Susan Whelan

[Endangered Species, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has an obligation to protect its endangered species and to meet our international commitments.

How is the Minister of the Environment ensuring that we protect endangered species in Canada today?

[The Economy, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is general agreement that Canada needs more computer experts and engineers to thrive in a knowledge based economy.

What is the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Technology doing to address the concerns raised by participants in Ottawa at the congress of the social sciences and humanities that social and cultural skills are also necessary in a knowledge based economy?

[Committees Of The House, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 26, 1998, the committee has considered the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999.

The chair wants to thank members of the committee for their efforts in that review. The plans and priorities of two departments and 11 agencies were examined by the committee which devoted 14 meetings and more than 24 hours to the study of the 1998-99 budget estimates.

Further I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 21, 1998, the committee has considered Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. The committee has agreed to report it without amendments.

[Committees Of The House, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today of presenting four reports.

First I would like to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Industry relating to Bill C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Industry relating to a recommendation to the House on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

[Committees Of The House, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Industry on the year 2000 computer problem.

I also have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Industry on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999.

[Rural Canada, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Essex I have many rural constituents whose economic interests and needs are different from those in large urban centres.

How is the minister responsible for rural affairs determining what rural Canadians want and need from their government?

[Electronic Commerce, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

Consumers across Canada are shopping on the Internet or doing their banking from their homes. Canadians want to know what initiatives the government has taken to ensure that they are protected as consumers when they engage in electronic commerce?

[Year 2000, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the president of Treasury Board.

A recent press article suggested that not one federal government department has taken advantage of the services offered by an elite team assembled to assist with the pending year 2000 millennium bug. What assurances can the minister give the House that federal departments are dealing with the urgency of the year 2000 crisis?

[Transport, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport announced his review of Canada's 20 year old policy governing international air charter passenger services.

Will this review address the concerns of Canadians who rely on affordable charter flights to international destinations?

[Criminal Code, March 30th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased for the opportunity to join in the discussion on Private Member's Bill C-211 respecting corrections, condition of release and police powers.

I interpret the focus of these proposals as being on the addition of safeguards to the conditional release program for offenders. The bill does not raise the question of when release should occur or if release should ever be granted to some types of offenders but simply addresses the method by which such releases may be terminated.

Because Bill C-211 proposes additional police powers, it follows it would apply further restrictions to offenders in the community. Would these measures enhance public protection, prevent crime or even save lives? Would there be measurable improvement in the supervision and control of offenders? In answer to these questions I would like to devote my allocated time today to sharing with the House and with all Canadians some thoughts about public safety, the criminal justice system and conditional release as it now exists.

No one should think that the decision to release an offender to the community is made lightly. The decision making process is careful and extensive. It is quite obvious that any release conditions are framed by court imposed sentences.

Over the last dozen years parliament has pursued a series of measures that have increased penalties and restricted releases. On the sentencing end of things it is sufficient to say that there has been considerable movement toward the punitive end of the scale. This being said, it may be helpful for members to know something about the conditional release process and the roles and responsibilities of the correctional agencies of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Correctional Services Board of Canada and the National Parole Board.

Through these agencies this ministry, as part of our criminal justice system, deals with two fundamental issues which lie at the very heart of what defines the quality and the nature of the culture of the country. The first of these is public safety, an issue of paramount importance. Passage by parliament of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in 1992 enshrined in law the principle that the protection of society should be foremost in the minds of those entrusted with the administration of court imposed sentences in the federal corrections system.

The second issue is human freedom in all its dimensions: the deprivation of freedom, the respect for freedom and the quality and dignity of freedom. This is an important consideration given that the most extreme sanction the state is able to impose on its citizens is carried out by the Ministry of the Solicitor General. The Ministry of the Solicitor General, through the National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada, is responsible for ensuring the safety of the public. Its employees, both in federal institutions and the community, deal with more than 20,000 offenders under its charge each day of the year. It must carry out this responsibility in a society which places an enormous importance on the rights and freedoms of all its citizens.

How the correctional service and parole board go about their business is a matter of concern not to only a small minority but to all Canadians. They are equally concerned about powers granted to police forces and, I would guess, would have questions about how much power is necessary to provide protection without approaching the possibility for oppression.

I believe we have to keep in mind today the fact that over 99% of temporary absences are successful and that roughly nine out of ten offenders in the community on full parole and on statutory release complete their sentences without reoffending. That being said, I also believe that the bill has good intentions and that the ideas for enhancing the protection of the public are good.

I recognize that earlier in the debate in the House the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough talked about the effects on rural Canada. He talked about the fact that he supported the change with some reservation and was concerned about the arbitrariness of it. He talked about what happens in small communities in rural parts of the country. That is where I come from as well today.

Unfortunately how the bill protects the public may be flawed. It could be subject to a serious challenge in a court of law under the charter of rights and freedoms.

This concerns me because I know and I understand the effects in rural Canada. I recognize that often there are one or two police officers on duty and that although the parole board does its best to ensure that warrants are issued as quickly as possible, it is not always possible for police officers to go back or to have someone at the station let them know that it indeed has been faxed.

There are issues that need to be dealt with, but I believe the member who put forward the bill today is aware that there is a possibility of a charter challenge. That is my concern.

We need to ensure that laws we put forward are good laws and that laws that go forward meet all purposes. This law in my own opinion has a purpose that is necessary. However it needs to be narrower in scope. It needs to ensure that there is not a charter challenge. It needs to ensure that we go forward so that Canadians know they have that possibility. One of the ways we can choose to narrow the scope of the bill, even in the words of the researcher for the hon. member, is to limit its application to certain offenders or specific behaviours.

For example, in the research that was done, limiting the offence of breaching parole or release conditions for offenders serving time for a scheduled offence should target the more dangerous offenders. Alternatively, the bill could limit the definition of offences to breaches involving particularly high risk behaviours such as possession of weapons or illegal drugs. Either step could go a long way to adjusting the charter challenge.

I am very concerned for public safety. I am very concerned for the citizens in my community. I have had many discussions with Ian Russell, who is now the chief of police in one of my communities, the town of LaSalle, one of the gentleman of whom members of the Reform Party speak often.

We have discussed that there are issues which need to be dealt with as we go forward and as we propose law. I go back to the earlier comments about this of the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. There may need to be some changes in the wording. Early in the debate he embraced the bill even though he thought there should be some changes. I also embrace the concept.

I am concerned about rural communities, about small communities, but as we move forward together we have to ensure that all Canadians are entitled to be not only protected but to the rights under the charter. We have to ensure that our laws will not be subject to charter challenges as soon as they become law.

That being said, again I talk about the fact that the principle in the bill is not new. It has been introduced in the House four times since 1993. It came out of the standing committee on justice that it be amended to allow police arrest without warrant. That recommendation in my opinion was to respond to the deficiencies in the law that could slow police response times. These are things that we still have to do and we still have to meet on.

The will of the people, police officers and many members of the House is there, but there must be a law that works and does not breach any other laws in the process. That is why I cannot support the bill at this stage. I believe it is flawed.

On behalf of my constituents I say as a member of Parliament that we have to find a way to give police powers which will allow them to do their job without violating the charter. I believe it is what we were elected to do. The concept is right and in my opinion the end is right. However, in this case I do not believe that the bill can achieve this end.