Eleni Bakopanos

[National Day Of The Child, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the people of Canada will be marking the fifth National Day of the Child.

This is an opportunity for us all to focus on the important place children hold in our society. It is our responsibility as members of Parliament, and in a number of cases also as parents and grandparents, to ensure that each of our children in Canada does not live in poverty, die of hunger, fall victim to sexual abuse, or be exploited for the purpose of pornography or prostitution.

The National Crime Prevention Council which our government established during its first mandate has provided us with blueprints for developing and implementing prevention strategies that invest in children and our youth.

I would like to draw particular attention to the exceptional work done by the volunteers and administrators of the NGOs in my riding of Ahuntsic, among them Alternatives Jeunesse, Maison Buissonière, and the Centre Mariebourg. Speaking on behalf of all the children of Ahuntsic, my congratulations to them all.

We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to leave this world a little better. We do not own this world, we are only its keepers for future generations.

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put on the record, as was stated earlier, that we do support this amendment. We believe the amendment as stated is already permitted under section 529.1, but the hon. member's motion would provide more clarification.

[Justice, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I did not see the quote to which the member referred, but there are issues before this House on mercy killing, on euthanasia, and they will be debated, as is being done with the private members' motion.

[Crisis Centres, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board is now overlooking the funding for the government's family violence initiative.

The CASAC proposal which is I think is the proposal to which the hon. member is referring requires more than two-thirds of the funds that the department expects to receive from Treasury Board.

At the moment, we have 20 proposals for $1.2 million, including one from the group of aboriginal women who want to establish a program to build life skills of women. We are in the process of studying these proposals.

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, without belabouring the point, we had asked the hon. member if he would be willing to separate motion No. 3 from motion No. 5. I take it to mean that he is not going to agree to separate motion No. 3 from motion No. 5?

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would also concur with the hon. member from the Bloc. I believe in terms of the yeas and the nays, that the nays had it also.

Also, we would like to voice our objection to the ruling of the Chair.

I agree that it was not mentioned that Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6 were going to be grouped together and that we were going to vote on a package.

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I will just repeat that we on this side of the House do not support Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6.

I am not looking for sympathy from the opposition members. As other members have said, there was agreement of all parties to expedite passage of the legislation through the House.

Again I repeat that we have an obligation to the Supreme Court of Canada to meet its deadline. I would appreciate co-operation, but I am certainly not looking for sympathy from opposition members.

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to know whether the hon. member who presented the motion has agreed that we can separate Motion No. 3 from Motion No. 5.

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by repeating what has already been said in the House, which is that the government was obliged by the supreme court to ensure that both sides of the House could meet a court set deadline. This was not a deadline set by the government but imposed on us by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I would also add that in my view sufficient time has been allowed, both in the House and in committee, for opposition motions to be brought. Unfortunately, only one was received in committee. There was no discussion by the opposition on these motions. This is really stretching a point, because there was ample time available Wednesday evening for discussion and the opposition brought no amendments.

I would like to point out that we feel that, yes, the deadline is a little short. The deadline was imposed on us by the supreme court. It was not a deadline that we imposed on this House.

Second, there was ample time. The committee members on the government side were more than willing to spend more time discussing any motion brought forward by any member of the opposition. None of these motions was brought forward. There was discussion but none of the motions was brought forward to be discussed at the committee level. The opposition members decided to bring them forward in the House.

Fearmongering from the opposition by saying this will be unconstitutional is presumptive on the part of the opposition. We do not know whether this will be declared unconstitutional. We had no constitutional experts that came before the committee to to testify except a lawyer. I think that is an assumption that should not have been made.

The government is not able to support motion No. 1. This affects the very notion of practicability. The rule with respect to telewarrants is that the police are not in a position to meet a justice of the peace in person. This rule has been on the books for approximately 10 years. It is nothing new and it is seen as necessary to defend the constitutionality of the entire telewarrant scheme in the Criminal Code.

Motions 2, 4 and 6 all relate to the use of the singular to refer to dwelling house in the bill. Some have argued that in order to allow for warrants to apply to more than one dwelling house we need to refer to dwelling house in the plural. That is why we have the Interpretation Act. The Interpretation Act already provides that the singular includes the plural. All federal legislation, and this legislation in particular, Bill C-16, has been drafted with that rule in mind.

This amendment seems to undermine the way all federal legislation is drafted and would be a bad precedent in my opinion. It would make the interpretation of other statutes more difficult and uncertain in the future.

We are not able to support this motion as it is inconsistent with other provisions of the Criminal Code.

On Motion No 3, we are not able to support this motion either. The reason is that the motion addresses form 7 because it is a warrant for arrest. This warrant has been known to law for over 100 years and requires that the person be identified. If we cannot identify a person we should not be seeking a warrant for an arrest. That implies a person has been charged with a crime.

However, the government would be amenable for supporting Motion No. 5, and I will speak to that motion.

This amendment relates to form 7.1 and section 529.1 of the Criminal Code. The amendment would make it clear in the form what is already permitted by section 529.1. That section makes it possible to obtain a warrant for entry in order to arrest someone who is identifiable as opposed to identified.

I believe that if this form were amended as proposed by the hon. member we would be improving on the language in the bill by making it perfectly clear on the form itself that this is possible.

[Criminal Code, November 6th, 1997]

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—