House of Commons Hansard #51 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was police.

Topics

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

An hon. member

At 3 a.m. in an alley?

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

You were not listening. Officers on duty work 24 hours straight.

If you stopped interrupting me, you might learn something. I already said the duty officers work 24 hours straight. The response to your question is therefore “Yes, even at 3 a.m.”

So, correctional officials can at any time and any place deliver a warrant to immediately suspend the parole of an offender who poses a public threat even though the person may not have broken the law. I say it again, even though the person may not have broken the law.

In the case of a convicted pedophile, the Criminal Code already allows a court to issue an order preventing the individual for a period that can last to the end of his life from being in a place where children might reasonably be expected to be present. The Criminal Code enables the police to arrest without a warrant an offender on parole who contravenes such an order.

When an individual fears for his or her safety because an offender on parole repeatedly follows or threatens that individual, the Criminal Code already authorizes the police to arrest the offender without a warrant.

I would like to completely dispel the false impression created by Bill C-211 that the police have limited arrest powers under the current legislation. They have more than sufficient powers under the current legislation, as does the National Parole Board, as does Correctional Services Canada.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

An hon. member

Where are the police at 3:00 a.m. in a rural community?

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

The member is obviously not listening again. They work 24 hours.

I will end by saying I do not support the proposed amendments to the legislation. I call on all my colleagues on both sides of the House to reject these proposed amendments.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Reform

Derrek Konrad Reform Prince Albert, SK

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of our police officers. Across the country and for many years they have been calling for the reforms offered by Bill C-211. In fact, the police wrote this bill, the government not being able to develop a concept as simple and as common sense as this one. They had to do the work for them. Why did they do it? To keep Canadians safer. I am proud to do my part to see that police officers are given the authority to arrest parolees caught in violation of release conditions.

Specifically Bill C-211 seeks to amend the Criminal Code to create a hybrid offence of breach of parole or conditions of release. As a result, existing Criminal Code section 495 would allow peace officers to arrest without warrant an offender who is found to be in breach of his or her parole or release conditions. This bill would also grant arresting peace officers the authority to detain an individual charged with such an offence in order to allow the National Parole Board time to consent to or to oppose the continuation of his parole freedom.

As a new parliamentarian and a trusting Canadian citizen I was shocked to discover that this gap in law existed at all. Like most people I know, I would have presumed that a person on parole had such a privilege only as long as he was living within the conditions set at the time of his release. I would have also presumed that breaking those rules immediately removed privilege of parole. But that is not the case.

Chief of police Ian Russell said last month there is no power of arrest for a police officer who finds a person in violation of his parole. Ian Russell is the new police chief for the Ontario community of LaSalle. His comment appeared in the Windsor Star of January 17, 1998. Mr. Russell is a veteran of this war to amend the Criminal Code and has illustrated the problem clearly with the following story:

A convicted wife beater is released from jail but a condition of his parole is he stay at least 1,000 metres from the home of his victim. Nevertheless he goes to her home and stands on the public sidewalk. The frantic victim calls the police.

Officers arrive but the man is not trespassing. His behaviour cannot be called stalking. But he is violating the parole.

Can the police arrest him and remove the apparent threat. Not unless, as Russell explains, the convicted wife beater breaks another law on the spot. Because he is only in violation of a condition of his parole the wife beater could remain there until a police officer went to the parole officer and submitted a report or contacted the parole officer to ascertain whether he would issue a warrant to suspend the parole. Then and only then, armed with the warrant, can the police officer return to try and fine the parolee, arrest him and return him to custody.

The parole officer has no way of assessing an imminent risk and must rely on the peace officer's assessment anyway. The step of contacting a parole officer is pointless and potentially risky. This makes no sense. In the time it takes to contact a parole officer and convince him of the need to arrest the violator, he can leave the scene and repeat the whole business over and over again.

As Russell points out, if the violator has decided he will end up back in jail anyway he may return to do something “really worthwhile”.

What is achieved in this scenario? Nothing except for the protection of the privileges of the former inmate. I point out that a conditional release is a privilege. It must be earned on the inside, monitored on the outside and be capable of being enforced without needless bureaucratic red tape. That is why I stand in support of Bill C-211.

It seems only natural and only right that the safety of law-abiding Canadians should come before the privileges of a convicted criminal who has not even completely repaid his debt to society. I prefer to think of this as closing a loophole and not the reinterpretation of fundamental rights in this country. Bill C-211 is intended to return the balance of rights to law-abiding Canadians. That is those who expect our police officers to protect Canadians and their families from known dangers.

This bill has a three part upside which should make it particularly easy for members from all sides of this House to throw their support behind it.

First, the bill's only purpose is to help police protect society. That makes it non-partisan and nearly controversy free. Why would we as elected members of Parliament not help police do their jobs?

Second, it requires no money. How often can we say that about a piece of helpful legislation?

Finally, it confers no inappropriate powers on police. In fact, it clarifies a power most people would say should already exist. I can only restate that it is unacceptable for police themselves to be handcuffed by the inefficiencies of a pointless warrant process.

I am fully aware of the mine field we walk through known as the charter of rights and freedoms, or should I call it the challenges to the charter, which test the patience of regular Canadians such as me. One of the only criticisms of this bill is that without proof that present system imposes unreasonable time constraints on the police, broader police powers to arrest parolees who have committed no new offence would be unlikely to withstand a charter challenge.

I am in agreement that the charter should protect our individual rights and freedoms. As a member of the Reform Party I am committed to this philosophy and support our victims bill of rights. It is the ridiculousness of criminals using these very rights and freedoms they have themselves betrayed to shield themselves from punishment or to endanger innocent citizens that I disagree with.

Is it just me or are not convicted criminals supposed to lose some rights as punishment for their crimes? Would not completely fulfilling the conditions of one's parole be required before those rights are fully returned?

In the unlikely event of such a charter challenge I would hope common sense would prevail. I would also hope that the consistent and persistent request for such amendments to the Criminal Code by our police community, in addition to concerned, law-abiding citizens, would be taken seriously as proof that such a need exists.

After all, if we consider our peace officers to be professionals, we owe them a fair hearing of what they say they need and we owe them the tools they need to do their jobs.

Reconsider for a moment the scenario earlier where the hypothetical police officer was called by a victim of wife beating when her husband violated his parole by coming within 1,000 metres of her. Because he could do nothing the officer's time was wasted and the woman's danger persisted.

Remember, in order to protect her that police officer would have had to track down the parole officer, submit a report and have a warrant issued. Imagine what all this costs in terms of time, in terms of money and in lost opportunity to protect the person in need. With the chances of catching the offender at slim to none, any cost is too high.

Here we offer police officers, at their sincere urging, a no cost solution with a potential for quicker, more effective response to real life situations such as this. As for the price of peace of mind, simply imagine your own loved one in any kind of catch-22 situation like the ones these police officers deal with every day and notice how invaluable it really is.

Even if the requirements of Bill C-211 did cost money, we would be remiss in not passing this piece of legislation.

On the issue of prudence, what could be more reasonable than extending to peace officers the powers they need to do their jobs?

Ian Russell again says this best: “All we are asking is that the officer have the authority to apprehend and secure the inmate or parolee, take him to a facility, and forthwith contact the duty officer to see whether or not the arrest will continue via a parole suspension”.

This is reasonable and necessary. It is no more and no less than what is needed. It is similar to the method with which those who violate their probation conditions are treated. Police across the country say it will work and I agree.

I will conclude with one more example. In 1988 a psychopathic pedophile named Joseph Fredericks raped and murdered 11 year old Christopher Stephenson. Joseph Fredericks was on parole at the time and a condition of his parole was that he stay away from children. No peace officer saw them but what would an officer's options have been had he seen them? Arrest Fredericks? He has not committed a crime by being with Christopher. Take down the particulars and report to a parole officer and request a warrant? Would that protect him? Not likely. How about arresting 11 year old Christopher under the Child Welfare Act as a child in need of protection? Arrest a child?

In this case none of the above happened. Christopher Stephenson was murdered by Fredericks who was caught and returned to prison where he was slain by a fellow inmate. This is unacceptable.

I appeal to this House to put a high priority on this amendment to the Criminal Code and to equip our police departments with all the tools they need to deal with breaches of parole.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

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

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Madam Speaker, I rise to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. It relates to airport safety as related to the divestiture processes going on across the country with cutbacks to NavCan and to other aspects of airport facilities.

Today the minister announced an independent review of firefighting issues. We are very pleased to hear that this review will take place, especially in consideration of the events that have taken place in Fredericton, Quebec, Sydney and Manitoba lately.

My main concern today is the divestiture of the Halifax International Airport and whether it will be equipped with adequate firefighting facilities after the divestiture. I believe I have reason to be concerned because other areas of Halifax International Airport have been left with substandard operational facilities.

I would like to compare Halifax with a couple of other airports around the country that have exactly the same airport volume of traffic, that is about 2.7 million passengers a year.

Halifax has clearly been shortchanged because it has only 44% of the hold room space that an equivalent volume airport like Ottawa has. Halifax has 69% less in baggage space and capacity than the airport at Winnipeg. Halifax has 50% less out baggage space than the airport at Ottawa. Halifax has 69% less check in space than the airport at Ottawa. Again, these are all equivalent capacity airports.

The overall worst statistic that really is kind of discomforting is the fact that Halifax handles 750,000 more passengers than its rated capacity. That fact alone raises safety questions that I think should be addressed.

However, on November 18, the Minister of Transport unequivocally guaranteed me in the House that Halifax would be treated the same way as all other equivalent airports in these negotiations. I ask today whether the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the minister, will confirm that this commitment would not only address the issues I have listed but would also ensure that equivalent safety facilities to those of other airports with the same capacity such as Ottawa and Winnipeg are available for Halifax International Airport.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Hamilton West Ontario

Liberal

Stan Keyes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport

Madam Speaker, I am in a bit of a quandary because the order paper indicated that we would be dealing with the question put by the hon. member on December 3 when he asked about NavCan.

I am asking for a ruling. The response the government has prepared is to the request by the hon. member for a late show question arising from a question in the House regarding NavCan.

I am not sure if this situation puts the member out of order with his late show question this evening. I can answer the question put by the hon. member at this time or if you find, Madam Speaker, that the question is out of order the member could try to put the question again by reintroducing at another date his late show question of this evening.

I will leave it to you, Madam Speaker, to make the judgment.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Madam Speaker, I did not submit a question to the hon. parliamentary secretary for him to answer. This question relates to NavCan. It relates to the cutbacks. It relates to aircraft safety. I really would ask that the parliamentary secretary answer the question.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

There cannot be any points of order during this stage of debate.

The period allocated for this exercise is almost over. May I suggest that perhaps the two members could get together and try to come to some kind of arrangement.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Stan Keyes Liberal Hamilton West, ON

Madam Speaker, if you would like to start the clock with two minutes for a response from the government, I can respond right now to the hon. member's question as he has put it.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House?

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

We will put the clock back two minutes.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Stan Keyes Liberal Hamilton West, ON

Madam Speaker, I will try to be as quick as I can with the different questions arising from the member's question this evening.

First, I remind the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester that safety will always be the first priority of Transport Canada. As most Canadians are aware, Transport Canada has operated the country's air traffic control system safely for more than 50 years. We are very proud of that record.

On the issue of NavCan and its management over the past year, the air navigation system continues to be safe and secure. The managers there are intent on maintaining the good and positive record and on enhancing it whenever possible. Air traffic control staffing levels at airports across Canada have always varied in accordance with changing traffic demands and training lead times.

I hope the hon. member understands that at no time is the safety of Canadians put at risk, whether it has to do with the devolution of responsibilities of air traffic control to NavCan or the firefighting and rescue capabilities at a particular airport. I have an airport on the outreaches of Hamilton so I am very cognizant of the member's concerns for the airport.

May I assure the hon. member opposite that again he can receive the unequivocal guarantee he has received already from the Minister of Transport that Halifax will be treated the same way as all other cities in the country have been treated in the negotiations. He will know the Minister of Transport has stood in his place and has put into process the firefighting regulations which are again being looked at by the commission. It will report. In the meantime—

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I am sorry to interrupt but I cannot allow the parliamentary secretary any more time.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

Madam Speaker, on November 22 of last year I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to act on the 1996 report given to her and prepared for her department on first nations social assistance.

The report confirms the findings of the auditor general, several internal studies and the royal commission on aboriginal people that the department is grossly mismanaging social assistance funds.

The report concluded that on reserve welfare dependency is increasing, costs are out of control and the department is running out of money. This confirms the Reform Party's audit which showed that 75% of DIAND's social affairs budget is unaccounted for. All of this is despite the fact the 1997-98 estimates allocate $1.03 billion for on reserve social assistance.

Judge Reilly of the Provincial Court of Alberta was so concerned that he took the unprecedented step of ordering an investigation into alleged political abuse, violence, drug dependency, suicide and other social ills. The results were staggering.

Grassroots natives are not receiving the benefits that are earmarked for them because of the government's inept approach to native issues. It is causing serious problems on Canada's reserves and nowhere is this more apparent than in my constituency of Wetaskiwin.

The Hobbema reservation is home to four Cree bands: Samson, Montana, Louis Bull and Ermineskin. Considered one of Canada's wealthiest reserves, Hobbema receives huge payments for oil royalties. The children receive about $100,000 in trust fund payments on their 18th birthday, yet this reserve is plagued with high unemployment, poverty and substance abuse. It has been estimated that 80% of the people on the Hobbema reserve live on welfare and in poverty. How can this be possible in light of the royalties and the transfers from the federal government?

Members of the Samson Band asked the same question. When they were not provided with any answers they staged a protest to draw attention to what they consider to be mismanagement of funds by the band council. Four concerned members travelled to Ottawa to seek a meeting with the minister but they received the proverbial brush off.

I asked the minister to clear the air and order a forensic audit of the Samson Band's finances. The hon. member for Skeena, Reform's Indian affairs critic, also asked the minister for an independent audit. Our requests fell on deaf ears.

The reluctance of the minister and her officials to get involved is another example of this government's determination to maintain the status quo, to keep people in poverty and to perpetuate dependency. One of Hobbema's respected elders, Norman Yellowbird, wrote in the Wetaskiwin Times that “the conditions outlined in Judge Reilly's report can be found on almost every reserve in Alberta, if not Canada”.

It is increasingly obvious that there are bands operating outside normal bounds of acceptable standards in terms of proper fair management of their social assistance programs. The human cost of this accountability crisis is both staggering and appalling. An effective monitoring appeal process is urgently required, preferably one run by the Indian people that is designed to protect against excess and to ensure equity and accountability.

Aboriginal people are clearly unhappy. Canadian taxpayers do not want to see their hard earned dollars misspent. How many more reports are needed? What kind of proof is required before this government abandons its practice of following the course of least resistance?

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Pierrefonds—Dollard Québec

Liberal

Bernard Patry LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Wetaskiwin on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Aboriginal inclusion in Canada's economic prosperity is important not only for aboriginal people but for all Canadians. The aboriginal labour force is young and is growing at twice the national average. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples estimated that 300,000 jobs will be needed by the year 2016. A major increase in the aboriginal economy and activity, both rural and urban, is essential to meet the needs and aspirations of aboriginal youth.

The government is committed to working in partnership with the aboriginal leadership and business people, Canadian industry, the provinces and the voluntary sector to take action that will create the conditions to maximize economic activities and jobs in aboriginal communities.

On January 7 this government announced our response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. This response includes a commitment to change social assistance on reserves from passive income maintenance toward more active measures such as training and skills development to increase individual and community self reliance.

As part of our aboriginal action plan we announced the creation of an aboriginal human resources development council which will bring together the public and private sectors to identify employment opportunities for aboriginal people. The Regina Leader Post welcomed this initiative and said that it is encouraging that workable solutions are now being developed to help native people help themselves.

The solution is not to cut almost a billion dollars out of programs that support basic services for aboriginal people as the Reform Party plans to do, nor is the solution assimilation or Ottawa imposed paternalism. The solution is to work with aboriginal communities and businesses to help them acquire the tools they need to become full partners in Canada's future.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.44 p.m.)