of saying it was for a uniform blend of gasoline, it said it wanted to examine this as a public safety matter. But this was not case. It was not a health matter because Health Canada at that time was issuing statements saying there were no known health risks with MMT. It could not find any risks and would give a published statement to that effect.

The government on one hand was saying that public safety was the reason, and that is a very laudable and noble objective. But if I were to follow the rationale of the environment department, then I am sure there are a lot of other products we could outlaw, such as bacon or donuts, because they too are allegedly bad for your health.

In the end the bill passed the Commons. It forbids the importation of MMT. It is interesting to note that the environment department proposed a bill that is a trade bill. It is a bill that bans the importation of a product. The manufacturer of that product, Ethyl Corporation, now has the Government of Canada before a NAFTA trade tribunal.

What is the outcome likely to be? There are two possible outcomes. How is it going to affect Canadians? The answers are clear. If we loose this challenge under the NAFTA, we are going to pay $201 million U.S. or we are going to have to revoke the law. Second, if we win the NAFTA trade challenge, Canadians are going to pay more for gasoline at the pumps.

I ask members here, in particular the parliamentary secretary, and those watching, who is going to pay? Canadians can pay at the gas pumps or Canadians can pay through their taxes.

I would ask that the next time parliamentarians want to talk about the price of gasoline they tell Canadians that, with respect to the increase in the price of gasoline, they contributed to the problem. I think this is the least that those who supported this bill can do for Canadians.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Madam Speaker, as the House will recall, an act to regulate the interprovincial trade and importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances, Bill C-29, received royal assent on April 25, 1997. The act came into force June 24.

On April 14, Ethyl Corporation, the sole North American producer of MMT, filed a claim for damages under the investor stated dispute settlement provisions in chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The arbitration will be conducted pursuant to the North American Free Trade Agreement and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Rules which provide that one arbiter be appointed by each of the disputing parties and a third appointee appointed by agreement of the disputing parties.

Three highly respected international arbiters have been appointed to the tribunal. Ethyl Corporation has named Charles Brower, a lawyer practising in international arbitration in Washington, and the Government of Canada has appointed the Hon. Marc Lalonde, a lawyer in Montreal also practising international arbitration. Mr. Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel of Germany has agreed to serve as the presiding arbiter.

On October 2 the parties met with the tribunal to discuss procedural issues. At the meeting the schedule for the coming months was set. The first oral hearing will be February 24 and February 25, 1998.

The rules and procedures governing NAFTA dispute settlement were developed with a view to ensuring a just and cost effective resolution of disputes.

As this matter is currently before the tribunal it would be inappropriate for me to express any opinion on the merits of the case. That is for the competent tribunal to decide.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.56 p.m.)