Nick Discepola

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec), November 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I was almost angered by what the hon. member for Edmonton East had to say despite the fact that he has been on the joint committee with us for two full weeks. I was surprised, because I finally understood why the Reform Party is not comfortable with the amendment. It still confuses minority language rights with the amendment to clause 93 of the Constitution on which we will vote tomorrow and which concerns only denominational rights.

Reformers seem to give much weight to a petition signed by 235,000 people. I even asked in committee how many persons on that petition were from Quebec. I could not get an answer. Nonetheless they exclude all alternative measures.

The fact that there has been a debate going on for 30 years in Quebec does not strike them. The fact that Anglican and Catholic bishops supported the resolution has no effect on them. Even the fact that there was a unanimous vote at the National Assembly, where we find democratically elected members, does not trouble them. Since they seem so difficult to convince, I will try one last time to remind the Reform Party members what we will be asked to vote on tomorrow.

They must know that clause 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 does not in any way protect school board structures as such. Clause 93 does not protect language rights either. It protects access to denominational schools. Minority language rights are not protected under clause 93. They are protected by other sections in the Constitution, more particularly section 23. Section 93 does not protect the right of minorities to manage their schools and school boards, religion education in schools, or even Protestant and Catholic schools. Is that clear enough now?

The right to levy taxes through school boards on Montreal Island, for example, or to have a say on the curriculum is not protected either.

Section 93 guarantees only two things: the right of dissent for the Catholic or Protestant minority and certain rights for Protestant and Catholic minorities, as the previous speaker clearly explained, not on Montreal Island, but in the city of Montreal and in Quebec City.

Reform members are suggesting that, if a referendum had been held, they may have been able to go along. But their support now depends on a petition signed by 235,000 people.

I would like to ask the hon. member a question concerning the holding of a referendum on this issue.

How would that help him as a member of Parliament to better determine whether there is a consensus? What would he use? Would it be like his leader during the 1995 referendum with 50% plus 1? What factor is he going to use? The debate here is not on trying to establish that 78% of the people are in favour. The debate here is to ensure the majority of the minority affected is well represented and has given its consent. I think that has been demonstrated time and time again. How will the holding of a referendum notwithstanding its costs help to ensure the member's making his decision?

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec), November 17th, 1997]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

In responding to two questions, the hon. member for Quebec mentioned the hon. member for Bourassa when in fact referring to the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie. It was simply a point of clarification.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec), November 17th, 1997]

Thanks to him—

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec), November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment we are being asked to support is the repeal of subsections 1 to 4 of Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Since the beginning, in the National Assembly, the Government of Quebec and the Parti Quebecois have taken it upon themselves to include in the preamble to their request that they do not recognize the Constitution of 1982. It is odd that the Government of Quebec has taken such a decision. It is odder still that Bloc Quebecois members have taken the same position.

It is because of section 43 of the Constitution of 1982, which the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois refuse to accept or to recognize as being relevant, that we can now discuss this amendment; in fact, it is Section 43 that provides for the right of the province of Quebec, with a simple resolution from the National Assembly, to request a bilateral constitutional amendment, without the consent of the other provinces.

Furthermore, subsection 33.1 of the 1982 Constitution, which, again, Quebec has not accepted, allows Bill 107 on public education and the amendment proposed in Bill 109 to override the unconstitutional aspect by using the notwithstanding clause.

I was wondering if the member from Quebec could answer two questions. If the English community had not felt that its access to linguistic schools was protected under section 23, if the anglophone community was not convinced that the 1982 Constitution provided some protection, does the member really believe that we would have had such a consensus in Quebec?

Can she admit in this House, just as the Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister himself admitted, that one would indeed have to be naive to think that the Constitution of 1982 does not apply everywhere in the country? Can the member answer these two questions?

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec), November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I sat on the committee with the hon. member for almost three weeks. There is a premise that no consensus has been established in Quebec.

I listened very intently to the member's speech. He failed to mention that debate on the creation of linguistic school boards has been ongoing in Quebec upward of 30 years. He also failed to mention there is a quasi-unanimity on the creation of linguistic school boards.

I will grant him one thing. There is no consensus on how to go about creating linguistic school boards. The role our committee undertook was to determine the appropriateness of the Quebec request under section 93 and the bilateral amending formula for section 43.

It behoves me to hear the Reform Party time and time again refuse categorically to accept the fact that there is a consensus. The consensus is large. Other than, as the Reform has always called for, holding another referendum on the issue I do not see how Reformers can ignore it.

I have a duty as a member of Parliament to make sure there is a consensus among the minority that is affected. Let us be clear what we are talking about. We are talking about removing the application of articles 1 through 4 in section 93 in Quebec.

I will be even more specific. Section 93 protects Catholic and Protestant education in the city of Montreal but not the island of Montreal and in the city of Quebec proper but not the region of Quebec. That is the protection it gives.

We talk about consensus. The provincial Protestant Association of Teachers represents approximately 6,500 teachers. The non-denominationals came to us and said they were in favour. La Fédération des comités des parents de la province de Québec is made up of over 40,000 parents, French and English speaking, Catholic and Protestant. It represents 172 parents' committees.

La Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec, the largest group of 130,000 members, and la Coalition pour la déconfessionalisation du système scolaire—I can cite survey after survey—all called on the government to acquiesce to Quebec's demands because that province in its infinite wisdom sought for almost 30 years to find a solution to modernizing the school system.

I ask the hon. member, is it appropriate in a modern society such as Canada today to provide for the constitutional protection of just two classes of religions, Protestants and Catholics, or should we not let each province decide what is best, in its own interests, in its own regions and in its own communities?

[Criminal Code, November 6th, 1997]

Read the law. This makes it possible for the police to arrest the offender and to place him in custody.

As for an offender who has received permission for an unescorted temporary release, an order for suspension may be issued if the reasons for which the permission was issued have changed or no longer exist, or if there is fresh information which would have altered the initial decision if available at the time it was made.

As for offenders on parole or statutory release, Correctional Services Canada and the National Parole Board may, at any time, issue a suspension warrant if they deem this necessary and reasonable for the protection of society.

Such a mandate would permit the reincarceration of a delinquent until his case could be examined by the National Parole Board.

Some people might wonder why the police do not have the same power of direct apprehension with respect to delinquents under federal responsibility who are on parole as they do for probationers.

I would like to clarify a few points on this matter, by explaining the significant differences between probation under provincial jurisdiction and parole under federal jurisdiction, whether we are talking of conditional release, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence.

Probation is a court disposition which is not granted by the parole board. It is a breach of probation and is a criminal offence because it constitutes a violation of a court order. And when a breach of probation occurs, police have the same authority to arrest the person without a warrant, as they would any other person who is committing a criminal offence.

Parole, statutory release and temporary absence, on the other hand, are not court orders. 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.

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 of these conditions do not constitute criminal activity, board members and Correctional Service Canada staff are in the best position to determine when it is necessary to suspend the conditional release in order to manage the offender's risk and protect the community.

A person on parole, for example, may have advised his supervisor that, for good reason, he will be 15 minutes later than the time set for his return to the halfway house. In such a case, the supervisor can, in full knowledge of the facts, decide not to suspend parole.

Without such information, however, a police officer could arrest the delinquent for failing to meet the condition, even though he may be no immediate threat to society.

This would conflict with the parole plans approved by the National Parole Board and would weaken the board's authority.

Although it could be argued that the member's bill is aimed at more serious offences, I would like to stress that, when police officers surprise an offender on conditional release in the act of committing a criminal offence, or when they have reasonable grounds to believe that a particular offender has committed or is on the point of committing a criminal offence, they already have all the power necessary to arrest him again without a warrant.

Therefore the issue raised by the member's bill is not whether the powers of the police should be broadened in order to allow them to make arrests without warrants, but rather whether the powers they now have, and the correctional practices in effect, are sufficient to allow the police to take rapid action in situations where offenders on conditional release present a risk to the community.

Our priority is the protection of the public, as I have already mentioned, and our government has taken many measures in this regard. There have also been a number of initiatives in recent years to improve the transmission of information between the Correctional Service of Canada and the police, in order to ensure better management of offenders on conditional release under federal responsibility.

One key information sharing improvement is the ability to enhance information of the Canadian Police Information Computer Network, commonly known as CPIC. Through a link between CPIC and the Correctional Service Canada offender management system, police forces have direct access to information on conditionally released offenders including their conditions of release.

To enable police to respond promptly whenever they suspect a federal offender has breached a condition of parole or unescorted temporary absence, Correctional Service Canada has a national network of duty officers who are available 24 hours a day seven days a week.

This network is in place in each region of the Correctional Service Canada and all police departments have been notified of the duty officer's phone number. Upon being advised by a police officer of a breach or potential breach of parole, the duty officer can issue a suspension of warrant right on the spot, which gives the police the authority to arrest the offender and promptly bring him or her into custody.

Again, to ensure the police can respond as fast as possible, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act also authorizes the facsimile transmission of warrants and gives police officers the authority to arrest the offender, without warrant, on the knowledge that one has been issued.

As the hon. members will note, the police already have the powers and the means they need to intervene quickly when they see that a federal delinquent has failed to meet the conditions of his release.

The member's bill assumes that the police are limited in the measures they can take to protect the public or that they are subject to unreasonable time frames, but the fact is that this has never really been proved.

I would point out that, in the absence of such proof, provisions that would give the police broader powers to arrest without warrant people on parole who have not committed a criminal offence will most likely not stand up to a challenge based on the charter of rights.

In conclusion, the government fully supports the objective of better protection for the community, and we cannot support this bill.

[Criminal Code, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-211, a private member's bill, which seeks to amend the Criminal Code provisions relating to arrests without warrants.

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss an important aspect of criminal law which is not always well understood.

The bill, as introduced by the hon. member, would have two consequences. First, it would amend the Criminal Code by making a breach of a condition of parole or statutory or temporary release an indictable offence.

This means the police would have the power to arrest, without a warrant, an offender concerning whom it would have reasonable grounds to believe that he made or is about to make a breach of a condition of his parole or statutory or temporary release. This power is already provided in the Criminal Code for breach of probation.

The bill would also amend the Criminal Code by giving a parole board the power, following the arrest of an offender, to release him or to ask a judge to keep him in custody until it is able to issue a warrant of apprehension.

The present government has protection of the public at heart, protection from the potential risks of paroled offenders, and it has adopted several legislative measures or practices in this respect.

I would like to dispel certain inaccuracies and false ideas on which the hon. member's bill is based.

As far as the breach of conditions of parole, statutory or temporary release, as well as the prevention of such breaches,are concerned, I would like to point out that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act already gives correctional authorities all of the powers necessary to suspend an offender's parole.

[Correctional Service, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the survey which the hon. member refers to is the second in a series of surveys that are determined and designed exactly to find out the employees' opinions.

The survey itself as the member says reports that 50% of respondents claim that there would be much less crime if the prisoners were more uncomfortable. I do not understand from that how they can ascertain that the prisons are very cushy. Last week we had the same party saying that the prisons were too dangerous. This week they are saying that the prisons are too cushy. I wonder which wild rose the hon. member has been smelling lately.

[Petitions, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which has been signed by almost 80% of the residents eligible to vote in the town of Hudson.

They urge parliament to make clear and present a commitment to honour and protect the Canadian territorial status of the town of Hudson pursuant to the expressed will of its residents as herein presented and demonstrated by the local results of any future provincial referendum on separation.

I would like to pay tribute to Mrs. Thompson, who is the initiator of this petition. She is in the gallery and has worked very hard and diligently to keep our country united. For that I salute her.

[Quebec Premier, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, once again we have a fine example of the “Do as I say not as I do” politics of the sovereignist government of Lucien Bouchard.

This is how Le Devoir put it in its headline “Quebec City imposes its aid on Montreal”. Lucien Bouchard is very good at accusing others of meddling, but I would like to know what his government is up to if it is not meddling in the management of the City of Montreal.

His government is going back on its promise in the financial agreement and is now telling the mayor of Montreal how to manage his city. Montreal is, to all intents and purposes, under protection.

The separatists do not think this is meddling in Montreal's jurisdiction. They are calling it a partnership. I put the question again: should we not look askance at any partnership Mr. Bouchard might propose to Canada?