Eleni Bakopanos

[Criminal Code, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-262, an act to amend the Criminal Code (probation order), introduced by the member for Kootenay—Columbia.

This bill has only one clause. It is intended to replace paragraph 731(1)( b ) of the Criminal Code with the following: b ) In addition to fining or sentencing the offender to imprisonment, direct that the offender comply with the conditions prescribed in a probation order.

The provisions of sections 731 and 731.1 of the Code currently deal with probation orders. They were updated and modernized with the in depth reform of sentencing, which was completed in Bill C-41, a bill the House passed in the first session of the last Parliament. It became chapter 22 of the 1995 Statutes of Canada and currently is included in part XXIII of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Section 731 enables the sentencing judge to subject a delinquent to a probationary order. Under paragraph 1( a ) the court may defer sentencing and order probation if no minimum sentence is provided for the offence at issue.

It is this last limitation which the hon. member proposes parliament remove from the section. Judges would then be allowed to attach a probation order to any sentence of imprisonment no matter how long.

There are a few other related provisions to which I draw the attention of the House. Section 732.2(1) describes when a probation order comes into force:

A probation order comes into force

a) on the date on which the order is made;

b) where the offender is sentenced to imprisonment under paragraph 731(1)(b) or was previously sentenced to imprisonment for another offence, as soon as the offender is released from prison or, if released from prison on conditional release, at the expiration of the sentence of imprisonment; or

c) where the offender is under a conditional sentence, at the expiration of the conditional sentence.

Section 732.2(2) provides that no probation order shall continue in force for more than three years after the date on which the order came into force. Section 732.1(2) sets out the mandatory conditions which must be contained in a probation order and section 732.1(3) provides a list of optional conditions.

It might be useful for hon. members to be reminded of some of these conditions:

(c) abstain from:

(i) the consumption of alcohol or other intoxicating substances, or

(ii) the consumption of drugs except in accordance with a medical prescription;

(d) abstain from owning, possessing or carrying a weapon;

(e) provide for the support or care of dependants;

(f) perform up to 240 hours of community service over a period not exceeding eighteen months;

(g) if the offender agrees, and subject to the program director's acceptance of the offender, participate actively in a treatment program approved by the province; and

(h) comply with such other reasonable conditions as the court considers desirable, subject to any regulations made under subsection 738(2), for protecting society and for facilitating the offender's successful reintegration into the community.

That final reference, the so-called basket clause, underlines the fundamental purpose of probation which is to protect society, but also to facilitate an offender's successful reintegration into society.

That is also the purpose of parole or conditional release. It is parole which provides that reintegration for offenders sentenced to sentences of over two years. I will have more to say about that later.

Let me give two examples of the span of control that probation can provide. It is quite common to see a conditional sentence, for example two years less a day, accompanied by a three year probation order containing similar conditions to those found in the conditional sentence order.

This protects society by providing a five year period of control and supervision over the offender with conditions that can be tailored and indeed changed over time to reflect changing circumstances and needs.

An offender sentenced to, say, 18 months in provincial custody could be under a period of probation supervision for up to three years. This, too, is commonplace and a sensible societal response to crime.

It may be useful to give some historical perspective on the use of probation in Canada. Probation started in this country in 1889 under the authority of an act to permit the conditional release of first offenders in certain cases.

Our first Criminal Code, passed in 1892, provided that first offenders convicted of offences punishable by not more than two years' imprisonment could be released on probation of conduct under a recognizance.

Subsequent 1921 legislation provided for the supervision of probationers in the community and thereafter most provinces enacted legislation creating probation services. There is no federal probation service.

If the hon. member's proposals were carried through, there would be potential for conflict with the role and understanding of parole and other forms of conditional release for federal offenders.

Penitentiary sentences already incorporate an appropriate range of supervised releases which have been carefully put in place for the safe and controlled reintegration of offenders into the community.

As recently as late August the government introduced a new sentencing category to the Criminal Code called long term offender. A court which designates an offender as a long term offender can sentence the offender to a penitentiary sentence followed by a period of long term supervision of up to a maximum of 10 years which begins when the period of incarceration, including parole, expires.

This is only one example of the measures that have been implemented to ensure the protection of society. There are many more. To illustrate, there is work release, escorted and unescorted temporary absences, day parole, full parole, statutory release and long term supervision.

Let me take a moment to describe these supervised releases in more detail so that members of the House can appreciate the comprehensive range of release mechanisms that are in place at the present time for the safe reintegration of federal offenders into society.

First, there is work release which is a release program allowing a penitentiary inmate to work for a specified duration in the community on a paid or voluntary basis while under supervision. Generally, an inmate is eligible for work release when he or she has served one-sixth of the sentence or six months, whichever is greater.

The institutional head has authority to grant a work release of up to a maximum period of 60 days under specified conditions which always include supervision.

Correctional authorities grant work releases to carefully selected inmates who perform work and services of benefit to the community, such as painting, general repairs and maintenance of community centres or homes for the aged. Work release is one of the first steps in the safe, gradual reintegration of offenders into society.

Then there is the escorted temporary absence. This is a short term release to the community under escort. Most inmates are eligible for such an absence at any time during the sentence. The duration of an escorted temporary absence varies from an unlimited period for medical reasons to not more than 15 days for any other specified reason.

The institutional head may authorize an escorted temporary absence. In certain instances involving lifers, National Parole Board approval is required.

For example, escorted temporary absences are granted to allow inmates to obtain treatment that is unavailable in a penitentiary, to attend critically ill family members and to prepare for other types of conditional release.

Then there is parole. This is a form of conditional release which enables some offenders to serve part of their sentence out in the community, provided they comply with certain conditions.

Since most offenders will eventually be released, the best way to protect the public is to help them to reintegrate with society through a gradual and supervised release mechanism.

Parole is a privilege, not a right, and the National Parole Board has the power to grant or deny it. In order to reach that decision, board members carefully examine the information provided by the victims, the courts, the correctional authorities, and the offender. A number of factors are taken into account, but protecting society is foremost.

This is followed by statutory release. Generally speaking, the offender is entitled to be released into the community once he has served two-thirds of his sentence. As is the case for parole, offenders who have been given statutory release serve the final third of their sentence in the community under supervision, provided they comply with certain conditions.

Every long term offender is subject to standard conditions such as keeping the peace. Special conditions can be added to ensure close supervision of the offenders, such as electronic monitoring and monetary participation and counselling. Correctional Service Canada provides the supervision.

In conclusion, the hon. member's proposal would create a potential conflict with the role of parole and other forms of release appropriate for federal offenders.

[Hate Crimes, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. Existing laws in this country are already covered in Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Criminal Code and the human rights act.

Criminal Code provisions concerning hate propaganda, obscenity and the possession of child pornography apply to the Internet as they apply to other forms of communication. The enforcement of the Criminal Code is the responsibility of the provincial attorney general.

This government takes its responsibility seriously. I hope that attorney general also takes his responsibility seriously.

[Armenian Monument, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago this House passed a motion which was presented by the member for Brampton Centre designating the week of April 20 to 27 as the week of remembrance of the inhumanity of people toward one another.

Today I wish to pay tribute to my constituents who are Canadians of Armenian origin and all members of the Montreal Armenian community. I commend them for their uncompromising efforts and tireless work on the erection of a monument which will be inscribed with the following words:

<“We dedicate this monument to all victims of genocide and we urge all citizens to promote tolerance and social harmony. This recognition reflects the spirit of the Declaration of Human Rights”.

I am very proud that the monument will be located in Marcellin-Wilson park, in my riding of Ahuntsic.

Congratulations to my constituents for reminding us all that history should never be repeated. We must never forget this horrific crime against humanity.

[Nunavut Act, April 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice appreciates the member's concern about youth crime, particularly violent youth crime and especially the tragic events in the member's riding. We are very sensitive to that.

The Minister of Justice will soon be releasing a comprehensive response to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. A key focus of this response will be on how we can take effective action to deal with violent youth crime. The youth justice system must be capable of responding effectively to the full range of crimes committed by young people, including serious crimes of violence.

The phenomenon of violent youth crime or gang crime, the degree of violence exhibited by group members and especially the rise of female participation in these groups is of concern to the government.

Youth crime is a complex problem best addressed through a multifaceted strategy. Multi-disciplinary, co-operative approaches involving families, communities, the voluntary sector, victims, mentors as well as mental health and child welfare systems must be encouraged.

As a government we recognize the importance of ongoing research on the phenomenon of youth group crime. The member has asked for a national study of group violence by teenagers. The government has devoted a lot of time and resources over the past three years to examining the youth justice system in some detail.

In fact, this issue was discussed by the first ministers when they met for the first time in August 1997, and by the Minister of Justice and her provincial and territorial colleagues during their meeting, in December of last year.

The minister and the government are now urging all members of the House to express their views when the minister tables her response to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice, and when the legislation is introduced in the House.

[Access To Information Act, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in December, justice ministers met to discuss conditional sentencing issues. More specifically, they looked at the need for an amendment in order to limit conditional sentences to non-violent criminals.

All jurisdictions agreed that Canada's appeal courts should be allowed to issue the necessary guidelines to sentencing judges.

This is taking place in all appeal courts in the country.

At the appellate level, courts have expressed the view that conditional sentences are generally inappropriate for sexual offences unless exceptional circumstances are present.

We will continue, as the minister has said, to monitor in close consultation with the provinces and territories as requested by the territories and the provinces, the use of conditional sentences. There will always be sentencing decisions that create controversy, and the Reform members are great creators of controversy in this House by bringing up the exceptions to the rule every single time, that seem on their face to be inappropriate. That is why we have courts of appeal.

It is important for hon. members to keep matters in perspective. There have been well over 18,000 conditional sentence orders imposed in Canada since September 1996. As an article published in the Toronto Star in March 1988 noted the majority of the more than 18,000 conditional sentences have been free of controversy. The vast majority of conditional sentence cases are well-reasoned appropriate dispositions.

We continue to be vigilant. We are working with provincial and territorial correctional experts and prosecutors to collect data on the use of conditional sentencing, as was requested by all territories and provinces.

The evidence so far is clear. Most conditional sentences have been imposed for non-violent offences involving property, driving, drugs, administration of justice and other non-violent offences under the Criminal Code.

We do not make laws in this country for the exceptions. We make them in order to cover a wide range of offences.

I also wish to advise hon. members that there is an undertaking on the part of provincial and territorial governments to continue working together.

I want to advise in addition that the Minister of Justice is considering introducing possible amendments to streamline the enforcement of conditional sentences where an allegation of breach has been made.

[Firearms, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I take great offence on behalf of the Minister of Justice and also this government to the inference that this government attempted to make up facts and figures.

The RCMP has stated both in a letter and at a meeting which the hon. member attended that the statistics were true, they were not false. The methodology that was used was different and they accepted that as a fact.

[Firearms, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is actually the fourth or fifth time the member has raised this question in the House.

The answer was given in the letter that was tabled in the House by the minister. The RCMP has said that it is satisfied with the methodology that was used by the firearms smuggling work group of which it was part.

It was a question of methodology. It was not a question of fixing the figures or doing anything in order to make our point.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not remember making reference to a member's name.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the chicken or the egg came first but in any case I thank the hon. member for Medicine Hat. He spoke to the integrity of the Minister of Finance. His views on this issue speak well of the integrity the minister enjoys in this House and among Canadians. One of his colleagues, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, said: “Personally I don't believe so. I think Mr. Martin is a man of integrity. I really do”.

The member noted in his speech that we are not doing enough about the debt. Where has he been during the whole debate we had on the budget? Does he not know we will be lowering the debt in terms of the percentage of GNP and in absolute terms? Is that not how we dealt with the deficit? We have taken measures in the budget to address the issue of the debt. Why does he feel we have not addressed that issue?

[Income Tax Act, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister answered in the House, we have been truthful and we have brought forward all the information.

This question has been discussed many times. Not only is the RCMP now satisfied with the report, the hon. member should also understand that the firearms smuggling work group conducted the original study. Membership of the group included experts from the RCMP, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the chief provincial firearms offices in both Quebec and British Columbia and the Ontario Provincial Police. The group selected the researchers and the principal researcher was under secondment from Statistics Canada.

Most recently, the RCMP reviewed the statistics—they were available—this time counting only those guns actually used in crime. If you ask a different question you must expect a different answer, and that is what happened in this case.

Commissioner Murray stated in his letter of December 30, 1997 which was quoted earlier: “The RCMP now understands the scope and methodology of the original”.

There is also question about the firearms mentioned in the original RCMP letter and cited by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville. The member indicated that only 73 of the 88,000 violent crimes investigated by the RCMP involved firearms. This is simply not possible. Statistics Canada indicates that there were 195 firearms homicides in that same year and more than 8,000 firearms robberies were committed. Given that the RCMP is responsible for policing about 25% of Canada, if this is true then the investigation is a larger proportion than that indicated by the member.

I remind the House that recent events in the United States have shown us again that this legislation is important to Canada and to the safety of our fellow Canadians.