Mark Warawa

[Criminal Code, November 15th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to the private member's bill that my colleague from Wild Rose has introduced. I will start off by condensing the purpose that we, as legislators, have to ensure that the safety of Canadians is utmost.

It is tragic that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have fallen down on that job and have provided us a legacy of being soft on crime. It has left Canadians at risk. To compensate for the Liberals philosophy of not doing their jobs, my Conservative colleagues and I have had to create a number of justice related private members' bills to address the concerns of Canadians and the concerns of safety.

Today, we are looking at one of those examples, Bill C-329, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to arrest without warrant. My hard-working colleague from Wild Rose has been pursuing a number of different private members' bills over the last 12 years. I want to give him the credit he deserves.

For 12 years we have been in an environment like the one we heard a moment ago from the parliamentary secretary. He read a prepared script from the government in which it said that it was sorry but it would not arrest people. Even though people are going down the road into a crime cycle, even though they will commit crimes, there is no indictable offence so they will not be arrested. That is the legacy. The member for Wild Rose has shown patience in putting up with that for 12 years.

I will share some examples of where the Liberals have fallen down on the job. I hope members of the House will support the hon. member for Wild Rose because he has done an incredible job.

The purpose of Bill C-329 is to give a peace officer the power to arrest without a warrant a person who is in breach of a probation order or a condition of the person's parole. The bill was prompted by a resolution from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in response to the controversial 1997 Supreme Court decision, Regina v. Feeney. A similar resolution was also prepared by the Canadian Professional Police Association.

I would like to refer to the Feeney case. It involved the bludgeoning murder of an 85 year old B.C. man. The police, suspecting that Feeney was the culprit, went to the window of the trailer Feeney used as a residence. Unable to arouse Feeney, the police entered the trailer and found him sleeping. The police seized blood-soaked clothing and other evidence of the offence and arrested him for the murder. Feeney was convicted, based in part on the evidence seized after the police entered the trailer. One of the issues confronting the Supreme Court of Canada was the admissibility of the blood-soaked shirt and other evidence seized in the trailer.

The court overturned its previous decision and held that in order for the police to enter and search a dwelling to search for and to arrest a person, prior authorization, a warrant, was required.

The question we asked is, are those reasonable limits? The person who was convicted was involved in a bludgeoning murder, beating a person to death, an 85 year old man in B.C. and Feeney's conviction was overturned because the police did not have the authority to look in that trailer. I do not think those are reasonable limits and I think most Canadians would agree. I think most Canadians agree that we need to give police appropriate authority.

Existing legislation in policies of Correctional Service Canada do not permit the timely arrest and detention of parole and probation violators. Presently, the police officers can only notify probation officers when they believe that a person is in breach of an order. With a time delay, further crimes are often committed.

The bill would remedy this situation and give law enforcement more tools to deal with repeat offenders. The government has indicated that this is something that needs to be changed, but it continues to dither and not take real steps to address the problem. The Liberal government lacks any genuine concern and action on victims' rights.

Preventing crime and protecting victims means reducing the opportunities for people to commit new crimes. We must change the law to tell parole and probation violators that the days of the law turning a blind eye to crimes committed while they are on parole are over.

From now on, crime prevention should include the ability of law enforcement officers to make arrests without warrant. The controversial decision of Regina v. Feeney is an example of where the courts are making significant decisions and leaving it up to parliamentarians to enact legislation to protect our communities, and that is what we have to do today.

I would like to highlight another example where the courts have made decisions to do with probation and Parliament needs to act, and that is the Shoker decision. I was at a B.C. probation officers forum about two weeks ago and this came up. They are very concerned about their ability to enforce conditions of release. The conditions of release are not meaningless. We have heard from the parliamentary secretary that they are not enforceable. If they are breached, it is not a criminal offence. These conditions are put upon release to ensure that criminals do not start down this crime cycle.

This is the Shoker story. He was convicted of break and enter with the intention of committing sexual assault after he broke into a home in Abbotsford at midnight of September 7, 2003. While naked, he attempted to climb into the sleeping woman's bed. The victim, who was married to an RCMP officer, jumped out of bed screaming and called 911. Her husband then arrived and arrested Shoker.

Shoker, who has used heroine, speed, cocaine and marijuana, said that he was not thinking straight because he was on drugs. He was sentenced to 20 months in jail and two years' probation. He had earlier lost his driver's licence to an accident caused by his drug impairment and a psychologist testified that Shoker showed a lack of insight into the seriousness of his substance abuse problem. He was previously charged and acquitted of entering the home of another sleeping woman and pulling the blankets off of her also.

Last year the B.C. appeal court ruled the probation condition that offenders abstain from drugs or alcohol and also to require that offenders undergo periodic urinalysis, blood testing or breathalyzer tests were unconstitutional. That condition appears on thousands of probation orders across our country. Now that cannot be enforced. Offenders cannot be forced to submit to urinalysis or blood tests to determine whether the offender, who is out on release, is going down the crime cycle.

The B.C. appeal court deleted the probation condition requiring Shoker to supply body samples on request because it concluded that there were simply no safeguards in the Criminal Code that would prevent authorities from demanding and seizing the offender's bodily samples arbitrarily.

Back to the comment made by the parliamentary secretary. Are these reasonable limits? I do not believe they are. It is not reasonable to allow somebody, who is going down a crime cycle, to start into drugs, or pornography or whatever it is that drives them into their crime cycle. If these people are released with conditions, the conditions have to be enforced.

This is what the hon. member for Wild Rose is saying. The police know these people. They deal with them. They know them by name. The police need the authority to intervene when they know people are going down these crime cycles. If it is 2 o'clock in the morning, it is not practical to try to make contact with a probation officer. The member is saying to give the police the authority to remove that person if they are in a crime cycle. The police know it.

It is a good bill. The member has been trying for four sessions in Parliament and we still have the same opposition, the same excuses to protect the criminals and not the victims, not Canadians. It is our responsibility to create good legislation. Bill C-329 is good legislation and I encourage every member of the House to support it.

[Justice, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the B.C. solicitor general said that it was “absolutely unbelievable” that a man avoided jail and was given house arrest after stealing a car he crashed into a truck, killing his passenger. It is beyond comprehension that someone can kill people and not go to jail.

The government introduced phoney sentencing legislation and made phoney pre-election promises on mandatory prison sentences. When will the government take crimes that endanger lives seriously and impose prison sentences for violent and repeat offenders?

[Petitions, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before presenting the petition, I would like to thank the Speaker for hosting a lunch yesterday for the Governor General's performing arts awards. It was very much appreciated.

This petition is from residents in Langley, British Columbia. They are saying that charging GST on the federal tax and other taxes is double taxation and they would like to see that eliminated.

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member across will answer the next question not from a prepared speech, but actually from his heart. It was yesterday at justice committee that he endorsed the concept of minimum sentencing.

We are dealing with a very high risk individual. If my private member's bill were to deal with just indictable offences, the most serious offences, would the member's government support having mandatory minimum sentences--maximum sentences are never used--as a guideline to the courts for the most serious indictable offences?

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to ask the government what it is going to do about auto crime.

Approximately 450 vehicles per day are stolen in Canada. Over the last decade this has grown dramatically. We are now one of the highest countries in the world for auto theft. We actually have more vehicles stolen per capita than the United States. It is a huge problem that is often linked with organized crime. The proceeds of auto theft directly fund crime and terrorism.

As I have been involved with different panels, town hall meetings and knocked on numerous doors, this is a common occurrence and people want something done.

My previous vocation was as a loss prevention officer for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I dealt with auto crime. The common denominator of the problem is that auto thieves, high risk individuals who are addicted to illegal drugs like crystal meth, are released back into the community. They are high risk and the courts know they are high risk, but they are not being dealt with in a way that is appropriate. Typical sentencing is probation. If they reoffend, they get probation for breaching their probation.

Because of that, I am honoured to be here to represent my community of Langley. I came up with a private member's bill, Bill C-293. Through consultation with other members, I thought it was a very good bill. It gave direction to the courts that there had to be minimum sentencing involved with this.

I am expecting the parliamentary secretary to answer in a moment and I am going to ask him not to read from a prepared speech, but actually share with us what the government is planning to do in tangible ways to come up with an attack against auto crime. It is a problem. My private member's bill dealt with it, I believe, but the government voted against it. It does not support minimum sentences.

What is the government going to do about it? Chuck Cadman had a bill. He had a similar background to myself, being in insurance. He had an important private member's bill. The government voted down Chuck's bills and reintroduced a watered down portion of Chuck's bill, Bill C-64. Bill C-64 is not what Chuck wanted.

I pushed and got Transport Canada to invoke the immobilizers starting in 2007. Actually, for the last five years I have been working on that. It is one of the things I am very happy about.

In tangible ways, how could we direct the courts to come up with sentences that are practical and proportionate? Releasing high risk people back into the community is not the answer. What is the government's answer to come up with practical solutions to auto crime?

[Pacific Gateway Act, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the comments of my colleague, the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, and the answers from the minister, what I heard was the minister saying the mayors are not doing their job. That could not be further from the truth. My colleague from Port Moody has been incredibly hard-working and the mayors have been incredibly hard-working. The body that has not been there has been the federal government.

I also sit on a task force. It deals with my riding of Langley. It is a task force to deal with the rail traffic going through Langley. Langley has five crossings. When we have these 15,000 foot trains going through Langley, every one of those crossings is blocked at the same time. Sometimes the trains have even stopped and we cannot have any movement of traffic. Emergency vehicles get trapped. It is very dangerous.

We have been asking for support. With Deltaport, it is very important. We have these containers coming to service Canada and we need to have proper movement of rail. We have been asking for help from the federal government.

In a minute I will be asking for a response from the minister on what kind of promises we can have. We cannot have the excuse that the mayors are not doing anything. They are at that task force. The mayors of Langley have been working hard. There are two mayors in Langley. We have Langley township and city. We have every stakeholder at that table. We have been working hard on it, trying to find solutions.

We need some money. We heard the announcement that there will be $30 million to cover rail crossings between Masqui and Deltaport. That is not enough. One rail crossing is going to cost $30 million. In Langley alone we need five.

What is the federal government going to do? We have all the stakeholders there at the table. The mayors and I are all working hard. What is the federal government going to do that will be sufficient?

[Pacific Gateway Act, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member from Fort McMurray brought to this House's attention the SE2 issue and the fight. I appreciate his hard work in this House and also bringing attention to SE2. It is very important to the Fraser Valley.

The question that I have relates to the presentation by the member for Burnaby--New Westminster. He was speaking in relationship to the sponsorship scandal and the Gomery report. He said that he is concerned about the culture of entitlement and that this government has not cleaned up its act.

This has been a concern in this House since the Auditor General's report of two years ago, November 2003. We have said all along that there has been a huge problem with entitlement, corruption, and improper use of taxpayer money. He is quite right that there is a huge problem.

Why is his party supporting the Liberal government and supporting the loss of moral right to govern this country? It is his party that has bolstered up this government. Then he expressed a concern about the advisory board, the appointment process, the cronyism and the patronage.

Again, why is he permitting this to go on? It is his party that is keeping this ongoing problem, which is a huge problem for Canada.

He talked about the infrastructure needs. He is absolutely right. I think Canadians are very suspect about recent political announcements that there will be $590 million coming for the gateway project. It is an incredibly important project, the gateway project, for not only B.C. but for Canada because the goods will be moving out of the west coast for all of Canada. He shared his concern about the infrastructure moneys being just a token, and I agree.

The three concerns that he had are legitimate concerns. I agree with them. Yet, when there is an opportunity to hold this government accountable, he does not hold the government accountable and so it is just words.

Why does he keep propping up this government and preventing--

[Petitions, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition from residents of my riding of Langley.

The petition brings to attention the opposition that the public has to charging a tax on a tax. By charging GST on the federal excise tax and other taxes, it is double taxation and they are opposed to that.

The petitioners therefore are asking the House of Commons to enact legislation to eliminate the goods and services tax charged on federal excise tax and other provincial and federal taxes charged on fuels.

[Human Resources and Skills Development, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to Conservative pressure the Liberal government finally had to expand access to compassionate care benefits. As we have said all along, the minister had discretion to make needed changes, but instead we saw months of inaction while families suffered.

One of the many Canadians who was denied compassionate care in the last days was my constituent, Sue.

Will the minister help those families who were denied compassionate care during those difficult times--

[The Environment, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Sumas Energy 2 is a huge polluting power plant that the U.S. wants to build beside the Canada-U.S. border. It is equivalent to 336,000 vehicles idling 24 hours a day.

All local governments, the province of B.C. and the Conservative Party have continually fought against SE2 but not the Liberal government.

The Prime Minister did not stand up to the U.S. on BSE. He dithered on softwood lumber. He dithered on Devils Lake. He is now dithering on LNG tankers.

When will the Prime Minister finally stand up to the U.S. and say no to SE2?