37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 027
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 13, 2001
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Sex Offender Registry
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Motion
|
1010
1015
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1020
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1025
1030
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1035
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1040
1045
| Mr. Randy White |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1050
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1055
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1100
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Ms. Pierrette Venne |
1105
1110
1115
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1120
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1125
1130
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1135
| Mr. Randy White |
1140
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1145
1150
| Mr. Randy White |
1155
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1200
1205
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1210
| Mr. Randy White |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1215
1220
| Mr. John Cannis |
1225
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1230
1235
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1240
1245
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
1250
1255
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Mr. Richard Harris |
1300
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1305
1310
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1315
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1320
1325
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Mr. Randy White |
1330
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1335
1340
| Mr. John McKay |
1345
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| MINING
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1400
| SEMAINE NATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| MINISTER OF FINANCE
|
| Mr. Andy Burton |
| CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| AIRPORT FACILITIES
|
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
1405
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| MEMBER FOR EDMONTON NORTH
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| HOUSING
|
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| VETERANS
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1410
| SOLANGE TREMBLAY
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| PREMIER OF QUEBEC
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| LEARNING DISABILITIES MONTH
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1415
| NATIONAL EPILEPSY MONTH
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
1420
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| TELECOMMUNICATIONS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| CORPORATE CONCENTRATION
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1440
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1445
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| LUMBER
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1450
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1455
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| AMATEUR SPORT
|
| Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
1500
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1505
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1510
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| The Speaker |
1515
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Sex Offender Registry
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. John McKay |
1520
| Mr. Randy White |
1525
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1530
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
1535
1540
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1545
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1550
1555
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1600
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1605
1610
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1615
1620
1625
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1630
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1635
| Mr. James Moore |
1640
1645
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1650
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1655
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1715
1750
(Division 17)
| Motion, as amended, agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-247. Second reading
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1755
1800
1805
| Mr. John Maloney |
1810
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1815
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1820
1825
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1830
1835
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1840
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1845
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Lake Saint-Pierre
|
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1850
| Mr. John Maloney |
1855
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 027
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 13, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to
present, in both official languages, the first report of the
Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada
at the meeting of the defence and security committee of the NATO
Parliamentary Assembly held in Washington, D.C., and Colorado
Springs from January 30 to February 6, 2001.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a message has been received from the Senate informing this
House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the
concurrence of this House is desired.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
That the
government establish a national sex offender registry by
January 1, 2002.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I advise the Chair that we in the
Canadian Alliance will be splitting our speaking times today.
This could be a good day for the House of Commons or it could be
a very sad day. We will be voting tonight to determine whether
members of parliament, not just the government, want to see a
national sex offender registry installed in Canada.
Today I think it is important that we on all sides do away with
the partisan politics that exists so often in the House of
Commons and think about what is best for the children and women
in our country. The motion today reflects the need for Canada,
not the government nor the opposition, to have a national sex
offender registry. We are asking the majority government to
implement it by January 2002. That is a long time for the House
of Commons to put in a bill that is absolutely necessary. I have
seen bills go through the House in a matter of days.
My colleagues and I in the Canadian Alliance have pro forma
legislation already developed and ready to go should the
government need it and want to work with it. We are prepared to
go right through committee with this to start it moving.
I want to first talk about what is a sex offender registry. I
will give some of the common criteria used in the United Kingdom,
the United States and Ontario. We would expect to see a national
sex offender registry established and maintained by the
Department of the Solicitor General, which basically means that
it would be the solicitor general's responsibility, and the
involvement of the parole and prison system, as well as the RCMP.
1010
It would contain the names, addresses, dates of birth, list of
sex offences and any other prescribed information about a person
convicted of a sex offence anywhere in Canada.
The need for a national sex offender registry is important. We
have heard from many victims. One in particular, who we heard
from this morning, is Jim Stephenson, the father of a child who
was murdered by a sex offender. Victims are saying that it is no
good just to have a sex offender registry in just one province
because people move from that province to another province where
there is no criteria at all, no registry in existence.
Information that would be included in a registry would be
collected from the offenders themselves and from any other source
available to the minister, that is, their CPIC system,
correctional services, parole board, et cetera.
The need to have offenders themselves report is important
because it then puts the onus on the individual to show up and
admit the sex offence and to produce the criteria. Once the
offender has registered there is then a hesitancy inborn that the
offender had better not reoffend. If an offender does register,
then police have good reason to worry about it and then make a
check.
The registry would be available only to the minister and police
forces for the purposes of crime prevention and law enforcement.
This takes away any argument that it would be public information
and that the privacy act would be offended, and so on and so
forth.
The registry could apply to every person convicted of or found
not criminally responsible for a sex offence due to a mental
disorder or who is serving a sentence for a sex offence on the
day the act comes into force. That is important. After the bill
receives royal assent everybody convicted goes on the registry
and all those currently in prison go on the registry.
Today there are about 6,000 inmates and people on parole in the
country who have been convicted of sex offences. That is a lot of
people considering that there are 15,000 people who are
incarcerated. There is over a 30% recidivism rate for sex
offenders. A registry would help police curtail that recidivism.
Another criteria could be that every offender who resides in
Canada is required to register in person at his or her local
police station.
Another criteria could be that persons convicted of a sex
offence that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years or less would
have to report to police for 10 years. Persons convicted of a
sex offence that a carries longer sentence would have to report
for the rest of their lives.
A police officer may obtain a warrant to arrest a person who
fails to register and report as required. A person convicted of
a first time offence could face a fine of up to $25,000 or up to
a year in prison. A person convicted for a second offence could
face a fine of up to 25,000 and up to two years in jail.
Where do I get these criteria from? That is pretty well the
criteria that Ontario uses for its sex offender registry. David
Tsubouchi, the Ontario solicitor general, has basically said this
about Ontario's sex offender registry:
Since it is now clear that the federal government will not accept
its responsibility in this matter, Ontario will do what is right
and act to protect its citizens.
I will not stand here today, and I hope none of us do, and
slight the government for not implementing a sex offender
registry. That is not what this is about today. This is about
talking to our colleagues on the other side who have a majority
in the House and who will determine tonight whether or not this
bill comes into effect and the work begins on it. This is about
us trying to convince all colleagues from all parties that a
national sex offender registry is necessary for the protection of
women and children.
1015
I hope we do not get into fault finding or rhetorical statements
from the other side. or from any side. Many people are watching
the debate today and I think they will judge us on our decorum on
the issue and the logic that we use for putting such a system in
place.
I will quote some members of the British Columbia legislature
and the current premier of B.C., Ujjal Dosanjh.
Here is one quote by B.C. Attorney General Graeme Bowbrick:
A national registry would help ensure consistency across
provinces and give police a co-ordinated enforcement tool.
B.C. Premier Ujjal Dosanjh states:
I'm calling on the federal government to open their eyes and ears
and hearts to the concerns of Canadians across the country and
set up a national sex and violent offender registry right across
the country.
Saskatchewan is calling for the same thing. There has to be a
co-ordinated effort across the country.
The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ontario
Provincial Police, the Saskatchewan Association of Chiefs of
Police, and on it goes, all support an integrated police
information system, a sex offender registry. Virtually every law
enforcement agency in the country wants this registry.
Yesterday we received a letter from the Canadian Police
Association which states:
On behalf of the 30,000 front-line members of the Canadian Police
Association, we are pleased to convey our support for the
creation of a National Sex Offender Registry. The Canadian
Police Association is firmly on record in seeking a registry to
assist in the investigation and apprehension of repeat sexual
offenders.
I received a call from Kevin Nierenhausen of the Sexual Abuse
Victims of Canada. He was asking for the same thing, the
implementation of a national sex offender registry.
I have one minute left in this opening speech to appeal to all
my colleagues in the House, and to all those watching to
encourage all members of parliament, all the Liberals on the
other side and all opposition members of parliament, to please do
away with partisan politics in the House of Commons and implement
a national sex offender registry. It is so vital and important
for law enforcement and critical to the protection of our women
and children.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I commend the member for Langley—Abbotsford for this
initiative today. As he has already mentioned, hopefully we can
have a good debate today without any of the flights of rhetorical
work for which the House is famous. This is a bi-partisan issue
and an issue that concerns everyone in the country.
Does the member think there would be enough time to actually
draft the necessary legislation and get the co-operation of the
provinces on an issue like this? It would give us a year but
there is a lot of detailed work to be done. Would that be enough
time? Would we be able to pull it together in such a way that
the provinces, the victims groups and the federal departments
could get all the i's dotted and the t's crossed?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, the date of 2002 is ample
time. The government and ourselves in opposition would have many
areas upon which to draw. The United Kingdom has a sex offender
registry. Every state in the United States has a national or a
state sex offender registry. Ontario has an outstanding example
of it. Other provinces already have drafts available. This is
not something that we have to reinvent. In fact, the Canadian
Alliance has been working on draft legislation for a year and it
is ready to go.
It is not meant to embarrass anybody. It is meant to help. We
are prepared to give this document to the government and to work
with it. It can use the document if it wishes or it can draw on
Ontario, as we have, or on any other organization.
1020
In conclusion, I remind members of a letter that I received from
Jim and Anna Stephenson, whose child was murdered by a sex
offender. They wrote:
In 1988 our eleven-year old son Christopher was abducted, raped
repeatedly and murdered by a known pedophile. Among many
recommendations contained in the verdict in the 1992 Inquest into
his death was a proposal for a national sex offender registry.
Since then, my wife and I have been advocates for various changes
in the criminal justice system.
Claiming there are programs and legislation currently in place
and that a National Registry would only duplicate what currently
exists, the Federal Government has yet to move in this direction.
That is not meant as fault finding. It is meant to say where we
have to go. The letter continued:
In the continued absence of any Federal initiative, Ontario
recently announced that it would introduce its own Sex Offender
Registry. The legislation is named “Christopher's Law” in the
memory of our son. While the other provinces have not announced
plans to introduce legislation of their own at this time, each
has indicated that Ontario's initiative is being followed
closely.
We applaud the Ontario Government for the leadership it has
shown with the introduction of the Sexual Registry. At the same
time, however, Canadians everywhere, and not only those who are
citizens of Ontario, also deserve protection from those who
present danger to repeat a sexual assault. Clearly such
protection is only possible under a National Registry.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for bringing the motion
forward. It is crucial in its timing and its content. It is one
that we in the Progressive Conservative Party will certainly be
supporting.
My question to the hon. member is quite simple. The registry
that he speaks of has terrific preventive aspects to it. We know
there is an existing firearms registry that was ill-conceived and
has been entirely expensive. It is not based on safety and is
probably doomed to failure.
The computers currently in place to register guns have no effect
on safety. Does the hon. member feel that there could be any
application of the firearms infrastructure that is in place? Is
there any way that some of that infrastructure may be applied to
a sex offender registry, which would have a much greater effect
in terms of safety?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague
on his work in terms of promoting a national sex offender
registry. It is well acknowledged.
The resources that are tied up in the gun registry may well be
used. I know an upgrade to the CPIC system is coming which may
well be used. When we hear from the solicitor general on the
issue hopefully he can shed some light on it.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I begin by congratulating and
thanking the member for Langley—Abbotsford for the excellent
motion. I commend him for all the work he does on important
areas like this one.
Most parents keep a close eye on their children, but we as
parents have all experienced those moments of terror when a child
slips out of sight at a shopping centre, a playground or an
amusement park. It can take a few seconds for a child to go
missing and it is easy to fear the worst. One of the worst fears
is that a sexual predator has taken the child.
For some, like the parents of Christopher Stephenson, the
moments of terror can actually last a lifetime. When 11 year old
Christopher disappeared in 1988, there was no reprieve. There
was no happy reunion. A repeat sex offender, Joseph Fredericks,
abducted Christopher from the mall where he was shopping with his
mother. Fredericks took Christopher to a field where he
repeatedly raped him. At some point he took him back to his
apartment. At some point he murdered him.
1025
An inquest into Christopher's murder led to recommendations that
the government should create the national sex offender registry
which the member for Langley—Abbotsford is proposing. Had such a
registry existed and police officers were able to go right away
to check the residences of all known offenders in the vicinity of
Christopher's disappearance, they may have been able to save his
life. The recommendations were made back in 1992 and the federal
government has not acted.
Today we urge all parties to vote in favour of our motion that
the government create a national sex offender registry. Such a
registry would not only help to allay the fears of every Canadian
parent, but it could save the lives of children like Christopher
and help protect children from sexual predators.
The Ontario government has not waited for the federal
government. As already mentioned by the member for
Langley—Abbotsford, the former solicitor general of Ontario,
David Tsubouchi, went ahead with legislation that became known as
Christopher's Law in honour of Christopher. Around the time Mr.
Tsubouchi introduced the bill he said:
Since it is now clear that the federal government will not do
what is right and will not accept its responsibility in this
matter, Ontario will do what is right and act to protect its
citizens.
The Ontario legislature unanimously passed Christopher's Law
last April. We are calling for the same all party support today
for the creation of a national sex offender registry modelled
after Christopher's Law.
Ontario is not the only province calling for the creation of
such a registry. British Columbia plans to create its own
registry. Its premier, as we have heard today, has called on the
federal government “to open their eyes and ears and hearts to
the concerns of Canadians across the country and set up a
national sex and violent offender registry right across the
country”.
We know that many Liberal members of parliament also support the
creation of such a registry. Peter Warkentin, the Liberal
candidate in Surrey Central, advocated for a registry during the
last election.
To day we are asking the Prime Minister and his Liberal caucus
to give more than a blessing to an idea, to put partisan concerns
aside and to vote in favour of creating a national sex offender
registry.
It is not a new idea on the other side of the House. When
federal and provincial justice ministers met in Regina in October
1998, we understand the Minister of Justice told Alberta justice
minister Jon Havelock that the federal government promised to
amend the present system to allow it.
We have also heard some of the arguments some Liberals have
raised against creating such a registry, arguments like the
Canadian Police Information Centre already does the job and that
the registry would duplicate what CPIC already does. We can ask
any police officer who uses CPIC if the system does what a
national sexual offender registry would do. CPIC does not tell
police where all sex offenders in any given area are living.
We need to have legislation to mandate the collection of data
necessary for police officers to do their job in this special
area of crime prevention. We need to have legal requirements for
sex offenders to provide that information and sanctions when they
fail to do so.
There are an estimated 4,500 sex offenders either in prison or
under some form of community supervision. Most researchers say
that pedophilia is incurable and the risk of reoffending can
remain for the rest of that person's life. Rapists also show a
high degree of recidivism for violent crime. It is time for the
Canadian government to show its concern for the victims of sexual
predators. It is time for the House to do something concrete to
prevent sexual offenders from drifting from place to place under
a cloak of anonymity, putting vulnerable children and citizens at
risk.
Christopher Stephenson's father, Jim Stephenson, wrote to the
member for Langley—Abbotsford last Friday in support of the
motion before the House today. He said he was encouraged that
the Canadian Alliance was raising the need for a national sex
offender registry for debate and a vote. He wrote:
Canadians everywhere, and not only those who are citizens of
Ontario, also deserve protection from those who present danger to
repeat a sexual assault. Clearly such protection is only
possible under a national registry.
We hope that members of all parties will remember Christopher
Stephenson today. We hope they will consider the lives of other
children that may have been saved as Christopher's might have
been. We hope they will consider the abuse and violation of
innocent victims that may be prevented by the creation of a
national registry. It is time that we set aside partisan
politics and work together.
Every day we sit in the House as elected people and look across
the aisles into the eyes of one another. We plot, plan and
strategize, which is something politics and parliamentary
behaviour is all about.
Tonight when we vote, and as we look across the aisles, can we
picture the eyes of Christopher or the eyes of our own children?
I will be picturing the eyes of my grandchildren.
1030
It is time to set aside partisan differences. It is time to
work together for our children. Let us do this together.
I move:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The amendment is in
order.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's
speech with great interest and I too have great concerns about
what is going on. Parents now walk their children to and from
school and a lot of parents absolutely refuse to let their
children play in parks.
It has always been my understanding that the government's first
and foremost responsibility is the safety and protection of its
law-abiding citizens. Our children are the most vulnerable.
Should that not be the government's first and foremost
responsibility?
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I would concur with that
suggestion.
We always talk about the future being our children. We need to
think of their literal future. It should absolutely be the
utmost and foremost in the minds of not only of opposition party
members but also of government members. I want to presume that
will be the case. I do not want to make a political statement to
the contrary but we will see tonight. I presume that the
children of this country are in their hearts.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was in the RCMP for 30 years. What
the hon. member said about the Canadian Police Information Centre
is accurate. It does not provide the full scope necessary for a
police officer to keep track of the sexual predators who are
loose in society.
I would also like to indicate that at the present time police
forces are releasing information into the community about the
whereabouts of an individual sex offender. However they are
sometimes under civil threat of a lawsuit when they do that.
Will this registry help in the area of protecting our police
forces when they do take action to monitor and follow these
predators to make sure their whereabouts are known?
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, the member for
Selkirk—Interlake raises a valid point. I appreciate his
experience in terms of policing as a good portion of his life was
given to that.
1035
Yes, this would be set up in a way that has been looked at by
the legal experts to make sure that police officers have the
guidelines to follow so that they do not run afoul of any
possible rights or charter issues. That would be carefully done
and implicated in this particular motion.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the Leader of the Official Opposition for
his remarks and his participation in this debate. My question is
along the same lines as the comments with respect to CPIC.
Under the current system there is a process for red flagging
individuals who have received pardons. There is obviously a
system in place to try to ensure the accuracy of the information.
I know the hon. member would agree that the accuracy of that
information is crucial to this preventative nature that is behind
a system such as this, an early warning system for police and for
communities.
My question is twofold. With respect to the cost, and this is
not to suggest that no cost is too great when it comes to
protecting our children, I wonder if the member has any figures
on the cost of this system. Second, with respect to the ability
of the provinces to participate in this, does he have any
thoughts along those lines?
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern
raised. Relating to the CPIC, and I am not saying this in a
pejorative way, it is important to look at some of the
deficiencies. We know that CPIC does not tell police where all
sex offenders live. We need to have legislation to mandate the
collection of the data.
In terms of the cost itself, it would not be prohibitive. I
appreciate the fact that the member acknowledged that there
really is no cost too great in terms of protecting our children.
These costs would not be prohibitive and could be handled within
the fiscal capacity of the department. I am sure the minister
himself could illuminate us on that even further.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon.
member from Waterloo—Wellington. I am pleased to rise today to
speak on the opposition motion in favour of a national sex
offender registry.
I am sure this proposal is motivated by a sincere concern for
the safety of our children and for all Canadians. This is a
concern shared by all of us and certainly by this government.
Since forming government we have taken a series of actions to
better protect Canadians from sexual abusers and will continue to
do so.
As early as 1994 we conducted extensive consultations with
individuals and organizations with special responsibility for the
care and protection of children. These included children's aid
societies, school boards, big brothers and big sisters
organizations, Volunteer Canada, police, victims and many other
groups across the country. What they told us was that sex
offender registries, like those in the United States, would
contribute little to the safety of children. What they asked
for, and what we delivered, was a made in Canada solution that
targets abusers who seek positions of trust with children and
other vulnerable groups.
The national screening system was launched in the summer of 1994
by the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health and the
Solicitor General of Canada. It is the result of effective
collaboration between police, child care agencies and the federal
government.
The Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC, provides
criminal records to local police forces who have helped these
agencies conduct criminal record checks. At last count, more
than 700,000 searches had been done on behalf of volunteer
organizations across the country. This is an important tool that
protects the most vulnerable from the most dangerous and is only
one example of the measures that we have taken for the safety of
Canadians.
1040
We have created a new form of long term supervision for sex
offenders after they complete their normal sentence. A national
flagging system has been developed with our provincial partners
so that prosecutors can identify offenders who should be
considered for dangerous offender status. Peace bonds allow us
to put special conditions on high risk offenders even when they
are not under sentence. With these measures we have imposed
tougher controls on sex offenders and we have made Canadians
safe.
Sex offender registries as they exist in other countries have
not prevented crime. Despite their heavy cost, they are easily
defeated when offenders simply fail to register or provide false
information.
In the American system only about 50% of those required actually
register. In a lot of states it is less than that. In Canada we
have chosen a different path. We already have a credible and
comprehensive national registry. It is called CPIC. It is a
national registry of all convicted offenders, including sex
offenders.
CPIC is already the basis for the national screening system. It
is a solid database of police information that can be accessed by
all police agencies across the country. CPIC is already in place
and does not have to be duplicated by another agency. It is
highly reliable because it is based on fingerprints, not on
whether or not an offender chooses to comply or not. In other
words, CPIC is Canada's national sex offender registry. It does
not need to be created because it already exists.
However, the government is open to improvements. We have
already engaged in discussions with our partners across the
country to enhance CPIC's role as Canada's sex offender registry.
That collaboration is well under way and a truly national system
can only exist if there is a national consensus. That is why we
are working closely with provincial and territorial ministers of
justice and solicitors general.
In 1998 ministers approved a report from senior officials who
studied sex offender registries. Ten very useful recommendations
were made. However, a new national sex offender registry was not
one of them. A few provinces have expressed interest in
establishing their own registry but most have made no decision
and some are clearly opposed.
What we all agreed to do, when we met in Iqaluit last September,
was to work together to most effectively combine our efforts to
protect children. That is exactly what we are doing.
For those jurisdictions that are prepared to do so, we have
offered to accept current addresses for known sex offenders to be
placed on the CPIC database and to be updated as needed. One
province has expressed an interest in such an agreement.
We clearly already have a sex offender registry on a national
scale. It is an important public safety tool that will remain
effective in the future. I was also very pleased that the
government saw fit to put $115 million into the CPIC system to
make sure it was updated and one of the best systems available.
We are always working to ensure we have the best possible tools
to protect Canadians in their communities. We will continue to
review our progress on a regular basis to make sure that we are
moving forward.
1045
In closing, the government has and will continue to do its
utmost to protect Canadians. We will continue to seek effective
made in Canada solutions that will work for all of us.
We have a proven and reliable sex offender registry. We have
already complied with the opposition's motion. We are committed
to going even further. For that reason, I have absolutely no
problem in supporting the opposition motion.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, if that don't beat all.
I want to compliment the government for, I think, listening.
However I do want to correct a couple of statements the solicitor
general made. I want to give some quotes that are very important
to listen to from the solicitor general's point of view.
According to the Canadian Police Association, the government has
established CPIC but “it does not provide police agencies with
adequate information and notification concerning the release or
arrival of sex offenders into their community”. The Canadian
Police Association, which has 30,000 members, has told everyone
in the House that CPIC does not work.
When the Ontario officials were developing the Ontario sex
offender registry they said “CPIC neither focuses solely on
sex offenders nor has the updated address information needed to
track them”.
I wanted to correct the solicitor general's comments. I want to
thank the government for supporting this motion. I hope we are
now moving forward on a non-partisan basis to develop the
legislation.
The sex offender registry, which is in every state in the United
States and in every location in the United Kingdom, is, contrary
to what the solicitor general said, supported by millions of
people. Even though bureaucrats from Canada go there and say it
is not working, it actually is working. I have a lot of
information here that I would like to give the solicitor general
to show that it is working.
I would like to know why and how he gets the information to say
that these things are not working. Furthermore, why is it that
Ontario has implemented a sex offender registry? It was sick of
waiting for us in the House of Commons to do it. There must be
something to it. In addition to that, B.C., Saskatchewan and
Alberta are now moving toward one.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, first, on his
correction move, I do not understand what correction he is trying
to put forward. In fact, CPIC is not specifically a sex offender
registry. It is a registry of all people who commit criminal
offences. What is important to know is that everybody who
commits a criminal offence is on CPIC.
If an organization goes to the police and wishes to have a
person evaluated as to whether the person has committed a sex
offence, it can do that with CPIC. The system is there.
In the American system, as I said to my hon. colleague, in a
number of states 50% or less of the people who should be on the
system are on it. What is the good of that? What we have in
Canada is a national system updated to be one of the most
effective systems in the world, the envy of most police forces
around the world. To the criminal justice system it is a very
important arm.
What we must have is a national system with everybody involved.
CPIC is exactly that. It is a national system.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general in his speech
made reference to the dangerous offender status. I would like to
draw his attention to an instance in my own constituency.
A teacher by the name of Robert Noyes in the community of
Ashcroft offended and damaged many young students in his school
for whom he was responsible. In the course of his conviction and
sentencing, he was designated a dangerous offender. He has been
in prison for a long time now. More and more he has been moved
out of prison and into the community.
I have resisted that subject since being elected. I have talked
to the people responsible for him and they have said that he has
had all the treatment and education they could give him and that
he has done everything satisfactorily so they had to let him go.
I asked if he would be offending again and the response was,
probably.
1050
What is offensive about this case is that this is a man who
probably, in the minds of those who are responsible, will
reoffend, and yet even though he is a dangerous offender—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member but his time has expired. With the indulgence of
the House, I will give a minute to the Solicitor General of
Canada to respond.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
colleague's comments. In fact, dangerous offender status is very
important. Those convicted as dangerous offenders could be under
supervision for the rest of their lives. That is very important.
I do not want to talk about individual cases, but we must have
and do have a proper system in place to make sure nobody gets
away. What my hon. colleague referred to as dangerous offender
status was put in place by this government. It is more
protection for the public in general.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great honour to stand in the House to discuss the
national registry for convicted sex offenders. It makes a
valuable contribution to protecting the most vulnerable members
of our society from the most dangerous offenders who would
sexually abuse and exploit them. No one in the House or
Canadians across our great country condone that kind of action.
I am sure all members of the House would agree that we want the
best system possible to protect our communities from high risk
offenders and to enhance public protection, especially for our
children.
The primary goal of our national registry of convicted sex
offenders is to prevent individuals from having the opportunity
to perpetrate these horrendous crimes while remaining
unidentified and undetected. To contribute to this most vital
effort of prevention and protection, the government is committed
to giving police better tools to help fight crime. We are
fulfilling our commitments.
For this reason, the federal government can assure all Canadians
that the Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC as the
national registry for all convicted sex offenders, is the
appropriate tool to achieve the goal of enhancing public safety
through the timely and well directed sharing of relevant
information.
As all hon. members in the House are aware, we in Canada are
currently protected by a criminal justice system that actively
encourages and participates in extensive information sharing.
Furthermore, through co-operation and consultation with all
partners and stakeholders, we are looking at ways to build on the
framework now in place. Our ultimate goal is to find ways to
maximize the contribution that our criminal justice system makes
to public safety and security.
With the primary goal of achieving excellence in protecting the
Canadian public, the government has attempted to implement more
effective practices and to correct any inadequacies. This means
the focus now is on maintaining and improving the lines of
communication between and among the police, the courts and the
correctional and conditional release authorities.
As many members are aware, the Department of the Solicitor
General has been leading a federally integrated justice
information initiative. The goal of that initiative is to create
a trans-Canada highway of criminal justice information to improve
the sharing of offender and crime related information among all
partners in Canada's criminal justice system.
The system is called the Canadian public safety information
network, and it is a top priority of the government. A crucial
improvement will be in the ability to share information more
widely and in a more timely manner among police, prosecutors,
courts, corrections and parole officials. The backbone of the
initiative is a funding contribution of $115 million to the RCMP
to renew CPIC to which the solicitor general just referred.
1055
However, because these tools are so critical for law enforcement
agencies, it is necessary to embark upon important endeavours,
such as the Canadian public safety information network, with
foresight and planning. That is something that we as a
government are doing. They need to be developed in close
co-operation with partners in the system.
In addition to the well-directed efforts and initiatives
previously mentioned, the federal government, in consultation
with the voluntary and child care sectors and with police and
provincial representatives, has chosen a range of other effective
measures targeted to protect children from sex abusers.
First, we have put in place a national screening system based on
CPIC that allows child caring organizations and individuals to
access the criminal records of persons assuming positions of
trust with children and other vulnerable groups.
Second, we have passed legislation to give police access to
pardon records for screening purposes through Bill C-7, which was
passed in the House last spring.
Third, we continue to work in partnership with Volunteer Canada
to conduct training and public education about screening
practices and to promote screening with voluntary and public
sector agencies.
In addition to that, we have adopted strict measures for the
most serious offenders, such as the dangerous and long term
offender designations. In addition, we provide support for
post-sentence programs, such as circles of support.
We also work closely with local police to support public
notification schemes about sex offenders. We have put in place
special protections to restrict the movement and conduct of sex
offenders after their release.
Finally, we have created new offences to protect children and
other vulnerable groups.
All of this underscores the commitment of the solicitor general
and the Government of Canada to ensuring the protection, safety
and security of our children, especially as related to these
horrific cases.
These are tangible examples of how seriously the government
takes public safety. However, our work is not done. We need to
continue to make good on additional work. We have made a good
start with CPIC as a national registry of convicted sex
offenders. We have already complied with the hon. member's
motion, which is why I, for example, have no hesitation in
offering my support.
The point is, as the solicitor general outlined in his speech,
we will continue to ensure we have the absolute best possible
tools necessary and available to protect all Canadians,
especially our young people. The values of Canada and of the
government are to ensure safety and security for our children and
to ensure we have in place the kind of system necessary to ensure
that ours is a good and decent society. That is precisely what
we on the government side want, that is what the solicitor
general wants and, more to the point, that is what all Canadians
want.
I repeat that I have no hesitation in supporting this motion. It
is something that we are already doing and will continue to do in
the best interests of all Canadians.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, many Canadians no doubt are watching
today. Many Canadians across the country have made it very clear
that they believe we have given more protection to the criminals
than we have to the victims.
Would the member not agree that an all party support of the
motion now before the House would not only show confidence in the
House but would also gain the support we really need on a
national level for the justice system across Canada?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I guess we will see tonight
whether or not all party support is in place. What I do know is
that we on the government side continue to ensure that there are
laws in place to ensure effective public policy in areas of the
criminal justice system. We also ensure that the values of
Canada are taken into consideration when we provide public
policy.
What I do not like seeing, and what I believe Canadians do not
like seeing, is the opposition, especially the reform alliance
people, who seem to always want to fearmonger. They always want
to scratch the surface of the scab to try to get to the bleeding
of society.
I do not understand that kind of negativity. I do not understand
the politics of fear, the politics of blame, the politics of
trying always to undermine the very values of this decent and
just country. Unfortunately, that is who they are. That is the
kind of people we have to put up with in the House.
1100
We on this side will continue to work in the best interests of
the public. We will work in the best interests of children and
we will do the kinds of things necessary to ensure safety and
security in this great country of ours. Why do we do this? We
do it because it is in the best interests of all Canadians, no
matter where they live in Canada.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I could not help but listen to what
the member was saying about fearmongering, picking scabs and
taking certain issues out of context. I take exception to that.
What we are talking about here is the safety of our children, not
partisan politics, and I wish the member would get that straight.
Underneath the registry issue we are talking about, we all know
that the average lifespan of a child who has been kidnapped for
sexual purposes is seven hours. After seven hours, the chances
of that child coming back alive just about disintegrate. My
question to the member is, underneath this proposal, would that
not speed up the process in helping to find the child?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, with the CPIC system of
course we continue to work very effectively and in the best
interests of Canadians to ensure that timing is of the essence.
This has to be something that is understood by everyone in
Canada: we, with the police information system, are putting in
place the necessary tools.
Do we need to do additional things? Of course we do. That is
why, when the justice ministers and the solicitors general from
across Canada met in Iqaluit, they put in place a kind of
beginning process and mechanism, if you will, ensuring that what
we will do as a country is ensure that in regard to those kinds
of issues like the member's question in terms of timing, we find
the perpetrators, the offenders, as soon as possible so that our
children and all Canadians can feel safe and secure, not only in
their homes and neighbourhoods but in their communities and in
their provinces as well.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the non-partisan
parliamentary secretary.
With respect to the child sex offender registry, I am quoting
from the auditor general's report of April 2000 in which he
essentially refers to the fact that it was out of action for 11%
of last year.
It is easy to mouth the words about priorities on the part of
the government. It is easy to talk about its top ten number one
priorities. However, would the hon. member not agree that a
stand alone system or even a sex offender registry specifically
designated within the CPIC system and which is fully funded by
the government—he can re-announce for the 113th time about the
$115 million, knowing that the Canadian Police Association was
asking for double that amount—would achieve the objective that—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): A quick response from
the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, the government and certainly
the solicitor general as an individual are committed to the
support of the police in all kinds of ways. We have committed
and re-committed and will continue to provide the tools necessary
to fight crime, not only in this area but in all areas that are
necessary and important for Canadians wherever they live.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I would point out that the Canadian Alliance will
not be able to accuse the Bloc Quebecois of being close-minded,
after its most cavalier treatment of me yesterday.
That will not be the case today because, at a first glance, the
proposal being debated now is of considerable interest, since it
is aimed at introducing a measure that will act as a safety net
against a specific type of crime and criminal. It is a sort of
constructive control, but it is mainly a means of preventing sex
offenders who have served their sentences from reoffending.
1105
This idea of creating a national sex offender registry has been
in the air for some time. It is, in fact, the outcome of a
recommendation following on the investigative report on the
murder of young Christopher Stephenson in 1988. A consensus
followed on the critical need for this project in order to
preserve the safety of all citizens.
More than a reflection of the public's will, the idea gathered
the support of organizations such as the Canadian Police
Association, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime
and political parties such as the Progressive Conservative Party
of Canada, the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc Quebecois, under
certain conditions, however.
They all suggested the Government of Canada act without delay by
putting an end to a situation that appeared increasingly
symptomatic of a weakness in our justice system.
Experience has shown and research confirms a high risk of
recidivism among sex offenders, in most cases. This warning
from the experts together with the reactions of a number of
police forces in the country have bolstered the convictions of
victims and, accordingly, of the people with respect to a
problem we can no longer ignore.
In an effort to take an enlightened and, if possible, a
dispassionate look, let us examine just what the creation of a
sex offender registry might mean.
Keeping such a registry of sex offenders appears at first glance
to be based on a legitimate principle, that of protecting the
public from the potential recidivism of offenders sentenced for
specific sexual offences and now at the end of their sentence.
Often left to themselves and facing serious problems arising
from repressed sexual urges, this category of offender is more
likely to be a repeat offender. As we know, crimes of a sexual
nature are especially heinous because they often involve our
society's most vulnerable members. Children are the preferred
victims of this sort of predator, who are not always settled
down by a period behind bars.
Given this potential risk, prevention remains the best remedy to
a problem which unfortunately makes headlines all too often. We
do not want our communities to become hostages because of the
inadequacies of a system that is powerless to eliminate a type
of crime that puts lives in danger. The proposed solution is a
concrete measure to correct a situation that could deteriorate
if nothing is done to reduce its sad consequences.
The establishment of such a sex offender registry, which
would include the offender's name, address and date of birth,
and the list of sex crimes committed, would allow a much more
thorough follow up on these people. Under such a procedure,
offenders would have to inform local police forces of their
whereabouts. This would allow society to keep an eye on these
offenders who, in the absence of such a monitoring system,
always remain a potential threat.
However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the registry
must be established under very specific rules. The inclusion of
all offences related to a sex crime must be included in the
offender's record. The rules must be clear.
Second, the registry must be maintained by responsible
authorities and be consulted only by these same authorities. We
are talking of course about police forces.
Third, we must ensure a long term follow up which, as suggested
in some documents, would require offenders who have received a
ten year sentence to report for a ten year period. Those who
would have been handed down harsher sentences could be required
to report to police forces for a longer period of time.
Finally, these sex offenders should be informed that their names
will remain in the registry for a predetermined period.
Thus, this close monitoring, which is not a guarantee against
sex offences, will at least help lower the risk by reducing the
chances of recidivism. It will ensure that police forces have
all the information they need to keep tabs on offenders and act
quickly when the worst happens. These few points form the basis
for an approach that could be a practical way of easing the
community's concern.
Since every initiative rests on a solid foundation, those who
favour such a registry have done their homework.
1110
The American model has produced interesting results, which have
been a driving force in this project. A number of states have
introduced a sex offender registry, including California in 1947
and, quite recently, Alaska in 1994. Each state has its own
registry, and the FBI is thinking of creating a national
registry, which is a significant attempt to keep tabs on sex
offenders.
Although we feel that such registries do not prevent all crimes,
they do help the police to identify suspects and eventually make
arrests. Such a program therefore meets a need and fulfils
specific expectations.
If we look at the European context, 88% of the 641 respondents
in a survey in Great Britain said that they would like to be
warned of the presence of pedophiles in their neighbourhood.
Once again, this is a trend that reflects the concerns expressed
by Canadians.
Our case is therefore not an isolated one and is part of an
approach that is increasingly becoming the norm. We cannot
avoid it and we certainly cannot remain insensitive to the
entirely legitimate demands of the community.
However, despite the enthusiasm of those in favour of creating
such a registry, certain precautions must be taken in order to
avoid abuses.
To that end, the new powers assigned to the police forces must
be given a framework, with the limits set right from the start
in order to avoid problems later on.
First of all, it needs to be stipulated that the right of access
to personal information on offenders must be given only to the
solicitor general and the law enforcement agencies. The general
public must at no time have access to this bank of information.
It must not be in general circulation and it must be intended,
not as an alert to the population, but rather as a means to
enable the police to monitor the offender, somewhat along the
lines of what a parole officer would do. The goal would be the
same: rehabilitation.
What needs to be kept in mind is that this registry must not
become a means of allowing the public to conduct witch hunts.
It must not be a means of stigmatizing all of these offenders,
for some of them do manage to get over their obsessions. It is
a useful tool, but it must be used only for its intended
purposes.
Some people see the creation of an offender registry as a kind
of attack on rights and freedoms. Of course, the usual steps
need to be taken in order to safeguard the basic principle of
rights for all. The interests of the community as a whole must
also be considered, however. The Alaska legislative assembly is
one example of this. It has adopted the creation of such a
register, with the following statement:
—since there is a strong likelihood of repeat offences by sex
offenders, and since it is ... vital to protect the public from
sex offenders, protection of these offenders' privacy is not as
important as the State's interest in protecting the public.
This principle also serves as the basis for an approach that
places the community's interests above the individual interests
of criminals who continue to present a risk to society.
In this regard, a ready link may be made with the other file
being defended by the Bloc Quebecois, which, for the same
reasons of protection, is fighting to have membership in a
criminal group declared illegal. Others are expressing certain
fears about such an initiative, because of the precedent it may
establish, for example. People go so far as to think the
establishment of this registry of personal information will open
the door to other much more disquieting initiatives.
In this spirit, the allusion to the centralized megafile that
put the Liberal government on the hot seat not so long ago rises
as the ghost of the return of this form of register, the idea
being that there would not be a series of this type of files
gathering information here and there on the public for purposes
other than public security and protection. I point out once
again that it is by proceeding clearly from the outset, setting
up specific guidelines, that we will prevent excesses.
In conclusion, after reviewing the benefits of the proposal we
are debating here, and identifying the pitfalls to be avoided, I
believe a national sex offenders registry could function.
1115
Beyond the natural concerns raised by this measure, which is
entirely new to us, with its objectives it will have a direct
and, we hope, positive effect on the public. This effect will
be felt as a preventive measure, an approach that has always had
good results, so the public may feel truly safe.
This motion is broad enough to earn the support of the Bloc
Quebecois. However, when a bill is formulated in this regard,
we will ensure that it contains the conditions we have
mentioned.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the
member's support for the motion. I clearly remember her saying
that the general public should never be able to access the
information. I do not think anyone would quarrel with that.
Does the member consider it wrong for the police to issue a
warning to the community once it knows of the presence of a sex
offender in that community? Would that be inappropriate action
on the part of the police?
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, warning the general public
would certainly not be acceptable to us.
As we see the bill, this would be confidential information, for
the exclusive use of the police and, of course, the solicitor
general. There is no question of tacking up pictures of sexual
predators or any sort of general public information on
lampposts. My answer is definitely no.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on her previous work in the
House on justice issues. I respect her opinion.
Would my colleague be able to shed some light on the CPIC system
which the police has? I know now government members will support
the motion to develop a national sex offender registry by January
2002, but there seems to be some waffling on whether or not they
see it as just the CPIC system or something else.
Could the member give us some level of confidence that the CPIC
system is doing today or even tomorrow what the people on the
other side think it is doing? I understand from the police that
its CPIC information system does not look after the problem of
sex offenders in communities.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne: As I understand the Canadian Alliance
member's motion, responsibility for gathering and maintaining
the information would not lie with CPIC but with police forces,
which would be individually responsible for all the information
they would receive, since sexual predators would be listed with
local forces.
I do not think that this would be the case if CPIC were used.
Since we have seen how effective they are right now, it would
perhaps be an idea to use other means and to list offenders with
local police forces.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate my colleague on the clarity of her remarks
regarding this motion.
I would like to ask her how it would be decided that those in
the registry present a high risk of recidivism.
Ms. Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of
deciding whether or not a sexual predator presents a high risk
of recidivism. All sexual predators should be listed. This
way, there is no discrimination, there are no supposedly
objective criteria, all sexual predators have to register.
1120
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
first of all I would like to say that I am tempted to call
quorum. The idea of the opposition day is to provide the
opposition with an opportunity to put forward points of view to
which the government listens.
It was created to replace the thorough examination of the
estimates that used to exist before 1968 or 1969 when government
members had to stay in the House, particularly the cabinet
minister in charge, to listen to the opposition and answer
questions, et cetera. When I look across the way and I see only
3 government members out of 175, it does not exactly inspire one
to think that there is a great zest for the House of Commons over
there.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member opposite has been here a long time. He knows
full well that references are not made to attendance in the
House. The government is very interested—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): That is not really a
point of order, but your point is as well taken as his. There is
a very clear message in his words, too.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, in that case, if what I
just did was offensive, I will do what is permitted within the
rules and I will call quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): A quorum has been
called. The bells should ring for a maximum of 15 minutes, but
as they are not working are you willing to withdraw your quorum
call?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, ask not for whom the bell
tolls. It is tolling for no one at this point. Apparently the
bells are not working and therefore we cannot even call a quorum
when we want. The government is let off the hook this time by a
technological glitch.
An hon. member: It is time for electronic voting.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Someone says that it is time for
electronic voting. This is already electronic and it has failed
us. Perhaps that should be a warning to us. We could all come
in here some day to vote electronically, press the button and
nothing would happen. Then what would we do?
Mr. John McKay: What difference would that make?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: The hon. member asks what difference it
would make. It certainly would not make any difference to
members of the government. They always do what they are told
anyway, whether or not it is electronic.
I am pleased to rise in support of the motion moved by my
Alliance colleagues on their opposition day. I listened with
interest to the solicitor general's reply. I might be mistaken,
but I had the impression as I was listening to the solicitor
general that he was speaking against the motion. Then of course
at the end of the speech he announced that the government would
be supporting the motion, which I think took the member from
White Rock somewhat by surprise.
1125
Sometimes it is hard to know what is really best, whether to
have the government oppose a motion or support it. I have had
this experience before. I was reminded today of February 8,
1999, when the government supported an NDP motion with respect to
a national ban on water exports. The Liberals all stood and said
they supported the motion. The next day they had a press
conference to announce a policy that was entirely different from
a national ban on water exports and said that they were living up
to the opposition day motion to which everyone had agreed.
There is a bit of that going on here if I understand the
solicitor general correctly. The argument he was making was that
he was supporting the motion but he did not really agree there
was any need for the motion or any need for what the motion calls
for.
What that means to me is the government simply did not want to
endure the political price of voting against this motion and
being subject to the considerable vituperativeness of the
solicitor general critic of the Alliance Party and others who
would have called it to account for not supporting this motion.
As I listened to the solicitor general it seemed he was saying
the country already had one in the context of CPIC.
The reason we have the motion before us is that no one, except
for perhaps the solicitor general and his parliamentary
secretary, believes that CPIC as it now stands is anything like
what the people who are calling for a national sex offender
registry have in mind.
It is a legitimate point that CPIC could be transformed, changed
substantially, and used as the basis for a national sex offender
registry. That means it would have to include the kinds of
information it does not now include. It is a legitimate option.
If that is what the government wants to do, perhaps it could have
put it forward in a much more clear and convincing way, but it
did not.
People who are calling for a national registry are calling at
the moment for a stand alone registry. Whether it happens in the
form of a stand alone registry or in the form of a substantially
transformed CPIC, it remains the case that the people who have to
deal with it on an ongoing basis, the police forces represented
through the Canadian Police Association, are saying that what we
have now is not working, contrary to what the solicitor general
has said, and does not constitute the kind of national sex
offender registry which they and others think would be very
useful to have.
For the solicitor general to sing the praises of what they are
already doing and support the motion, while at the same time not
really appreciating the worthiness of the arguments being put
forward for a stand alone national registry, seems to me to be
somewhat politically ambiguous, if not intellectually dishonest.
We support the motion. We think it has to be done properly.
There has to be a balance struck between certain privacy rights
and the protection of the public. If there is to be any kind of
bias, it should be in favour of protection of the public,
particularly protection of children who are vulnerable to people
who want to exploit them sexually or in any other way.
If I understand what the mover of the motion had in mind the
registry would be a separate thing. It would be established and
maintained by the solicitor general. It would contain the name,
address, date of birth, list of sex offences committed and
convictions anywhere in Canada. It would be a national registry
because it is not good enough to have it in any one province. We
know all Canadians move around, but some people tend to move more
than others, particularly if they are trying to lose themselves
in the community and reappear in a way that their past is no
longer with them.
1130
However, what we and, I think, people who want a registry want,
both for people in authority and people who may want to contact
those in authority about people seeking positions of trust with
young people, is for those people's pasts to in some senses
always be with them. This is not because we do not believe
people can be rehabilitated, but because we think people who are
dealing with young people have a right to that kind of
information so that we do not have more tragedies like those that
have already occurred.
This is the reason why we rise in support of the motion. We
think it has its limits and I do not think that anyone here
thinks this will be the answer in that this does not change the
psychology or inner consciousness of sex offenders. It does not
deal with a lot of the social and spiritual problems that lead to
sex offences in the first place and which sometimes create a kind
of chain reaction, because we also know that a lot of people who
are sex offenders are people who have been offended against
themselves, although that is not always so. There is a lot of
other work to be done and we need to see this in context.
However, it seems to me that it is something that is
supportable. The motion is just that, a motion, and it does not
lay down the details. I think as a House we should all be able
to support the idea. Again, that is within certain limits of
expectation, because it is somewhat debatable whether a registry
would be preventative or whether all this would do is help police
forces when there has been an occasion of an offence in regard to
perhaps finding that offender sooner because they will know who
is in the community in which the offence has taken place. That
is not prevention, but enforcement, and enforcement is also
important. To some extent it might also be prevention if this
registry makes it possible for people to preclude previous
offenders from having positions of trust with children which
would present them with opportunities to reoffend.
Finally, I cannot resist this comment in closing. Listening to
the solicitor general make the arguments against a registry,
before he said he was in favour of the motion, it sounded an
awful lot to me like what might come from the Alliance. He said
that offenders would not all register, that they would not all do
this or do that. That is his argument against a registry. It is
funny that these kinds of arguments did not seem persuasive when
people were arguing against the registration of .22s, but that
when it comes to the registration of sex offenders these
arguments are suddenly very convincing.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will relate to the member a situation that took
place in Calgary some months back, where a sex offender who had
offended not only in Canada but in the United States finished
serving his time in Bowden penitentiary in Calgary. He served
his complete time. Of course there was no registry in the
province of Alberta and it just so happened that this offender
moved to Oklahoma. He did not tell anyone. Through family and
friends, word came back to my office that this offender was down
there. He was a serious sex offender who had served several
years in prison.
What do we do in a situation like that? It is difficult. We
took the initiative and phoned the local sheriff where we knew he
was staying in Oklahoma. The local sheriff was quite surprised
that he had such an offender in his area and said that according
to Oklahoma law the onus is on the offender to register in that
area. Of course the offender had been in the States and knew
what the laws were there, so the sheriff sought him out. The
driving force for a pedophile or a sex offender to react to the
registry in a positive way in Oklahoma is a five year sentence if
he fails to do so. This is quite significant and it is cut and
dried.
1135
Would the member see something like that working in this
jurisdiction of Canada? If so, what form should it take?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, as I understand what has
been put forward today, there would be an onus on people to
register themselves when they arrive in a particular community or
within a limited time after their arrival, and there would be
penalties for not doing so.
Obviously these penalties have to be sufficient to be a
deterrent. When we get down to having legislation before us, we
can talk about what that might be, but in terms of the principle
that there should be some penalty for not registering, I would
certainly agree with the hon. member.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is aware of the respect I have
for him when he speaks in the House and the respect I have for
his experience. Once in a while when things happen in the House
involving partisan politics and how the House runs, we go to our
colleague because he has the experience.
There is an issue that has been bothering me all morning since
the solicitor general said the government would vote for the
motion but that the government is already doing what is in it. In
fact, 30,000 policemen in the country say the government is not
doing it. Virtually everybody we have talked to says the
government is not doing it and that the system does not work
right.
It looks like we have unanimous consent on the motion, but the
trouble is that on the other side I think the government is
saying it will agree with the motion but it will not change
anything.
I would like the member's comments on how he reads the way the
government shuffles through this kind of issue.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, to elaborate on the point
I made earlier, I think the government does sound a bit
self-contradictory in supporting the motion, which clearly calls
for something that is not now the case. In supporting the
motion, the government says that what the motion calls for is
already the case. I do not think it made a very good
argument—at least it did not convince me—that what we have now
is what the motion calls for. It has not convinced the Canadian
Police Association and I do not think it would convince anybody
who takes a decent look at the facts.
However, this has been the government strategy on a number of
occasions. One of the other things it has tried to do from time
to time in regard to previous opposition day motions is to make a
motion to amend the wording. Rather than having the motion say
“bring in X”, the government amends it to read “continue to do
X”, as if it had always been doing it. The government did not
have that opportunity today, so the only way it has to blunt the
effect of the motion is to vote for it.
There would be nothing wrong with voting for it if the
government were actually willing to admit that what it has now is
not adequate. That would not be a sin. That would not be the
end of the world. Part of the problem is that is very difficult
for a government to say that what it has now is not working, that
it realizes this, that the motion is an idea whose time has come
and that it will vote for it. I think that is something the
opposition benches could genuinely have celebrated.
However, for the government to say it will vote for the motion
after it has mounted a cheerleader type of defence of everything
it is doing now is just not quite as satisfying.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In the debate, the member for Langley—Abbotsford and the member
for Winnipeg—Transcona clearly outlined a problem facing the
House of Commons, that is, we will be voting on a motion tonight
and yet there is not a clear understanding of the purpose or the
intent of the motion.
Government members indicate that they intend to vote for it, yet
it is obvious that—
1140
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but he is making more of a speech than a point
of order.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: My point is that we are talking about
apples and oranges. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to
continue the debate with the members for Winnipeg—Transcona and
Langley—Abbotsford, to invite the participation of the solicitor
general and his parliamentary secretary, and to hash out what we
are really talking about today. Otherwise it is making a mockery
of the House of Commons. The Liberals will vote for
something they say is not what we are debating.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The hon. member cannot
refer to members who are not in the House.
The hon. member has asked for unanimous consent of the House
to give a speaker who has already spoken to the bill the
opportunity to speak again. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on this
very worth while and very common sense motion that has been
brought forward. I am equally pleased that the matter will be
voted upon, whereby all members of the House will have an
opportunity to express their support or lack of support for the
motion.
I would deem this motion to be a very common sense, mother's
milk type of motion that is very much aimed at protecting our
most vulnerable members of society, our children. This motion
would put in place a registry that would provide information
which would allow the police to have better access to information
about the whereabouts of offenders and about convictions of a
sexual nature that have been registered in the courts. This
would provide them with the enhanced ability to protect society
and to carry out their appointed task. It would simply give them
more tools with which to do their job and protect society and,
more specifically, protect children.
The motion calls upon the government to establish a registry by
January 1, 2002. The member for Langley—Abbotsford is to be
commended for bringing this motion forward with the honest intent
of ensuring that the registry system is in place by that date.
The government has indicated, in its attempt to co-opt this
motion—and there has been some discussion about methods in which
it often does this by amending—that it will be supporting the
motion. One can only hope that there is a similar and genuine
intent behind it to fulfil this commitment, but again, the House
will have to excuse my skepticism. We have seen instances as
recently as a few weeks ago in this parliament, when Liberal
members voted against a motion that essentially came from their
own red book. We know that in the Liberal red book there is in
fact a reference, albeit an oblique one, to a similar commitment
to put a sex offender registry in place.
Government members have indicated today that they may support
the motion. Time will tell. Similarly, I hope Canadians, and in
particular victims' groups and police officers, will watch what
happens after today to see if there is a real commitment. I mean
more than just the words, more than the mouthing of the words and
the reannouncement of other motions and other commitments that
have been made.
I should indicate at this point, Mr. Speaker, that I will be
splitting my time with the indomitable, unsinkable member for
Saint John. I can assure the House that she will be speaking in
favour of this motion, as am I. We have unanimous support in the
Progressive Conservative Party for this important motion.
There has been reference to the fact that models in other
countries are working. I am talking about the United Kingdom and
the United States. Most recently, we have seen efforts made in
the province of Ontario to support a similar type of registry.
Other provinces are also looking at bringing this motion forward.
Members will know that the province of Ontario has put forth
concrete examples of how it intends to approach this problem, and
it is a problem.
1145
It has been acknowledged by the president of the Canadian Police
Association, Grant Obst, that the current system is not working.
There is not a current system in place that necessitates the
reporting upon release of those who have been convicted of sexual
offences to police so that it can track their whereabouts and
ensure that individuals who have this past will be identified and
will not, often for insidious reasons, find themselves involved
in groups where they would be in a position of trust, able to
prey upon children and able to perpetrate horrific crimes which
have lifelong implications that are so damaging and damning that
the children's lives are ruined for all intents and purposes.
Often, and I believe it has been alluded to in this debate as
well, the same victims go on to perpetrate this type of heinous
crime.
It cannot be any more fundamental than that. We should be
tasked in this place to do everything we can, everything within
our reasonable ability to ensure we are protecting children. This
is a very straightforward, common sense way to go about it.
Much of the Ontario example to which other members and I have
alluded was as a result of an horrific tragedy in the province of
Ontario where Christopher Stephenson was murdered in 1988 by
Joseph Fredericks, a convicted pedophile who was out on parole at
the time. There was an inquest and a lengthy examination of the
factual circumstances of the case and circumstances surrounding
similar crimes. The inquest resulted in the suggestion that
there should be a creation of a national sex offender registry.
The motion as presented does not bind the House to proceed in
any certain direction. I would suggest that it could be used to
complement the current CPIC system or it could be a stand alone
system.
There is certainly ample evidence of a contradiction, to which
the member for Winnipeg—Transcona alluded, that the government
would somehow justify not pursuing this as a stand alone system.
It used the same argument, because offenders would not
voluntarily register, when the same system used for registering
firearms was plagued with the issue of non-compliance and
individuals who are not voluntarily complying on pain of criminal
conviction, one might add.
The government is not prepared to put in place a system that
would mandate that sex offenders participate in registry, but it
is willing to put in place at huge expense to the Canadian public
purse, $500 million plus, that if people do not register their
long guns, being law-abiding citizens their entire lives, they
are subject to criminal prosecution. It is absolutely perverse,
but it is atypical of the attitude of the Liberal government and
the endless pursuit of bureaucracy in putting in place systems
that will not work.
Here we have a system being presented, a common sense approach
to protect children, and it will apparently be sloughed aside or
given lip service in a vote later today by the Liberals. It will
not be followed up. While other governments like the government
of the province of Ontario are pushing for the federal government
to create a national registry, this is being rejected.
Soon after the Liberals rejected Bill C-247, a private member's
bill introduced by their own member for Mississauga East, we saw
an attempt by one government member to bring forward a process
that would allow for consecutive sentencing for repeat or
multiple murderers, sex offenders, or those convicted of violent
crimes. There was a rejection, an outright campaign on the
government side to ensure that type of legislation did not come
into effect.
The Ontario government in its wisdom passed that legislation 90
to 0, it is worth noting, in its provincial legislature on April
4, 2000. Christopher's law is the first of its kind in the
country. It requires those convicted of serious sexual offences,
those who are dangerous, high risk sex offenders, to register
their names and addresses with the police in the jurisdictions
where they will be residing.
1150
The information in the registry could be available to local
police forces. They would have the ability to release the
information, when required and when justified, to public groups
such as the Guides, the Scouts, Big Brothers and hockey
organizations or athletic organizations.
That is the purpose for which this type of information could be
used. There is also the deterrent aspect. Knowing that the
registry is in place and that the information is available to
police and to certain groups acts as a deterrent. It is the
equivalent of the sword of Damocles hanging over an offender's
head if he or she chose to be indiscreet.
There are practical implications for such a registry. The
Canadian Police Association, 30,000 strong, strongly endorsed a
registry. The victims groups, and I would suggest hundreds of
thousands of Canadians, see the wisdom in having this type of
system. Privacy rights could be protected. The system could be
crafted in such a way that it would not infringe the charter of
rights.
I wholeheartedly endorse and agree that we should always err on
the side of caution when it comes to protecting children from the
damage that can flow from the crimes perpetrated against them.
The Progressive Conservative Party will be supporting the motion
wholeheartedly. My colleague from Saint John will be adding her
remarks to this debate.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it did not take long but I figured it out. The
Liberals have been behind the curtains in the lobbies passing out
this document entitled “Canada's National Screening System:
Protecting Our Children Against Sexual Abuse”. It is stated in
the document they have printed for all us unwise people “CPIC
serves as Canada's national registry of convicted sex
offenders”.
Actually the document indicates that basically it is good for a
criminal record check. In fact they have missed the whole point
of what everyone has been saying, including 30,000 policemen,
that the system is not good enough. The national sex offender
registry would apply to every person convicted and found
criminally responsible. It would require every offender who
resides in Canada to register and there is a penalty for not
registering. The Liberals will agree with the vote tonight, but
what they are saying in the brochure is that what we have is
acceptable. It is not acceptable.
I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks is the problem,
because he knows a lot about this subject. No one in the country
thinks the current national sex offender registry works because
there is not one. This document is nothing more than government
rhetoric.
What does he think is the hesitancy over there? If anything,
everybody in Canada would applaud the government for developing a
real national sex offender registry.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge what the
hon. member has said to be true. The current system is
inadequate. It is not working. Police forces indicate that it
is not working.
The current system allows convicted offenders to be released
into the community, to change their addresses and to sometimes
change their names or identities without notifying local police.
In the event of an occurrence where there has been a crime
committed, an abduction or a sexual offence, the lost identity or
that person out there is like a needle in a haystack.
Police forces do not have the ability to act quickly. Equally
important, they do not have the ability to make pre-emptive
strikes, that is to put the information out where necessary to
community groups. They do not have the requisite deterrent
effect: the knowledge that offenders would have that they are
registered.
Why would the government not do it? It defies logic. The only
point I can come up with is that the credit might flow somewhere
other than to the government. That is a sad comment.
1155
I believe the hon. member when he says that the credit would go
to the government. People would acknowledge that this was what
parliament was supposed to do. There would be unanimous support
for having a stand alone or a system that would work in
conjunction with current computer programs to protect children.
It is sad but there is manipulation going on when it comes to the
facts surrounding the current system.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. He referred to manipulation of
the facts. Of course, he is referring to the fact that the
government is opposed to what is being proposed. The solicitor
general gave a speech completely railing against the proposal but
then finished off by saying that the government would vote in
favour of it.
As the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough stated, it is
obvious that the reason behind it is that government members want
to avoid the political backlash that would come from voting
against what is being proposed. They will vote for it, without
any intention of doing it. Clearly they are not supporting it,
as illustrated in their speeches. I believe the member for
Winnipeg—Transcona referred to that as being intellectually
dishonest.
Does the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough believe that
this is making a mockery of the House of Commons? Where exactly
does this leave us? I think it is a pretty sad state of affairs.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I agree that one would
hope partisanship would not be what is getting in the way. It is
important to have this open and full disclosure debate about the
abilities and the shortcomings of the current system.
It is not with any pride that any member of the House would
stand and say that we have a system that is failing. It is
certainly not with any pride on the part of the police that are
currently tasked with trying to make the system work, as
inadequate as it may be.
I fully acknowledge that there has been money put into it.
However it is not there yet. It does not have the ability to
achieve what the motion envisions a sexual offender registry
would achieve. For that reason I hope we will go further and
take some positive reinforcement from the debate.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my hon. colleague for splitting his time with me. I thank the
hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford for bringing the matter
before the House of Commons. It gives all of us on both sides of
the House an opportunity to correct a great injustice in our
country.
The creation of a national sex offender registry is an important
and necessary step in the protection of our nation's children. I
know that the people of Saint John in my riding support the idea
wholeheartedly.
On a personal note, as a mother of two and a grandmother of two,
there is nothing more precious to me in the world than our young
ones. Many in the House will understand and agree when I say
that nothing hurts us more than when a child is abused. Many
more will share my frustration when I say nothing angers me more
than when responsible criminals are able to use the present
system of laws to their advantage and to strike again.
If we sit in the House and do nothing while sexual predators
attack our children, we are as much to blame as the predators.
Each and every one of us has a responsibility in the House to
bring forth laws that will protect young people from the men who
do this to young people. When we hold in place without change a
system of laws that allows sex offenders to hurt again we are
co-conspirators, each and every one of us.
We have a duty and responsibility to protect Canadian families
and to take swift and decisive action when we see Canadians are
in danger. We must not shy away from our duties or sit idle
while there is a clear course before us that must be taken.
1200
Sex crimes are not just committed against our children. The
victims can be seniors, adults or young men and women in the
prime of their lives. Sex offenders do not discriminate. They
are blind to what is right or wrong. They have a real problem.
They prey on our best, our youngest, the disadvantaged and our
seniors without consideration.
A month ago in my riding there was a man who was following the
little elementary school buses. Someone saw him going from stop
to stop. Finally someone called the police. As one little girl
got off the bus he tried to grab her and put her in his car. Our
people were there to protect her, and I thank God for that.
I want to applaud the vision and courage of the government of
Ontario for doing everything in its power to create a safer
province for its citizens. Christopher's law, which passed
unanimously in the Ontario legislature last April, was the
strongest signal ever sent to sex offenders that our young would
be protected and that they would not be allowed to strike again.
We know that the Christopher's law loses its force and effect at
the Ontario border. Sadly, this is a fact known all too well by
the monsters who abuse the young. As it now stands, the sexual
predator who crosses over the Ontario border may not surface
again until he has abused more children in another province. That
is a disgusting reality.
If the members on the government side of the House do not
support the action we are debating today, they will extend the
cover of darkness under which these criminals hide. We were not
elected in the House to help criminals. We were elected to help
and protect Canadian people.
An hon. member: The innocent.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, the innocent. My colleague for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough brought forth a
motion similar to this a year ago and the government defeated it.
Today it is telling us that it will support this one. Let me say
that I have reservations but I will be here tonight to watch.
Every Canadian is going to be watching the House of Commons. This
issue probably has a higher profile than any other issue that has
been brought before the House.
Like others on the opposition side, we will support and praise
the government and all those members who stand up tonight and
vote in favour of the motion. To those who do not, I will have
my say about what they have done.
Both sides of the chamber in Ontario, Conservatives, Liberals
and NDPers alike, voted unanimously in favour of the
Christopher's law. That is what should happen here tonight. All
parties represented in that great place showed a wisdom and
compassion which we should mirror here. This decision is not a
difficult one. I cannot imagine anyone sitting in the House of
Commons not wanting to bring forth a law in which we can protect
our young.
There is no question whether this is right or wrong. There is
no question whether this will protect children. There is no
question whether parents or the police want us to do this. It is
just a matter of common sense whose time has come.
I ask all members in the House to consider the stakes involved
and think of that small child out there who can be abused. Just
think about that child. Perhaps it is a son or a daughter.
Perhaps it is a niece or nephew or maybe for some of us a
grandson or granddaughter.
We should think of a sex offender living every day in our
community. Consider that this particular sex offender is tempted
to strike again. Consider for a moment that this particular sex
offender can sit and watch that little child, like the man who
followed the school buses carrying those little elementary
children.
1205
Imagine, moreover, that the police in the area have no idea of
the potential threatened danger because they do not have that
man's name or address and have not been able to watch him.
If there is a member in the House today who can consider this
very clear and present danger, who would still stand before us
saying that a national sex offender registry is something that he
or she will not support, then in my opinion he or she has no
business being in the House of Commons.
There is already the infrastructure in place through the
Canadian Police Information Centre system on which to build a
national sex offender registry. I am proud to say that the party
which I am part of will be supporting this motion in the House.
The call to arms was issued by our nation's police forces. The
government did not act when the hon. member from
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough brought forth his motion.
Despite pleas from parents and grandparents alike, the government
did not act a year ago. It is the burden of shame that we refuse
to carry on this side of the House and we do not want to see that
happen again.
It is a sad and sorry thing that we might not otherwise have
discussed a national sex offender registry if not for the actions
of the opposition side of this great Chamber. Mark my words, not
only will we be watching for those who stands against this
motion, but the eyes of 30 million Canadians will be focused on
the House and on these benches to see how our people vote
tonight. They will be watching each and every one of us.
I feel positive in my own heart that the Prime Minister will say
that we all have a free vote on this issue. I do not think we
will be dictated to.
The merits and logic are clear. There has not been a point made
yet that would cause me to reconsider my position on this issue.
I know in my heart that that is right. I feel in my heart that
all members know that we should all vote in favour of this motion
and save our children from that type of abuse.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the
member for Saint John for her passion and usual eloquence on this
and many other issues.
Canadians watching this debate must be cynical. The Alliance
Party put forward a motion which reads:
That the government establish a national sex offender registry,
by January 1, 2002.
It is like putting a motion forward that says the government
should manage the fiscal resources of a government with care and
diligence, which we do. Of course we agree with this because the
government is already doing it. To put a motion in front of the
House where the government has already implemented the policy, of
course we will to support it. Canadians must become cynical when
they see the opposition party putting forward a motion on
something that is already being done.
There is another sense of hypocrisy. The opposition talks about
supporting a registry for sex offenders, but it will not support
a registry for gun control, which is an equally serious matter.
It also talks about the members on this side supporting the
motion and argues that there is no parliamentary dignity. When
we support a motion suddenly we are charged with being
hypocritical.
I would like to come back to the point the member for Saint John
made. In my riding last year a pedophile was released into my
community, in fact about a block away from where I live. His
name is Peter Whitmore. It was well documented in the media. He
served his full term of five years in a federal correctional
prison and was then released.
We enacted legislation to put conditions on release. Those
conditions were put in place and the offender was put into
provincial custody when he breached that order. I know it caused
a great deal of consternation in my community and a town hall
meeting was held.
1210
Eventually, because of the publicity and the reaction in the
community, he was moved from that area to downtown Toronto. I
believe he re-offended again.
This is a very serious issue. I will have no problem supporting
the motion because the government is acting on a broad number of
fronts.
I would ask the member, if the police are acting on the various
infrastructures that are in place, the CPIC and other mechanisms,
why does she think there is a problem being brought to the
Chamber?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has told
us today why we need to have this national registry on sex
offenders. The Canadian Police Association yesterday voiced its
support for the motion. Mr. Grant Obst, the association
president, stated:
At the present time, convicted offenders may be released into a
community, or change their residence, without notifying the local
police service.
The hon. member stated that the person who sexually abused that
child was back on the street, was moved downtown and did it
again.
We have to take stronger stands than what is in place today.
What is there is not working and we have to correct it. We have
the right to do it and we can. I ask every member to vote in
favour of the motion. If in the end this does not correct it
permanently, we will come back with even further recommendations
in the future. We on this side of the House want to protect that
little child.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that we would give the suggestion of
hypocrisy in suggesting that we need a national sex offender
registry. The government is saying it is hypocrisy to suggest
that because it is already doing it. We are not already doing
it. The whole darn country is saying that.
I would like to ask my colleague from Saint John this question.
In her travels across the country did she hear people saying
there was a need for a national sex offender registry outside of
what this group is or is not already doing?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have heard it. I
heard it from Brownies, from Girl Guides and from Boy Scouts.
There is an urgent need for it, more than there was 30 years ago.
Today we have our charter of rights and freedoms which left out
responsibilities. Everybody has their rights and freedoms and
they can go out and abuse children.
I am saying this issue will not go away. It will not die. We
will fight it until we have that registry in place to protect
those children.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would say at the outset that it is
an honour for me to split my time with my hon. colleague from
Provencher who is the justice critic for the official opposition.
I wish I could say that it is a pleasure for me to participate
in a debate this afternoon calling for the establishment of a
national sex offender registry but to be honest it is not. I am
very grateful for the opportunity to rise and express my support
for this initiative but it is by no means a pleasure.
We were discussing the need for establishing laws that will
enable us to protect society from sexual predators. This is
hardly a topic that anyone would enjoy.
I find it particularly galling that the House has to devote its
time to debating the underlying principles of our society that
are so fundamental for its future survival. Clearly, the need
for legislation in this area should be self-evident to everyone.
That is everyone except the Liberals it would seem.
I am referring to the principles of safety and security, the
ability for us to interact freely with each other without the
threat of being targeted by undesirables who lack the social
conscience to define right from wrong. It has been said by many
authorities that we cannot lay the blame solely on the
perpetrators of these crimes. The blame lies with society as a
whole. There is some truth to that statement.
As a society Canadians have returned to office a government that
has proven its inability to deal with social issues, a government
devoid of anything resembling a spine, a government perpetually
sitting on the fence trying to pander to both sides of every
possible social issue.
1215
Canadians are tired of this pass the buck approach to social
policy, especially when it comes to protecting our children,
wives and families from sexual predators. This is one issue that
Canadians do not want packaged off for yet another ruling by the
supreme court.
Canadians elected their members of parliament to debate and
develop government policy and it is time that the government
recognize that it has a responsibility to all Canadians, not just
those with Liberal MPs. The creation of a national sex offenders
registry is an excellent example of the kind of non-partisan
social policy that the House should be proud to debate, develop
and especially implement.
The members opposite are quick to leap to their feet to search
for accolades, claiming to be the world leaders in this and the
world leaders in that, and yet they are lagging behind the rest
of the world in the most basic development and social policy.
They are even lagging behind our own provinces. We have heard
about that today from other speakers, but let me reiterate.
In April 2000, almost a full year ago, Ontario became the first
province to establish a sexual offenders registry, passing
Christopher's law by a unanimous 90-0 vote. B.C. and
Saskatchewan claim that they will follow shortly unless the
federal government acts to establish a national sex offenders
registry. In my opinion the provinces have been more than
patient with the Minister of Justice and her failure to follow
through on the commitments she made in 1998 to amend our laws to
finally afford some protection to potential victims instead of
continuing to favour the rights of convicted sexual predators.
Our justice system, through its misguided direction from the
supreme court, has cultivated an environment where we are afraid
to take any action that would infringe on the rights of
criminals. What has been lost in this dilution of criminal law
is the principle that when people commit an offence against
society by their actions they forfeit some of their rights as a
citizen of that society.
I am not suggesting that criminals who have paid their debt to
society have no rights, but there must be a balance between the
rights of someone who has been convicted of violating our laws
and the rights of the majority of us whom those laws are supposed
to protect. I admit that this is a very delicate balance but in
the end the scale has to tip in favour of protecting the
law-abiding citizens.
Civil libertarians and other opponents of our proposal have been
critical of the creation of a national sex offender registry
claiming that it would be a further erosion of individual rights.
They have been arguing that there is not a need to establish a
new registry because the existing Canadian policy and information
centre, CPIC, already does the job. If it did we would not be
having this debate here in the House today. If it worked as the
government alleges we would not have the Canadian Police
Association publicly supporting our motion. The people who use
CPIC on a daily basis agree that it does not do the job.
The government would like Canadians to believe that it is behind
our motion and that it is being tough on sexual predators, but
the truth is in its actions or, as the case may be, in its
inaction.
Today, as we debate the motion, sexual predators are free to
move around our country and in our communities with no
requirement that they notify law enforcement officials of their
location. They have been convicted but are not accountable for
their deviant behaviour.
From the government opposite we hear that the current system
works fine, that we should just leave it alone or maybe amend it
slightly. We have come to expect these kinds of arguments from a
government that was elected on a promise of maintaining the
status quo.
What the opponents have not been broadcasting is that the
current system is 30 years old and in urgent need of a $218
million overhaul.
In the past two weeks the Liberal government has been on a
spending spree: $2.5 billion in additional spending for HRDC, an
agency that has proven it cannot manage its finances; $89 million
to Heritage Canada which uses the same accountant as HRDC and is
infamous for handing out so-called free flags; $26 million to the
millennium bureau for new fountains; and an additional $30.5
million to the government's propaganda department.
1220
In total, the government will spend $165.23 billion this year
and less than 1% of that spending has been allocated to updating
the antiquated system that we have for keeping track of criminals
who are released into our communities. What a warped sense of
Liberal priorities.
When I look at the statistics for sexual offenders my stomach
turns: 4,951 sex offenders are under federal jurisdiction, 25%
of the total offender population; of the 3,250 in federal
institutions, only 19% are in maximum security; 1,341 sex
offenders are under community supervision, comprising fully 15%
of the conditional release program.
The statistics on the probability of an offender repeating are
even more disturbing. A study done by Correctional Service
Canada on recidivism among released federal sex offenders found
that in a three and a half year period following release from
custody, about one-third of sex offenders were convicted of a new
criminal offence, nearly one-fifth for a violent crime and nearly
one-tenth for a new sexual offence. One in ten preyed on more
innocent Canadians, creating yet more victims, and those are just
the ones that we know about.
As a parent, I am outraged each time I hear of another child
being molested or raped by a sexual predator who was released
into society after having been previously convicted of the same
disgusting crime. As a member of parliament, I am appalled that
the government allows this to continue. It is time that we as a
society and as a government act to ensure that we have an
effective means of monitoring offenders who are deemed reformed
enough to rejoin society.
One of the disturbing trends of the government opposite is to
completely discount any policy put forward by the opposition
parties solely on the basis that it came from the opposition and
without due consideration of the merits of that policy. I would
submit that it is time for this juvenile behaviour to stop and
for the members opposite to grow up and accept that we have a
collective responsibility as elected officials to ensure the
safety of this country and its citizens.
I would ask the members of the Liberal Party and all of the
members in the House to think of their sons, their daughters,
their mothers, their sisters or their wives. I ask them to think
for just one minute about what they would do to protect their
loved ones and to keep them from harm. I would ask them to then
recall how, as much as they wish they could, it is impossible for
them to protect them 100% of the time. I urge them to think as
individuals. I implore them to vote their conscience with the
knowledge that this motion will go a long way to making their
neighbourhoods and communities safer for all, especially the most
vulnerable.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the
member's comments. He spoke so eloquently.
However, I want to turn the clock back to maybe 1995 or 1996. We
all care for our society and our youth. As I have often said, if
there is one crime it is one too many.
I am glad the member talked about non-partisan politics. In his
closing remarks he referred to juvenile behaviour. I want to
point something out to the member and ask for his comments. As a
private member some years back I brought a private member's
initiative forward on parole request and making parole request
contingent upon successfully completing a rehabilitation program.
During the last election they talked about parole being a right,
not a privilege.
It was one of the saddest moments in my tenure in the House when
the then Reform Party did not give its unanimous consent on that
effort of mine. Today, six years down the road, we have shown on
this side that when good policy comes forward, we support it.
Permit me to give one example. When the Conservative member
brought forward a very good idea with respect to shipbuilding, we
supported it on this side. When good initiatives come forward,
we go beyond our party politics and support them. Why did those
members opposite not support my effort back then on parole?
1225
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the exact
instance to which the member is referring. I do not remember
whether I was in the House, whether I voted or how my party voted
on that particular item. I would suspect that he was seeking
unanimous consent. Many times we deal with procedure in the
House. As a matter of fact, just an hour ago one of my
colleagues asked for unanimous consent on a motion and the
Liberals defeated it. I suspect that if I were to check the
records there would be some procedural reason why people voted
against giving him unanimous consent.
That having been said, what clearly needs to be considered
today, and it has been talked about by a number of my colleagues
and colleagues from other parties, is what is taking place in the
House today.
As the hon. member from the Liberal Party said, it really does
not matter who brought forward the motion. In this case we have
used one of our allotted days to bring forward a supply motion
directing the government, if the motion were to pass, to
establish a national sex offenders registry by January 1 next
year. It is a pretty simple request, a request that should be
acted upon in good faith.
Members will note that I used the term in good faith because
what we are seeing here today is the exact opposite. We are
seeing a government that will direct its members to vote for the
motion. It will try to delude the Canadian people into believing
that it has already acted and will continue to act with the CPIC
registry that tracks released criminals.
However, the police association and other groups across Canada
know that CPIC does not do it. They have repeatedly said that
over the last number of years. There is no requirement for a
convicted sexual offender, who is either released or who has
served his time and gets out of jail, to register with local
communities. We have no idea who is living down the street. We
have no idea who we might hire to watch our children or our
grandchildren because there is no requirement.
One of my colleagues asked a question earlier of a Liberal
member. He referred to an instance of which he was aware in the
state of Oklahoma where there is a potential penalty of a further
five years in jail for a convicted sexual predator if he fails to
register. That is a deterrent that we should consider if we were
to even have the first step taken, which is to have a national
sex offender registry.
I am appalled and I hope all Canadians who are watching the
debate today and who watch the vote tonight are appalled at the
government's hypocrisy in trying to claim that CPIC does the job
when it so clearly does not.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in support of
the motion that calls for the implementation of a national sex
offender registry by January 2002.
Noting some of the comments by the Liberal parliamentary
secretary made earlier to the Progressive Conservative member, to
accuse the Progressive Conservative member of hypocrisy is the
ultimate hypocrisy. For years provincial attorneys general have
been requesting some form of registry and for years the solicitor
general and the Minister of Justice have been examining the
issue. Today they suddenly say that they are already doing it. I
am sure it is news to every provincial attorney general and to
the police departments in Canada. The government is shamed into
voting for it and yet it does not abandon the hypocrisy of its
position.
I will begin by remarking on a story printed last Friday in the
Globe and Mail.
It was reported that the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council had
been asked to rule on whether it was acceptable to criticize
child molesters on the nation's airwaves. The broadcasting
council had been asked to adjudicate the matter after a viewer
complained that Mike Bullard on his late night talk show had made
remarks about pedophiles that were deemed to be inappropriate,
derogative, prejudiced and inhuman.
1230
While Mr. Bullard's comments were admittedly in very bad taste
and a poor attempt at humour, they expressed in a very blunt way
the revulsion Canadians feel about dangerous sexual predators in
society. I do not excuse Mr. Bullard's comments but they
indicate the concern, fear and revulsion Canadians feel about
this crime.
The question remains: Is there a need to debate whether it is
acceptable to express distaste for pedophiles and other sex
offenders? The issue demonstrates the extent to which we have
allowed sympathy for dangerous criminals to impede our ability to
protect children in society.
On a weekly, sometimes even a daily basis we hear horrific
reports of sexual assaults on children, such as the incident
reported in Calgary last week where two girls aged six and seven
were assaulted. In addition to the apparently spontaneous
attacks, I could cite hundreds of examples in which a teacher, a
child care provider or another adult authority has unknowingly
been given long term access to children and a tragedy has
resulted. The frequency of these cases demonstrates a clear need
to keep track of these kinds of criminals.
I think everyone admits that these types of criminals are not
cured simply by putting them in jail. We know they need
rehabilitation and treatment. We also know they are not cured
once they are released from jail. There needs to be a mechanism
for tracking them on an ongoing basis.
It is well known that sex offenders, pedophiles in particular,
remain at high risk to reoffend sometimes for many years after
they have served their sentence. Our fundamental concern in the
motion is for public safety. The implementation of an effective
national sex offender registry will give police and law
enforcement officials an added tool to protect Canadians.
I noted the parliamentary secretary's comments when he said it
was hypocritical that the Canadian Alliance wanted a national sex
offender registry but not a national long gun registry. Those
are very interesting comments but he was not listening. We said
we wanted an effective registry. We support effective crime
control. We do not support make work, political projects, and
that is what the long gun registry is.
The current system of tracking sex offenders has proven to be
ineffective. Although the Canadian Police Information Centre
maintains a database of sex offenders, the information is
inaccessible to many people in the justice system. It does not
adequately identify sex offenders or where they live, as
offenders who are under supervision or have finished their
sentences are not required to register changes of address. This
puts police and others working in the justice system at a
distinct and severe disadvantage.
Contrary to the comments made by the Liberals, the Canadian
Police Association has said the CPIC system does not provide
police agencies with adequate information and notification
concerning the release or arrival of sex offenders into
communities. In light of our motion, just yesterday the
association reconfirmed its support for a national sex offender
registry. It is saying the Liberals are not doing it. Police
officers are the ones in the trenches and on the frontlines. They
deserve our support.
1235
The proposed registry would include only convicted sex
offenders, requiring each sex offender to register with police in
the jurisdiction where he or she will reside. The Canadian
Police Information Centre already has a 24 hour registry that is
used by every police force in the country to call up information
on all types of convicted criminals, stolen property, firearms
and missing persons.
The proposed sex offender registry would require an updating of
the legislation so that police could access current information
on sex offenders and their whereabouts. In this way a separate
registry may not be necessary. However it is absolutely
necessary that we have legislation spelling out these additional
requirements. I am not particularly hung up on how we do it. I
am more concerned that we do it. The present system is simply
not doing it.
The registry would assist local police in identifying suspects
and solving sex offences more quickly. Available only to the
police, the parole board and the solicitor general's office, the
registry would not inappropriately or unconstitutionally
compromise the privacy of any individual. It would, however,
assist in protecting the public from sex offenders, particularly
children, the most vulnerable and susceptible members of society.
There was widespread public backing for a registry, including
provincial politicians of all political stripes: New Democrats,
Conservatives and Liberals. In the absence of an effective
federal response to the issue the Ontario government created its
province-wide offender registry last April. Again, as mentioned
earlier, it was passed on a 90 to 0 vote in the provincial
legislature.
What reasons could the federal government have for not taking
these necessary and crucial steps? Perhaps it considers the cost
too great. Perhaps the administration of the system would be
difficult, complex and time consuming. However if the registry
were integrated into the current CPIC registry then the costs and
administrative difficulties would be negligible.
Perhaps the government is concerned with privacy issues.
However the registry we are proposing is almost identical to the
database already maintained on criminal records.
The motion calls for an effective alternative to the current
registry system which is clearly not working. This is not a
partisan issue. It is not a political issue. It is an issue
about public safety and the protection of our children.
I urge all members to consider the motion carefully. I
especially urge the Liberals not only to vote in favour of it but
to urge the minister to actually implement the registry so that
police forces have the tools to protect our children.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, listening to the member
opposite and the one preceding, the hon. member for Prince
George—Peace River, underscores how the reform alliance people
are prepared to push the hot buttons and always to take a
knee-jerk reactionary position. It is almost a lynch mob
mentality. It is kind of sad if we think about it. They always
take the simplistic view on very complex issues.
Let us consider the Robin Sharpe case, for example, the
pornography case. They all screamed and hollered about how we
should scrap the charter and how we should invoke the
notwithstanding clause because of pornography in British
Columbia. Had we followed that lame advice we would be in deep
trouble now.
Instead the government, with its rational, reasoned approach,
was able to withstand that kind of nonsense. As a result the
rule of law prevails, not the lynch mob mentality they are only
too good at promoting.
1240
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Earlier today in my address I talked about the need for
discipline and proper protocol in the House when dealing with
this issue. What I find offensive about the member's comments is
that they are neither complimentary to his colleagues nor to his
party. I would ask that he—
The Deputy Speaker: With the greatest respect to the hon.
member for Langley—Abbotsford, I believe we are engaging in
debate.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, do you remember when their
former justice critic Jack Ramsay said that all sex offenders
should be locked up forever? After some reflection did they not
change their minds? All of a sudden it was diluted a bit. All
of a sudden it became only after examination by two psychiatrists
and then maybe they would look at it.
Mr. Ramsay was the same person, we will recall, who when
speaking of sex offences went on to say that there should be
blood taken from people even suspected of sexual criminal
activity. They have walked away from that one too.
Do you see what I mean, Mr. Speaker? They always have
simplistic views on very complex issues. That is who those
people are. They are always in a lynch mob mentality. They are
always in a knee-jerk situation—
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Earlier today I talked about protocol and the need for our
colleagues in the House to speak at least respectfully of one
another in this debate which is so important to children and
women in our country. The member is not abiding by any
parliamentary courtesy whatsoever. I ask you to reconsider—
The Deputy Speaker: Again, with the greatest respect, the
authority of the Chair must be maintained. I can only maintain
the rules I have been given to handle and apply.
Notwithstanding the knowledgeable member for
Langley—Abbotsford, I am very cognizant that on both sides of
the House all of us should act very judiciously and respectfully
of one another and of course particularly regarding the issue at
hand. Certainly at this point we would be engaging in debate.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, the member who intervened is
the last one in this House to talk about protocol and decorum. On
his brochure during the election he had the picture of Heather
Thomas from Allouette Lake on it. He is the last—
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
privilege. I think more important, what the member is about to
report or to say in the House is absolutely 100% a lie where he
is going. I expect you in the chair to keep that person
accountable for what he says. That is shameful, disgusting.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. If I might, I want to
begin by addressing myself to the member for Langley—Abbotsford
for whom I have a great deal of respect.
I do not question anyone's strong views on a very important
matter before the House of Commons today. There were some words
used in his last intervention which require me to ask him, and
hopefully he will see fit, to withdraw. Perhaps I could ask the
hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford to please withdraw.
Mr. Randy White: Withdraw what?
The Deputy Speaker: If I could be more specific, then,
with the greatest of respect, the word lie, please.
Mr. Randy White: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.
1245
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford. Now I turn to the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Solicitor General. I would ask the hon. member to be
mindful that we are in a very short period of questions and
comments. He has already used up a good portion of that time. I
ask him to direct his question immediately and to do so in a very
judicious and respectful way.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I want to pose a question to
the member who spoke a bit—
An hon. member: What is the question?
The Deputy Speaker: I want to be clear. The hon.
parliamentary secretary will put the question.
Mr. Lynn Myers: The question is simple. In September, in
Iqaluit, the justice ministers, attorneys general and solicitors
general met with respect to this very important issue.
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
splitting my time with the member for Scarborough East. I hope
we can refocus our debate on the issue. We are dealing with an
extremely important issue and I know that we all have very strong
feelings about it.
I am pleased to participate in the debate brought about by the
motion put forward by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford. I
welcome the opportunity to demonstrate how the government has
risen to the challenge of protecting victims and potential
victims of sex offenders.
In the past eight years the Solicitor General of Canada and the
Minister of Justice have taken a number of initiatives, each of
which contributes significantly to public safety. In short, as
other speakers will mention, the government has already taken
action to prevent the victimization of children.
The motion put forward by the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford basically endorses the efforts undertaken on
this side of the House and ultimately has my support and I would
assume my government's support.
These efforts began immediately after the change in government
following the 1993 federal election. In 1994 the Minister of
Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada responded to the
needs expressed by child centred organizations and groups
representing victims by introducing the national screening
system.
I was part of one of those groups that lobbied the government as
a result of the horrible murder of little Christopher. I was
very pleased to see the government listening to and responding to
it. I wear a button today that I have kept for many years since
meeting the Stephensons. Together with thousands of other
Canadians I have worked on lobbying the government and pressing
forward for these changes to happen.
Today, as in 1994, the RCMP's Canadian Police Information
Centre, CPIC, already provides a national registry of all
criminal convictions. It is not limited just to sexual offences.
Employers and volunteer groups providing services to children can
screen all potential employees by requiring them to obtain a CPIC
check through the local police. Any individual who has a
criminal record, no matter what, can be screened out by the
agency.
To assist local agencies with the process, which in the
beginning they found expensive to carry out, the government has
also supported Volunteer Canada in providing a national education
and training campaign for volunteer agencies to promote effective
screening approaches for the protection of children and other
vulnerable groups.
This database was enhanced by government action and these
enhancements did not stand alone and unused. The announcement
was followed by programs to promote awareness of its existence
and the necessary initiatives to educate the appropriate
individuals in the use of the database.
These efforts have enhanced the ability of child caring agencies
to obtain the criminal records of those seeking positions of
trust. Great efforts have been made by government officials and
their counterparts in the private and voluntary sectors to
educate those who are involved in the selection of employees and
volunteers to work with the most vulnerable members of Canadian
society.
For the most part, I have been referring to children as the
potential victims of sex offenders. I am sure that the minds of
most members take a similar direction when they hear of sexual
exploitation of victims.
1250
Children are not alone when it comes to victimization. I
recognize that the institutionalized, the mentally challenged,
the physically disabled and the elderly may also be particularly
susceptible to victimization through the sexual misconduct of
those who prey on the most vulnerable.
Canadians from all walks of life in various circumstances who
until victimized participate in the daily life in their
communities, oblivious to the predations of a small number of
offenders who do not think that the rules and the mores of
society apply to them. Nonetheless it is for our children that we
reserve our highest level of concern. I am sure all hon. members
will recognize that the positive actions of the government on
their behalf contribute to the safety of all Canadians.
The most recent reform to strengthen our defences against sex
offenders came into effect on August 1, 2000. In the spring of
1999 the solicitor general introduced legislative proposals to
ensure that even the records of sex offenders who have been
pardoned would be available for screening purposes. This
addition to the CPIC arsenal of information focused on the
attention of police forces conducting criminal investigations of
those offenders previously convicted of offences of particular
interest to those who might otherwise engage them in positions of
trust involving children.
Even a successful application for a pardon is no longer a shield
against the discovery of relevant offences by a records check.
The legislation was Bill C-7 and its provisions came into effect
on August 1, 2000. Such government initiatives are not
undertaken on a whim or without the recognition that other
jurisdictions also have an interest in protecting Canadians.
Bill C-7 was born of the recommendations of a
federal-provincial-territorial working group. It was supported
by all jurisdictions in Canada as represented by federal,
provincial and territorial ministers responsible for criminal
justice. These officials heartily recommended and endorsed Bill
C-7.
Through this forum the government has studied and discussed the
question of a sex offender registry on more than one occasion and
conducted extensive consultations. As requested by the
federal-provincial-territorial ministers, senior officials have
prepared a report entitled “Information systems on sex offenders
against children and other vulnerable groups”.
At their meeting in Regina on October 29, 1998, the FPT
ministers accepted the 10 recommendations contained in the report
and agreed to its public release. Since then FPT officials have
met several times to review progress regarding the implementation
of these recommendations.
At any rate, the recommendations in the FPT report became the
foundation for the Criminal Records Act amendments of Bill C-7
that came into force in August 2000. These will provide genuine
enhancement of the protection of children and other vulnerable
sectors.
With the exception of the governments of Ontario and British
Columbia, officials from all jurisdictions supported the amending
legislation. We can conclude from the support that the majority
equally rejected the notion of a sex offender registry, be it
national or local, at that time.
Therefore the thrust of the current proposal for a national
registry is largely addressed through the current practice of the
government. The current national screening process announced by
the solicitor general in November 1994 was done after careful
study. The study was conducted by the departments of the
solicitor general, health and justice. It included extensive
consultations across the country. It involved victims, police
and child serving organizations. There was a general consensus
that a registry system would be expensive, difficult to
administer and not very useful. It would also give the public a
false sense of security rather than enhance public safety.
We have a national registry of all criminal convictions which is
provided through the RCMP CPIC database. There is broad
agreement that the federal government has produced meaningful
initiatives to protect all Canadians. In addition there is a
degree of consensus that a national sex offender registry is not
the answer to the problems identified by the hon. member.
The government is always open to suggestions that may promise
positive reform. It is open to changes in policy that come from
time to time when provincial elections are held or senior
officials are given different positions within the machinery of
government. This is a government that is open to constant review
of its legislation to strengthen it in order to protect all
Canadians.
At the recent meeting of the FPT ministers of justice, the
Saskatchewan justice minister, with the support of his colleagues
from Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, favoured another
review that would revisit options regarding the protection of
children against sex offenders, including a national sex offender
registry.
The ministers agreed that officials would again study these
options and related issues.
1255
The government will never be satisfied that all possible
measures have been taken to protect the vulnerable from sex
offenders. As long as there are victims there will be the
willingness to move toward a safer society. The federal door is
not closed to suggestions, and motions such as the one before us
today provide a welcome occasion to review positive action of the
recent past as well as possibilities for the future.
Perhaps the motion will lead to reinforced protection for young
and vulnerable Canadians as well as for any other individuals who
might fall prey to the recidivism of a sex offender. We should
not deny these proposals a chance to contribute to the ongoing
improvements stemming from the government's public safety agenda.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is amazing to listen to government member after
government member saying that the legislation is working, there
is a registry, there are no problems and it is all moving along
very nicely.
I have a letter from a lady in my constituency that gives an
example of just how well it is working. This lady had two young
boys who were lured into a large truck with a sleeper in the
back. They were sexually molested. The person was put in jail
and is now out on parole. He is now allowed by the parole board
to travel across the country in his truck. He is a truck driver.
No one knows where he is. No one knows what community he will
be in next. The same government officials say the person is
likely to reoffend.
How could any member say that the parents, the grandparents, the
people of Canada should not know where a Mr. Michael Duggan is at
any given time? He could pick up somebody else's kids or their
grandchildren. That is what this lady in my constituency wants
to know. I would like the member to comment on that.
Ms. Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about
issues as though he has the only caring heart. All of us feel
exactly the same way that he feels. We are continually looking
at ways of improving safety for Canadians.
As a former police commissioner, I am well aware of the
frustrations of the police in trying to deal with these issues.
Bringing in a national registry or making our registry stronger
will not be the answer. We have committed to continually look
for improvements.
The answer at the end of the day is never having the offences
occur to begin with, not only worrying about addresses. I do not
want them to happen, period. I should like to see us put some
emphasis in prevention and educating our children so that the
offences do not happen.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it will soon be three hours since we
started the debate. I am becoming more perplexed about it,
listening to this side and to that side. They all say they will
support the motion.
Am I wrong in assuming the motion says that we are about to
establish a new registry? That is what I understand. Members
opposite say they will be supporting the motion. Are they
supporting a new registry? Is the member supporting additions to
existing promises? Just what will they be supporting tonight in
the motion?
Ms. Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, I refer to a pamphlet that
was recently delivered to us. It refers to “CPIC serves as
Canada's national registry of convicted sex offenders”. We
currently have a national registry for all people who have
criminal convictions.
The question is whether we can continue to make it better. Are
there ways of looking at our current registry that will improve
safety for all Canadians? We are always prepared to continually
look. It was part of the agreement last fall in Saskatchewan.
Let us review and continually look at how we make it safer for
all Canadians.
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite still has not
answered the question of the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.
Our motion specifically requests that the government support a
new registry for sex offenders. While government members are
paying lip service to what their whip has told them to do,
obviously it is very clear they will perhaps support the motion
in public but in private will carry on with the status quo, with
the inadequate screening they have in place now.
1300
It is not just some tinkering we want in our motion but a
complete overhaul, a new registry that will work to keep sex
offenders away from our children.
Ms. Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, I have a bit of difficulty in
the issue of separating completely sex offenders from other
criminals. We all know what they are, but when they are
convicted they are convicted. It does not necessarily have to
specify. The current registry operating in Canada registers
everyone who is convicted of a criminal offence, including those
convicted of sexual offences or of being sexual predators. That
is already happening. Can we make it better? We are open to
constant review, as I have indicated previously.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to re-enter the
debate. The members opposite talk about the wording of their own
motion. I will read the motion to the House: “that the
government establish a national sex offender registry”. It says
nothing about a new national sex offender registry. We are not
trying to be pedantic, but I think the members opposite should
read their own motion.
That is part of the difficulty. The emotions have been running
pretty high. This is a very serious issue. However, when the
Alliance brings forward a motion like this and the members of
parliament on this side look at what the government has done, it
is confusing. The members on the other side are saying that what
we have does not work and yet the information they have shared
with other members does not seem to make that point very well.
As I said earlier, last year in my riding of Etobicoke North we
had a sexual predator who was convicted. His name was actually
quite high profile and got into all the media. Mr. Peter Robert
Whitmore had been convicted and had served a full term of five
years in a federal penitentiary. He was then released, but with
a set of conditions. I would like to read some of the conditions
to the House, because they were quite exhaustive. The one he did
not adhere to caused him to be arrested again. He was moved out
of the Etobicoke North area into downtown Toronto, breached one
of the conditions and on the basis of that was put back in jail.
There was a list of 11 conditions for his release from federal
penitentiary after serving five years. First, he was not to be
in the presence of children under the age of 14 unless
accompanied by an adult who had previously been approved by the
Toronto Police Service. Second, he was not to attend any public
park or public swimming pool where persons under 14 years of age
were present or could reasonably be expected to be present.
Third, he was not to attend any day care centre, school ground,
playground, community centre or arcade where persons under 14
years of age were present or could reasonably be expected to be
present. Fourth, he was not to enter into any romantic
relationship, cohabitation, marriage or common law relationship
with a person who was the parent or guardian of a child under the
age of 14 years until that person had been identified to the
Toronto Police Service and there had been an opportunity provided
to inform that person of his criminal behaviours involving
children. Fifth, he was required to report once a week to the
Toronto police at specified times. Sixth, he was to notify the
Toronto Police Service of his current address and any change
within 24 hours. Seventh, he was to notify the Toronto Police
Service of any employment or change of employment within 24
hours. Eighth, he had to make himself available for random
visits by the Toronto Police Service between the hours of 8 a.m.
and 11 p.m. at his place of residence. Ninth, he was to notify
the Toronto Police Service at least 24 hours prior to leaving the
jurisdiction of the city, et cetera.
1305
Peter Robert Whitmore served his full five years. There was a
lot of rhetoric at a town hall meeting in my riding with some
people saying that the reason he was back in the community was
because of liberal attitudes and the soft attitudes of the
Liberals. I will tell the House that he served his full five
years in a federal penitentiary, he was released with 11
conditions, and one of the conditions was broken and he was put
back in jail.
I find it disturbing when members opposite cite the pamphlet
“Canada's National Screening System” and say that it is the
only way in which the government has responded. In fact, the
national screening system is one of a variety of responses and
measures introduced by the government to deal with criminals
and sex offenders. I would like to remind the House of some of
these, because I think that Canadians watching this debate could
be very confused, as they often could be because we often do not
really deal with the facts.
The most important tool in our bag is CPIC, the Canadian Police
Information Centre. This centre has a criminal history database
that provides access to criminal information for law enforcement
agencies across Canada. The government has just put another $115
million into the system to upgrade it and make sure it is fully
functional and operating smoothly.
In my riding of Etobicoke North I have not had division 23
policemen tell me that what they really need is a sex offender
registry. We have had a lot of crime in Etobicoke North. We
have had nine murders or thereabouts in the last year or so. That
is why we had the chief of police, Mr. Fantino, out to the riding
at a big town hall meeting. Basically the chief said that the
whole community has to be engaged and involved. Yes, tougher
enforcement could be implemented, and yes, the police could
change their routines and techniques, but we as citizens all have
to work together, not just the different orders of government.
The federal government obviously has a role to play in terms of
criminal law and many other aspects. There are the provincial
government, the provincial court system and the police, all with
a role to play. However, individual citizens also have to take
some responsibility for their own behaviour.
At churches, gudwaras, mosques or schools in my riding of
Etobicoke North, I take the opportunity to tell people that this
is where the rubber hits the road. Yes, we can ask for tougher
laws and say the federal and provincial governments are not doing
this or that, but if we do not start taking individual
responsibility for our own behaviour and actions, we are missing
the boat.
I mentioned CPIC, but the government has also lengthened
sentences for dangerous and long term offenders. Perhaps the
opposition has forgotten that. The government has tightened the
rules for early parole. The government has passed one of the
toughest child pornography laws in the world. Maybe that has
escaped opposition members. The government has cracked down on
child prostitution and stalking. We in the government also have
implemented the very famous and very effective national screening
system. Let me remind the House that this system empowers
volunteer, community and service groups to screen persons seeking
positions of trust with children and other vulnerable people. To
date, over 700,000 screenings have been conducted using the CPIC
system.
The government has done other things. It has partnered with
Volunteer Canada to promote screening and to train users. The
government has passed Bill C-7 to make pardon records accessible
for screening purposes by flagging the records of pardoned sexual
offenders on the CPIC system. The government has put in place
extra protection to allow police more control of high risk
offenders even after they have completed their sentences. The
government also recently created a national DNA databank, a
critical investigative tool that has already resulted in
successful matches.
If the opposition party really wants a thoughtful debate on
these opposition days, perhaps it should elaborate more on its
motions so members could understand them.
We are saying we already have this and the opposition is saying
we do not.
1310
Maybe members opposite have much more contact with the police
than I do. I have a lot of contact with my police and, as I say,
they have not been banging on my door saying that we need this
registry. They have been banging on my door saying that we need
to get the community mobilized, that we need everybody to take
individual responsibility. Certainly there are things that
different orders of government can do, along with the techniques
the police use.
I think we should try to bring this debate back to some level of
decorum and rationality. It is a very emotional issue. A
pedophile was released into the community a block away from where
I live. The community responded. I think there were over 1,000
people at a town hall meeting. What happened? The pedophile was
moved to downtown Toronto and then breached one of the conditions
and was reincarcerated.
It is a very serious issue. I certainly will be supporting the
motion, but I am not exactly sure what the motion proposes that
we do not already have. If the opposition parties have some
information they could share with the House about why what we
have does not work, I am sure members would like to listen.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, throughout the day we have been pointing out to my
colleague the deficiencies in the current system and we will
continue to do that.
I was encouraged by my colleague's comment that he wanted to
work together on this important issue. Obviously it is a very
important issue. He mentioned initiatives the government has
taken. We appreciate that, but what we are saying is this: why
not move forward now and take another step that we can work on as
leaders in the country in order to protect the safety of our
children and our communities?
I am going to ask the member a direct question. He said he will
support the motion. Will he, in his capacity as a parliamentary
secretary, encourage his government to bring forward legislation
that would put in place this type of registry across the country
and see it brought through the process to royal assent in this
place so that it would be put into law? Will he do that?
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, if I were clear on what the
issues were, I would automatically and categorically say that I
would do that, except that there is some confusion, certainly to
my mind.
What I will do, though, is go to division 23 next time I am in
my riding and ask what is available now, what is working and what
is not. If the division 23 police tell me that what is there is
not working, I will undertake that I will work on this side of
the House with members opposite and with the ministers involved
to try to enhance the system. It is a very serious issue.
Certainly constituents in my riding believe it is and I totally
agree with them.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the hon. member
talk about how the pedophile was known in the community and how
he was dealt with when he did not keep the terms of his release.
The issue we are dealing with, though, is the issue of people
who have offended, who have perhaps served their time and who are
released and are not known by members of the community.
I would like to ask the hon. member what he would do with the
person if the community was not Toronto, where he was known, but
Ottawa or Kamloops, British Columbia, where he is not known and
is another person on the street who no one has any information
about. They do not know that he is a dangerous person who is apt
to reoffend. The problem is, and I have dealt with this
situation personally, many of these people get out of jail with
the officials who are responsible for them saying that they will
probably reoffend. That is the crime against our children that
we are trying to deal with.
What would the member do with that person if he were in Kamloops
and no one knew why he was there, who he was or what his history
was?
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we have a
sort of catch-22 here. We could talk about how long people
should be incarcerated or whether they should be let out on
parole, which is a debate we have had many times and will have
many times in the House, I am sure.
1315
Once a person has done his or her time and the parole board has
a certain level of confidence that the person can be reintroduced
back into the community, the community is informed. Some do get
away but it is a low number.
In the case of Mr. Whitmore, the people in my riding were told
that he would be reintroduced into the Toronto area, which was a
good thing because people at least knew he might be someone who
they should be concerned about.
However, let us assume that the person is someone who could come
back into society, be productive and make a contribution to
society. How would the person ever do that if he or she is
jostled from one community to the other? How would the person
ever re-establish himself or herself? Some offenders can come
back into society. They have paid their dues, done their time
and have been, in many cases, rehabilitated.
This is a catch-22. The moment we let people know that an
offender is in the community, they will do what the people in my
riding did. I am not arguing with what they did, but that person
then had to be moved out of the area. Where does the person go?
The person gets moved around from one community to the other.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I do not wish to talk specifically about the legislation but I
think all of us know that there is no registry for sex offenders.
There is CPIC, which covers everybody, but most police and
certainly the police in my constituency tell me that it does not
work, that it is out of date, that it does not really trace these
people, that half the files do not have addresses on them and
that basically these people cannot be found.
To stand and say that the police know where they are and that we
already have a registry is not accurate. We do not have a
registry for sex offenders.
In a householder I had 92% of people tell me they were unhappy
with the justice system as it exists. I would like to use a
couple of examples from my constituency, which I think will
demonstrate the level of frustration that the people in my riding
would have if they listened to some of the members on the other
side.
The first case I want to speak about involves a pedophile. We
have them in every riding right across the country. We were
advised that this one pedophile would be released in March 1997
into my riding. There was no plan to release his name, his
location or any details about his offence. We found out about
his release from his concerned ex-wife who notified a couple of
people in the constituency.
The person had served his full term. It was his ninth
conviction for attacking female children. The youngest of his
victims was three and the oldest was six. The person had been
removed from a rehabilitation program because he was considered
too dangerous. The prison officials said that he would reoffend
within a year. The psychiatrists said that he would definitely
reoffend within a year. The parole board said that it would not
give him parole because he will reoffend. Canadians are
frustrated when they hear that sort of thing.
The parents got together and had a meeting. They were not
violent or mad. They were not asking for the person's head. They
were saying that this was a sick individual and that society
should not have to wait for another victim. The RCMP addressed
that meeting and said that all it could do for them was to help
them street proof their kids. The RCMP told them it would help
street proof three to ten year old kids. Has anyone ever tried
to street proof a three year old on sex offenders and expect it
to always work?
As a result and after an awful lot of pressure, we received a
picture of the person and we circulated it to let the people in
the area know where he would be.
On April 8, 1997, I asked the following question in the House:
Mr. Speaker, on March 14 a pedophile, who is a nine time
offender, was released into the community of Red Deer. I met with
over 200 concerned parents in a gymnasium. At that meeting, the
RCMP said that this person would reoffend. The prison officials
said that he would reoffend. The parole board said that he would
reoffend. They say that the next time his crime will probably be
more violent. The people in my community, the young parents who
were there, asked whether one of their children would be the 10th
victim. What message will the justice minister give these
parents?
1320
The then justice minister answered my question by saying:
Mr. Speaker, as a parent of young children, I recognize the
concern that any parent feels about such an offender or such
offences. It is because I am a parent of young children that I
drew particular satisfaction with the initiative of which I was
part when the government and the caucus introduced Bill C-55 to
deal with exactly the kind of case that the hon. member has
described.
He went on to say that the bill would solve the problem and that
we should not have any worries. It is like what we are hearing
now, that we have no worries because the people are being
registered.
My supplementary question was even more interesting. I said:
Mr. Speaker, that is just not good enough. I looked into the
eyes of these parents and they are feeling scared for their
children. They are saying that the system and the justice
department are failing them. They are not delivering. This
pedophile committed nine other offences. The psychiatrists say
he will reoffend. This individual is sick.
The Liberal answer that I got is not good enough. I want the
justice minister to tell the people what he is going to do for
them. This is happening right across Canada.
His answer was “I shall have to send to the hon. member a copy
of Bill C-55”.
The story gets worse. The individuals in our community who were
living next door to the pedophile were terrified. I have a
letter from a next door neighbour who described what the person
was like. The neighbour said “This person then went on to paint
swastikas on my building. He stalked me and he was fined $150
for that offence.”
Thirteen months later, what everyone had predicted would happen,
did happen. The person picked up two six year old girls who were
playing in their sandbox. He did not do it in that community.
He went 15 kilometres down the road. He now not only had his
10th and 11th victim, but the system had failed the people of
that community totally.
There is not a record of the person. We are not keeping track
of these people, and that is what the motion is all about today.
At that point, I again asked a question in the House. In the
first question I asked the former justice minister about the
nine-time convicted pedophile who was released into my riding. I
was told that I should not worry about it. The answer I got this
time from the new justice minister was:
Mr. Speaker, obviously the situation that the hon. member refers
to is a very serious one and a very tragic one. My colleague the
solicitor general and I have discussed this issue and we are
going to be looking at it further.
That was in May 1998. It is fine to keep putting these issues
off, to keep saying that we will do something and that we do have
a registry there. This is happening over and over again. That
is why we have to keep track of these people. We have to know
where they are. We have to know their addresses and they have to
report in. It is not because we are vicious and mean. It is
because we do not want more victims.
In another example, a mother, Mrs. Lisa Dillman, called me on
Friday. She has two daughters aged five and six. She is the
ex-wife of Dr. John Schneeberger who was convicted of raping a
patient. He sexually assaulted his 11 year old stepdaughter for
three years. He was convicted in November 1999 and is eligible
for parole in June of this year, serving less than two years of a
six year sentence. This person had put somebody else's DNA in
his arm so as not to get caught but the police took a hair sample
from him and managed to do a DNA match.
A judge has forced the mother of those two girls, the five year
old and six year old, to bring the girls to Bowden Penitentiary
for unsupervised visits with Dr. John Schneeberger. Neither the
mother nor anyone else can be there. These two young girls will
be left in a prison with a sexual offender.
What kind of justice system are we talking about? We need to
start talking about the victims.
1325
What will be the psychological impact on these two young girls?
The person was actually going through immigration hearings at the
time of his criminal hearings and he said that he did not have a
criminal record. He lied to the immigration people to become a
Canadian citizen. To say that CPIC is working, that it is doing
its job and that we know where the sexual predators are, is
wrong.
I talked earlier about a truck driver in my constituency who had
attacked two young boys aged four and five. He is now driving
across the country in a truck with a bedroom in the back to pick
up other potential victims.
We are doing nothing to keep track of these sexual predators.
That is what the motion is all about. It is about those little
kids, about our kids and our grandchildren. That is why we have
to get a registry for sexual offenders. Do not throw CPIC back
in our face.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just illustrated some very graphic
and disturbing examples of sexual predators who the system is not
dealing with properly.
We are advocating a sexual offender registry that would track
people and make reporting mandatory in order to try to prevent
more of these types of occurrences. We see an obstinance in and
a refusal by the Liberal government to want to address the
problem.
This reminds me of the British Columbia court ruling last
January or the January before when it ruled that the possession
of child pornography was legal. We put a vote in the House of
Commons to invoke the notwithstanding clause in the constitution
to override that. It was basic common sense and the government
voted it down.
Why does the member think the Liberal government is reluctant to
deal with such a serious problem in our society? Why does it
refuse to act?
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, this should be a non-partisan
issue. All of us care about our children and, in many of our
cases, our grandchildren. I know you do, Mr. Speaker. The
children are the ones I am most concerned about when it comes to
sexual predators. It is our job as members of parliament to
protect the children.
What we have here is a very liberal point of view. I do not
understand the psychological thinking of people who can be more
concerned about the rights of a nine-time offender than they can
be about the potential 10th and 11th victims. I do not
understand that when these are six year old kids.
I come from a province where Liberals are an endangered species
and perhaps that is why I do not understand that Liberal
thinking. However, that is the way it is. It is a Liberal way
of thinking.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, what I really would have liked to have seen today is
the solicitor general stand up and say that all parties agree on
the issue, that it is a good idea, that the government has been
working on it and that we should take the proposal, bring it
forward and develop a national sex offender registry. Instead,
he has said that he does not agree with what we have said but
that he will vote for it because the government is doing it
anyway.
The problem is, and here is where we differ, that the country
says we need a national sex offender registry. It can be handled
within CPIC but it does need legislation to mandate reporting
systems. It needs legislation to provide penalties if one does
not report. The government says that it is taking care of it in
CPIC but we are saying that CPIC is missing part of it.
How does my colleague think we can influence the government to
say more than just yes, it is doing it? How can we actually get
it to understand the severity of the case and to change it?
1330
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, what has been the surprising
is that people will stand up and say that it is covered by CPIC.
All they have to do is talk to some of the police officers, the
lawyers and the judges and they will tell them that the
information is inadequate, that it is out of date and that it is
just not there.
We need this registry. We need it to be accurate for sexual
offenders. We need to know their addresses and phone numbers.
The police need to be able to go to them instantly. Remember
that this is for the police. They need to be able to go to the
offenders instantly if there is an offence in a particular
jurisdiction. What this motion is all about is to prevent there
being more victims. It will work.
Obviously there will be penalties if offenders do not register
but those penalties need to be enforced. Those people must do
that. For people to simply wash over it and say that it is
already there, they must have their heads in the sand if they do
not listen to what experts are telling them.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
participate in the debate on the official opposition's supply day
motion calling on the Liberal government to immediately create a
national sex offender registry.
Creating a national sex offender registry is a non-partisan
issue because it is about the safety and protection of Canadians
and our children and their futures. It is about making our
streets, our neighbourhoods and our communities safer. I would
expect the Liberals to not look through the lens of political
stripes but rather through the lens of issues and to the
importance of this issue.
Once again the Canadian Alliance must twist the arm of the
government. We did that two weeks ago. We forced backbench
Liberal MPs, all Liberal MPs except two, to vote against Liberal
Party policy. In red book one the Liberals called for the
establishment of an independent ethics counsellor. Because they
have yet to fulfil that promise, the Canadian Alliance gave the
Liberals that opportunity two weeks ago, but they voted against
their own promise.
As the official opposition, not only do we provide effective
criticism of the government but we also provide alternative
solutions. As the official opposition we carry the flashlight
and very often show the Liberals their darkness. Sometimes we
even make them read their own red books.
I commend the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford for
spearheading the Canadian Alliance supply day motion on the
creation of a national sex offender registry. He has been
working on the issue for quite some time. I feel that I bring a
unique perspective to the debate today.
In the last election the three-time defeated Liberal candidate
advocated in Surrey Central that, if elected, he would create a
national sex offender registry through a private member's bill.
The Liberal candidate in Surrey Central was already told,
probably before the election, that a new Liberal government would
not create a national sex offender registry. That is why he
resorted to a private members' bill.
The Prime Minister admitted that parents have the right to be
concerned and he virtually confessed to the candidate in Surrey
Central that he could not stop him from trying to create the
registry through a private members' bill. The Prime Minister
knew that his office and the cabinet do not listen to backbench
members after an election. The MPs listen to the Prime
Minister's office and the party whip.
The Prime Minister knows that private members' business is a
weaker tool in the House since all private members' bills are not
votable. Very rarely does a private members' bill or motion
become law. A private members' bill is like a pacifier given to
a baby. It keeps the baby busy and hopeful but nothing comes out
of it.
That is how private members' business in the House operates
because they are not votable. We keep working hard but very
rarely does something come out of it. That was the point the
Liberal candidate from Surrey Central was trying to make.
1335
The official opposition motion is about creating a national sex
offender registry. The motion is votable. It is a litmus test
for Liberal members in the House. I am proud to be here today
joining my colleagues as a member of the official opposition team
calling for the establishment of something that was promised by
my opponent in the recent election.
The sex offender registry would be established and maintained by
the solicitor general's department. The registry would contain
the name, address, date of birth, list of sex offences and any
other prescribed information about a person convicted of a sex
offence anywhere in Canada.
Information to be included in the registry would be collected
from offenders themselves and from any other source available to
the minister such as Correctional Service of Canada, the National
Parole Board, et cetera.
The registry would be available only to the minister and police
forces for the purpose of crime prevention and law enforcement.
The registry would apply to every person convicted of a sex
offence or found not criminally responsible for a sex offence on
account of a mental disorder. This would include anyone serving
a sentence for a sex offence on the day the registry comes into
force and would not apply to young offenders.
Every offender who resides in Canada would be required to
register in person at his or her local police station at least
once a year and provide updated information to be added to the
registry. The offender would be required to register within 15
days of release from custody.
Persons convicted of a sex offence that carries a maximum
sentence of 10 years or less would have to report to police for
10 years. Persons convicted of a sex offence with a longer
sentence would have to report to the police for the rest of their
lives.
Any person pardoned for all of their sex offences would be
relieved of the requirement to report to police and his or her
record would be deleted from the registry. Any offender whose
name appears in the registry may ask to see the information and
correct it if necessary. Regulations may be made to limit the
number of times a person may ask to see such information. A
police officer would be able to obtain a warrant for the arrest
of a person failing to register and report as required.
If convicted, the offender would face a fine of up to $25,000
and/or up to a year in prison for the first offence. A second
offence would bring a $25,000 fine and/or up to two years less a
day in jail.
Such legislation is long overdue. One-fifth of all offenders in
Canada are sex offenders. One-fourth of the total federal
incarcerated population is sex offenders. Out of sex offenders
under community supervision 14% are on day parole, 31% are on
full parole and 54% are on statutory release. They are out in
the community. This illustrates the gravity of the situation and
the importance of passing the motion.
In the United States the registries assist police to identify
suspects and solve sex offences quicker. In the United Kingdom
the sex offenders act has been in place since September 1997. The
province of Ontario has created a provincial registry due to
government inaction at the federal level. Other provinces like
British Columbia and Saskatchewan will also be establishing
similar registries.
A national sex offender registry has the support of many groups,
including the Ontario and Saskatchewan associations of chiefs of
police, the Canadian Police Association, the Ontario Provincial
Police and the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime.
There is widespread support for such a registry. In Surrey
Central, Councillor Dianne Watts has collected a large number of
signatures on a petition which will be tabled in the House later.
1340
In conclusion, it is appropriate that we are discussing the
matter today. Last week the police arrested a convicted
pedophile after the man allegedly breached probation in
Saskatchewan and was applying for jobs at Ontario day care
centres. He was caught allegedly shoplifting at a local
department store.
All David Caza's applications were rejected after the day care
centres did a criminal background check. We are debating today a
Canadian Alliance motion to create a national sex offender
registry which would disable people like David Caza from pursuing
innocent victims. The government should give police this new and
effective tool for crime prevention and law enforcement.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is somewhat of a strange day when the opposition motion is such
that government members all agree with it. There does not seem
to be much argument as to whether there should be a so-called
registry of offences. The question is whether there should be a
separate registry of offences.
Members opposite think that in some measure the creation of a
separate registry will protect people and children from dangerous
pedophiles. The people in Canada listening need to know there is
a registry of offenders. If an hon. member is convicted of a
criminal code offence it goes into a police registry system. It
is called the Canadian Police Information System, or CPIC as it
has been referred to. It is a fairly simple system and yet a lot
of detailed information goes into it.
For example, if an hon. member is convicted of an assault, that
information appears along with all relevant information
pertaining to his or her blood type, fingerprints, last known
address, age and height, et cetera. It is a fairly elaborate
system. When a police officer or any of his colleagues across
the country punch the name into the computer they have access to
that information. The information on the computer shows what the
individual has been convicted of. It also includes sexual
offences.
I am a little hard pressed to know how the opposition motion
assists the concerns of Canadians that there will be somehow more
information if we have a separate registry system. If the
argument were rephrased in terms of making more information
available in the CPIC system, it would get even more support from
members on this side of the House.
To set up an additional registry system that would in theory
require a police officer to look at the CPIC system and then to
check an additional system does not make a great deal of sense on
the face of it. If the argument in the motion is that the
systems should be merged and that information generated in the
CPIC system should disclose not only criminal information but
also information regarding sexual issues, I think all members
could support that.
Unfortunately there does not seem to be a great deal of
consensus among attorneys general across the country on the
efficacy of a separate system. From the standpoint of this side
of the House there does not seem to be any great reason for a
separate system if attorneys general across the country had
consensus that the necessary modifications to the CPIC system
could be set up.
1345
Members need to know that information can be forwarded to CPIC
automatically if a police officer gets information on a new
address of a convicted pedophile. That is process rather than a
legislated information update. Rather than forcing it, it is
simply good police practice.
In Ontario there is a strange situation where a sexual assault
registry has been proposed. I am hard pressed to understand how
it works. If people are convicted of a sexual assault of some
kind they generally do not go to police stations after the
completion of their sentences to tell the police where they are
living. To have an additional sanction of a $25,000 fine seems
like a response to an issue, but I respectfully submit it is more
of an appearance of a response to an issue rather than a
meaningful response to an issue.
Police officers are generally at the forefront of soliciting
information pertaining to people who are convicted of sexual
offences. When they come in contact with an individual they can
certainly update the CPIC information so that all police officers
across the country know of it.
Canadians should also know Bill C-7 was passed in the last
parliament which closed an anomaly in the pardon system. Prior
to the passage of Bill C-7 a convicted individual who had
completed his or her sentence for a sexual matter could have the
record sealed and ask for a pardon.
Parliament was persuaded this was a loophole and addressed it,
so that if an individual applies to teach school or participate
with children in a Boy Scout's activity or something of that
nature, a criminal record check is now done. Even if the record
is sealed the individual is tagged. A little flag comes up on
the CPIC system saying that the individual has been convicted of
some sexual matter. Then the organization receives the
information. That is significant to people who are concerned
about known pedophiles in individual communities.
Canadians also need to know about subsection 753(1) of the criminal
code which is generally known as the dangerous offenders
legislation. It is an extensive section that was passed to
address this issue, if not by the last parliament, the one
before. Any crown attorney dealing with matters pertaining to
sentencing can make an application concerning a dangerous
offender.
It would be instructive to read into the record that section of
the criminal code. People should know that a crown attorney can
make an application at any time after a conviction. Once the
sentences of individuals are completed their names can be tagged.
They can be required to report to probation officers and to
provide updates on their addresses.
The criminal code says that the court may find an offender to be
a long term offender if it is satisfied that there is a
substantial risk that the offender will reoffend, that there is a
reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the
community.
It then gives a list of sections where this application may be
made: section 151, sexual interference; section 152, invitation
to sexual touching; section 153, sexual exploitation; and section
271, sexual assault. It lists all the sections that concern
Canadians the most about this issue.
1350
The crown can make that application and can say that it has
reason to believe that an individual will reoffend. That is
consistent with the testimony that we heard on the justice
committee, which was that people who are convicted of these kinds
of offences do reoffend. Pedophiles do not get over whatever it
is that affects them and creates the behaviour that they
participate in.
If the crown can make the case and if an offender has been
shown to have a repetitive behaviour of a particular pattern,
then the crown can order that at the end of the individual's
sentence, whether it is a five year jail sentence or whatever,
the individual would have a period of up to 10 years of community
contact with the probation services. That is a pretty effective
way in which the community can be advised of the presence of the
individual in the community and can then take whatever
preventative measures are necessary.
There are two fairly significant initiatives in parliament's recent
past that address the concerns of Canadians in a substantive way.
The first has to do with tagging people who are making
applications for pardons. The second has to do with the creation
of dangerous offender legislation. This is a pretty substantive
intrusion into people's civil liberties.
I appreciate that members opposite have mixed views on the
rights of the accused. They argue that there are rights for the
accused but they want to know where the rights are for the
victims. Members should bear in mind that all Canadians have
exactly the same rights. We are intruding in, on this schedule
offences, on the notion that an individual has served his or her
sentence and time to society.
To give an example, if I assault an individual and I serve my
sentence, at the end of five years I will not be categorized as a
dangerous long term offender. However, if I sexually assault an
individual and it is found to be a repetitive behaviour on my
part, I can be, in effect, on parole for up to 10 years after I
have served my sentence. That is a pretty significant change in
the thinking. I would support that change because the people for
whom the legislation concerns are people who simply do not get
over whatever it is that they have.
Canadians need to know that when the opposition members raise
the issue of a separate sexual offence registry, it is in the
context of these two fairly significant initiatives on the part
of previous parliaments, namely, the pardon issue and the
dangerous offender issue. Those are two very significant issues.
Would we have a better system if we created a separate sexual
offence registry? I submit that is a dubious proposition at
best. We may have some rather bizarre anomalies where an
individual may show up in the one registry as having been
convicted of a sexual offence of some kind, but the other
registry would have all the material pertaining to the fact that
the person had been charged and convicted with attempted murder
or a variety of assaults, et cetera. It seems somewhat strange
that we should be arguing about whether we should have two
registries or one registry.
1355
If the argument is simply that the current system be updated, I
do not think that is difficult. If the argument is that the
current system is inadequate in some respect, again I do not
think that is difficult. We are into arguments about
technicalities. If the argument is about whether the police
communicates properly with their communities or whether there are
dangerous offenders released into the community, I think we can
talk about that.
The hon. member for Etobicoke North made a rather significant
point, that at some time all offenders end up back on the street.
At one point or another every convicted criminal ends up back on
the street somehow or other. We could say that we will lock
these people away forever. That does not work, so the question
is: Can we stage it?
If we create with these kinds of debates an hostile atmosphere
toward the release of these individuals back into the community,
we have the ironical issue of creating the very conditions we
wish to resolve. It is a bit strange. If we are not careful
about what we are saying we are in fact creating conditions which
will make hostile the release of any individual into the
community. Therefore we marginalize the individual and the more
we marginalize the individual we have the ironical impact of the
individual repeating his or her behaviour. In effect, in some
bizarre fashion we create more difficulties than intended. A bit
of Murphy's law applies here.
Those are the issues of significance to Canadians. Canadians
legitimately are concerned that there are people in their
communities they should know about. I believe, with the greatest
respect to colleagues opposite, that we are not debating whether
the information is not available. The question is whether the
information should be formatted within the greater CPIC system or
whether it should be formatted in a separate registry altogether.
This is not merely a criminal justice issue. It is as much a
social justice issue as anything. All criminal behaviour occurs
in a social context. I hope that members concerned about
amending the criminal code regarding dangerous pedophiles would
also be supportive of initiatives on the part of Correctional
Service Canada and of provincial governments that in fact create
conditions which prevent that behaviour. My concern is that if
we hit from the left and hit from the right we see these
initiatives not merely in the context of criminal justice but in
the context of social justice.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
MINING
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Sigma-Lamaque complex of the McWatters corporation has been
closed since February 14, 2001, while the Beaufor mine has been
shut down since August 2000.
The government should take action to increase its presence and
its involvement in resource regions that have difficulties
adjusting to the new economy.
The government should set up a financial assistance program for
thin capitalization mines located in Canada's resource regions.
The government should reinstate the Emergency Gold Mining
Assistance Act to help Canada's gold mine operators deal with
the low price of gold by guaranteeing them a fixed price for the
gold they produce.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the national chief of the Assembly of
First Nations, Matthew Coon Come, is seeking to empower
grassroots aboriginal people in Canada by enabling them to vote
for the person of their choice for the office of AFN's national
chief: one member, one vote.
1400
Mr. Coon Come is not the first national chief to believe that
such a move toward grassroots democracy would be a positive step.
Former national chiefs Ovide Mercredi, in 1991, and Phil
Fontaine, in 1998, supported this proposal for democratic change.
Mr. Coon Come is not trying to do anything alarming or
unprecedented. He is simply moving the Assembly of First Nations
in the direction of democratic accountability to grassroots
aboriginals so the ordinary band member can be assured of proper
representation.
This initiative is based upon the same principles of grassroots
democracy that are important to the Canadian Alliance. I applaud
Mr. Coon Come and the many aboriginals who support him for trying
to move in this direction.
* * *
[Translation]
SEMAINE NATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
celebrating the Semaine nationale de la Francophonie from March
11 to 25. This is an opportunity for the nine million French
speaking Canadians to show how proud they are to speak and to
live in French.
The Semaine nationale de la Francophonie is a major celebration
that allows francophones and francophiles to express their
attachment to the French language and culture. This celebration
of the French fact in Canada is testimony to the vitality of the
Francophonie.
While these events provide a window on our francophone heritage,
our Francophonie is very much a contemporary reality with ever
growing ties. This week is also an invitation to discover or
rediscover those who help promote the Francophonie and make it
thrive.
* * *
[English]
MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the recent visit to western Canada by the Minister of Finance was
billed as an opportunity to gather feedback on western concerns
through face to face meetings with community leaders.
I do not know what the protocol was for other stops on the
minister's tour, but in my riding of Skeena, B.C., three MLAs and
myself were neither notified nor invited to participate.
Curiously enough, however, three Liberal mayors were invited. I
am sure they provided input to the minister, but surely the duly
elected provincial NDP MLAs and the Alliance MP could also have
contributed significantly to the discussion.
It is a shame that partisan politics is allowed to interfere
with the necessary process to alleviate western concerns on
economic difficulties. I for one am quite prepared to put
politics aside in working toward common goals and solutions for
my region.
Was the minister's true purpose for his western visit not so
much to deal with western alienation but to build support for his
eventual race for the Prime Minister's Office?
* * *
CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as part of the second national symposium on fairness, the
Minister of National Revenue unveiled the new corporate identify
of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
This new image provides CCRA clients with a unified and
consistent design approach to information products. This strong
graphic vision reinforces its commitment to improve communication
with clients across Canada.
The new approach will reinforce the CCRA slogan “More Ways to
Serve You” and its commitment to client service. I congratulate
the minister and the agency for the progress they have made in
implementing their seven point plan for fairness and in
addressing the requirements for improved communications with
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
agriculture and agri-food must be able to rise to all of today's
challenges and opportunities, be they globalization, new
technology, the preservation of high standards in food safety,
environmental protection and so on. Our agricultural leaders
must be equipped to address these challenges and opportunities.
A group of Canadians, leaders in the various agricultural
sectors, are in Ottawa today to gather information and have
discussions in the context of the Canadian agriculture lifetime
leadership program.
I want to salute them, their commitment and their devotion and,
more specifically, I salute Aimé Jacob of my beautiful riding of
Brome—Missisquoi.
* * *
AIRPORT FACILITIES
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
firm Au Dragon Forgé of Terrebonne has been awarded three new
contracts worth $49.5 million, which include the engineering
contract for a new building for the Caisse de dépôt et placement
du Québec in Montreal.
The two other contracts awarded are in the States, including one
at the Miami airport.
1405
Maintaining its reputation, this Quebec firm was chosen, among
other reasons, for its ability to manage the particularly
complex and restrictive aspects of airport facilities. Its
expertise makes it a leader in its field, and its
successes—regional, national and international—bear witness to the
high quality of the work done by its employees.
I offer my warmest congratulations to the executives of ADF in
Terrebonne and want them to know just how proud I am of their
dynamism and their contribution to spreading the fame of
Terrebonne—Blainville.
* * *
[English]
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on March 10 our government announced a
contribution of close to $3 million to six community rural health
and research initiatives in Manitoba.
I remind the House that these projects demonstrate the ongoing
commitment of the Government of Canada to maintaining and
improving the health of Canadians. Projects like these, which
protect and promote good health, are vitally important and
contribute to the commitment made by all first ministers in
September 2000 to improve wellness.
This announcement complements the close to $4 million announced
earlier by the Government of Canada for Winnipeg based community
health and research initiatives, including two telehealth
projects that will have a positive impact on rural residents.
These items, in addition to the increase in federal transfer
payments to the provinces for the delivery of health care
services, represent a strong commitment to the important rural
health needs of Canadians.
* * *
MEMBER FOR EDMONTON NORTH
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today marks the 12th anniversary of
the first election to parliament of a special friend of mine. On
March 13, 1989, she won a byelection in the riding of Beaver
River.
During those lonely days in Ottawa she kept the faith alive for
a new political movement. She acted as a leader and encourager
of the Reform Party as that party grew and eventually became the
official opposition. She played key roles throughout the united
alternative process which led to the Canadian Alliance and in the
election in November, which saw an increase of 750,000 votes and
an increase to 66 seats while other opposition parties decreased.
Her intelligence, her quick wit and her many skills have made
her shine in whatever role she has played, whether as caucus
chair, deputy leader or even as leader of the official
opposition. She is living evidence that someone can be
principled and authentic and still succeed in public life.
Her private life is also an example. During her years as a
schoolteacher she opened her home as a foster parent to several
aboriginal children. She is a hard worker and a loyal and loving
friend.
It is with great affection and respect that I say happy 12th
anniversary and congratulations to the hon. member.
* * *
HOUSING
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
keeping with the government's priority of helping the homeless,
the Metro Non-Profit Housing Association will open a new housing
facility in Halifax with the help of nearly $1.6 million from the
Government of Canada and the province of Nova Scotia.
In addition to accommodating 18 residents and a live in staff
person, this facility will provide a base for the association's
work. Its community support team will provide advocacy and
support for homeless people with complex mental, physical and
social needs. It will work to help them become part of a
supportive, healthy community.
The federal funding for this project is part of the $753 million
the Government of Canada has committed to combating homelessness
from coast to coast to coast. It is money well spent. It is a
sound investment.
* * *
VETERANS
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Army,
Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada holds the proud distinction
of being the oldest veterans organization in the country.
With units from coast to coast, members of the Army, Navy and
Air Force Veterans provide important services to disabled
veterans and their dependants. They support the teaching of
sportsmanship and high ideals of youth through sponsorship of
sports, scholarships and other activities. In so doing, ANAVETS
practises the democratic principles for which so many Canadians
gave their lives and helps to make our communities better places
in which to live.
I ask all here to join me in congratulating the unit of
Thompson, Manitoba, unit 388 of the Army, Navy and Air Force
Veterans, on the 20th anniversary of its charter on March 1,
2001. This unit dedicated to serving our community and our
country also supports the only Junior ANAVETS unit in Canada.
1410
I thank all its members, the ladies auxiliary, and past and
present presidents Jim White, Maurice Roberge, Bob Walker, Frank
Morrison, Keith Flight and Ron Robertson.
* * *
[Translation]
SOLANGE TREMBLAY
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to take a moment to speak of Michel Dumont.
Michel has spent the past ten years with a blot on his name, a
criminal record that led to his spending 34 months behind bars
for a crime he did not commit. This unpardonable error was
acknowledged by the courts last month.
The truth would never have come to light without the spouse,
Solange Tremblay.
Year after year, she battled the legal system and overcame
countless difficulties.
If Michel has now been exonerated of the crime for which he has
already been punished, it is essentially because of this woman,
who is with us today in the House, seated at his side. I salute
her.
Congratulations to you both, Solange and Michel, and best wishes
for a long and happy life together.
* * *
PREMIER OF QUEBEC
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again yesterday the new Premier of Quebec
attempted to prove that Canada is not working, serves no useful
purpose, and has done harm to the economic development of
Quebec. Nothing could be further from the truth, as he well
knows.
Not only has Canada not done harm to the economic development of
Quebec, it has done much good. One need only think of the
international WTO agreements, and the Team Canada trips and
their benefits to businesses.
If Mr. Landry considers Canada a hindrance to the growth of
Quebec, why is he insistent that sovereignty include an offer of
partnership with that same Canada?
We invite Mr. Landry to stop looking for hidden motives and to
give up his separatist rhetoric in order to work along with the
Government of Canada for the betterment of the people of Quebec
and of Canada. That it what the public wants of us.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture's announcement of only
$14.1 million of new money for struggling P.E.I. potato farmers
falls far short of a meaningful level of disaster relief.
An immediate influx of over $40 million was requested to go with
the approximately $15 million the P.E.I. government had already
contributed.
The crisis over potato wart has left farmers with no option but
to destroy millions of tonnes of potatoes due to the questionable
U.S. ban based on a fear of potato wart found in only 24
potatoes. The ban continues and P.E.I. has absorbed the loss for
the entire country, a sacrifice that has devastated Island
farmers.
CFIP is a flawed formula that will not help most producers.
Fifty-three per cent of the Island agriculture industry is potato
farming and farmers face a 60% drop in net income this year, a
$30 million loss.
The solicitor general and Liberal MPs from P.E.I. have failed
Islanders. They did not impress upon the cabinet the urgency of
this crisis. They did not deliver to farmers in their time of
need.
* * *
LEARNING DISABILITIES MONTH
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
March is learning disabilities month in Canada and the theme for
this year's public awareness campaign is “Early Help Means Early
Success”.
Some 100,000 Ontario children are identified as having learning
disabilities. As we all know, learning disabilities are not
merely an educational issue. They impact on all aspects of a
person's life.
Research has shown that by identifying a child at risk as early
as senior kindergarten and providing the appropriate help at that
moment in time, the need for more lengthy interventions at a
later date is greatly reduced. It helps prevent emotional and
behavioural problems later in life.
I encourage all members of the House to raise awareness of
learning disabilities in their communities and to foster the
understanding that people with learning disabilities are
competent individuals who sometimes have to do things differently
to succeed in life.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today I mention to the minister of
agriculture that in fact there is a farm crisis in the country
and that this week there will be protests in Saskatoon, in
Winnipeg and in Ottawa.
It seems that farmers believe that the minister does not and
will not acknowledge that there is a crisis. In fact, $500
million is insufficient for the crisis at hand. Farmers have
asked me to stand here to ask where the other $500 million is.
Also, today the Prince Edward Island Potato Board is stating that
the assistance announced today was too little, too late.
Something has to be done for agriculture across the country.
* * *
1415
[Translation]
NATIONAL EPILEPSY MONTH
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this month Epilepsy
Canada and other organizations involved with the fight against
this disorder have launched National Epilepsy Month. Epilepsy
is a serious brain disorder affecting close to 30,000 Canadians.
It is characterized by seizures, uncontrollable trembling,
convulsions and confusion. There is no cure, and the
medications available for treatment often have severe side
effects.
I strongly encourage Canadians to make a special effort during
this month to learn more about epilepsy. Working together with
medical researchers, we could improve the quality of life of
those around us who suffer from epilepsy.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general has claimed
that the RCMP could not arrest alleged cop killer Gaetano Amodeo
in 1999 because it had not received an extradition request from
the Italian government. We have now received new information
which throws into question everything the solicitor general has
said.
Tomorrow the Corriere Canadese, an Italian newspaper, will
report that on January 13, 1999, over two years ago, along with
the original warrant the Italian government sent the RCMP a
formal request for Mr. Amodeo's arrest.
My question is for the solicitor general. Why did the RCMP not
arrest this man in April 1999, two years ago?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not decide when the RCMP decides to
arrest or not to arrest an individual. However, it is important
to note that this individual was a fugitive from justice. He has
been arrested and is now in jail awaiting a deportation hearing.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he decided not to give us the
information or to give us wrong information.
[Translation]
Tomorrow, the Corriere Canadese, a Toronto Italian paper, will
publish what the Italian authorities had been seeking since
January 1999, the arrest of Gaetano Amodeo, in preparation for
an application for extradition. The RCMP had monitored him and
even photographed him with a head of the Montreal Mafia.
How does the Solicitor General explain the RCMP's decision to
photograph this killer instead of handcuffing him?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition
would be aware that I do not decide how the RCMP conducts its
investigations. I do not tell the RCMP whether it should take
pictures or whatever it should do. The RCMP is a well respected
police organization around the world.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of deciding what
the RCMP should do. It is whether you decide to tell the truth
or not.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Stockwell Day: The minister of immigration and the
solicitor general both—
The Speaker: Order, please. I am sure all hon. members
know that hon. members tell the truth all the time. The hon. the
Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, both the minister of
immigration and the solicitor general have clearly indicated that
it is only recently they knew about this situation.
Yet the evidence is very clear. It has been over two years that
they have had this information. They have either withheld
information or they have not given accuracy to the House. Either
of those is a great failing.
Which of these two ministers, or both, will the Prime Minister
ask to resign on the grounds of ministerial accountability for
this lack of action?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is always what they resort to as a last argument when
they cannot establish anything they are talking about.
I have two very competent ministers who are trying to deal with
a very difficult file. They are both serving Canada very well.
[Translation]
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the name of Gaetano Amodeo appeared on an application for
permanent residence on June 28, 1999. The warrant for his
arrest had been issued six months previously.
1420
My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Why did her department not check for a criminal record?
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the individual the member refers to is
not an immigrant. He was refused permanent resident status. As
soon as the RCMP concluded its investigation my department, CIC,
acted and within three weeks the man was in custody. He is now
awaiting the deportation hearing.
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on September 1, 2000, Mr. Gaetano Amodeo applied again
for permanent residency. His arrest warrant was issued 18 months
before.
Again I ask a question of the minister of immigration. Why did
her ministry fail a second time to conduct a police check?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my department relies on evidence. We
need evidence and warrants before we can arrest and deport
someone. Unlike the member opposite we do not rely on whisper
and innuendo.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
list of opportunities missed by this government in the Gaetano
Amodeo affair is a long one.
In January 1999, the RCMP learned from Italian authorities that
a warrant for Mr. Amodeo's arrest had been issued by a Palermo
court.
Why did the office of the solicitor general not advise
Immigration Canada in January 1999 of the criminal charges
against Gaetano Amodeo, when this notorious criminal was trying
to move to Canada?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP had been working with Italian
police from 1999, but I would like to remind my hon. colleague
that it does not inform me of its investigations. I do not
decide who it investigates, who it tells or who it does not tell.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
RCMP did not inform the solicitor general or Immigration Canada.
But in September 1999, the Department of Justice received from
Italy an official request for the extradition of this same
Gaetano Amodeo. The Minister of Justice received a request for
extradition at that time.
Might we know why the Minister of Justice, who knew this fact,
who had been informed, did not advise Immigration Canada that a
request for Mr. Amodeo's extradition had been received?
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as soon as the RCMP completed its
investigation and notified my department that it had sufficient
evidence we were able to move. We were able to get a warrant.
The man was detained and he is now awaiting a deportation
hearing.
My officials acted promptly once they were given the information
that they needed.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
will put my question to the Minister of Justice again.
I do not want to hear that the government was not aware, that
there was insufficient evidence, when this was a duly completed
request for extradition, when photographs were taken in April
1999, but of the wrong person, when he and his wife subsequently
applied here, when the minister had received a request for
extradition and did not think of advising Immigration Canada.
There is something wrong with this picture. I can believe that
the solicitor general did not know, but the Minister of Justice
did.
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat once again that as soon as
the RCMP had completed its investigation and had sufficient
information my department was notified. We obtained a warrant.
The individual was arrested. He is now awaiting a deportation
hearing.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, three
weeks after the Department of Citizenship and Immigration
was—supposedly—advised, Mr. Amodeo was arrested, but this could
have been done 14 months earlier.
Can anyone explain to me how it was that the RCMP did not have
the sense to visit the wife of the man being sought? That would
strike me as a good place to start, particularly when they could
take a picture of the right person.
Would the Minister of Justice, who knew that there was an
extradition request, tell us why she did not advise the Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration?
1425
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, CIC relies on warrants and in
order to get a warrant we need to have evidence.
The RCMP provided that evidence. We moved quickly and within
three weeks the individual was apprehended. He is detained and
is now awaiting a hearing. In order to get that warrant we need
evidence, not just whispers.
* * *
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary for heritage scooped the industry
minister yesterday by announcing an expert panel to look into the
growing problem of corporate concentration in the media.
Another panel is about to be announced to plot the future of
Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications. It is rumoured
that cable lobbyist Janet Yale and senior Bell Canada executive
Sheridan Scott will chair this panel, arousing deep concern about
whether we will have a regulatory regime at all in Canada or just
a free-for-all among corporations. Which will it be?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member should know that in fact the Broadcasting
Act and the Telecommunications Act for a number of years have
been shared responsibility. As late as last year we began the
process of looking at some analysis for dealing with the issues
facing us over the next five years.
I think it is a proactive approach. We know that we are living
in a modern world. The Telecommunications Act and the
Broadcasting Act will obviously be included in this review.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have
two committees here: one a dog and pony show designed to distract
from the real and growing problem of corporate concentration in
the media and the other designed to advance the real agenda:
further concentration of power in the hands of fewer corporate
giants.
We want to know: Is Captain Canada about to adopt a new persona
and emerge from his telephone booth as Captain Concentration?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think it is hardly appropriate to characterize as
a dog and pony show a review which has not even been announced
yet, but I can assure the hon. member that in the course of the
last couple of years we have had a number of concerns expressed
about the issue of diversity of Canadian voices, both on
television and through the Internet.
We want to make sure in our review of CRTC policies that we make
more space for more Canadian voices. That is the objective that
we are underscoring, which I hope is supported by all political
parties.
* * *
CORPORATE CONCENTRATION
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question to the Prime Minister is about the panel of experts
the government decided to set up to investigate corporate
concentration after the Asper affair.
The leader of the government in the Senate stated yesterday that
she would be partial to a Senate committee study of this issue
instead of a panel. I wonder if she was speaking for the
government.
In any event, will the Prime Minister bring the proposed terms
of reference of any review to the House for advice and full
debate prior to deciding the mandate or the membership of any
review or panel?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the original discussion of the panel predates the
hon. member's question by about 12 months, so we can hardly be
accused of creating this process to meet a problem that he claims
occurred this week.
The fact is that as a result of our concerns we undertook to
have a number of reviews done by a number of experts. They have
been taking the course over the last number of months. There
have been seven studies sought by independent experts. Six have
been completed and we are awaiting the seventh. When that study
is in, we will move forthwith with the panel which can focus on
these very important issues for the country.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
so much for parliament. The Prime Minister claims that he sold
his golf club shares to Jonas Prince in 1993, yet the 1994
declaration of registration of 161341 Canada Inc. with the
government of Quebec does not show Jonas Prince or any of his
companies as a shareholder. Nor do six subsequent annual
declarations. Why not?
Will the Prime Minister now table a copy of the agreement
respecting the golf club shares so Canadians can know if this was
about a sale or simply about an option to purchase?
1430
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the facts of the matter are clear. This is a question
which has been looked into by the RCMP. The RCMP has closed the
file. It is a matter which has been looked at by the ethics
counsellor. The ethics counsellor has very clearly pronounced
himself on the file.
The member may ask questions again and again and again. It does
not change the fact the Prime Minister has complied fully and
completely with the requirements of the ethics counsellor.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let us go through this again. In April 1999 the
RCMP took photos, commonly called evidence, of Gaetano Amodeo
meeting with Nick Rizutto, a Montreal mob boss.
The RCMP knew he was considered armed and dangerous. In fact it
had an arrest warrant. I would like to ask the person who really
should know, the solicitor general, why he was not arrested at
the time.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the important thing to remember is that
we had a fugitive fleeing the law. Because of the RCMP gathering
the evidence and with the co-operation of Citizenship and
Immigration Canada, the man is now arrested, in jail and going
before a deportation hearing.
Surely my hon. colleague does not want me personally to handle
RCMP investigations.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we are getting somewhere. We have a fugitive who
was fleeing the law. That is right. We have evidence. We have
photos of his meeting with a Montreal mob boss. We have a
warrant that the police had for two long years.
Could the solicitor general explain how it is that an organized
crime hitman who had a Canadian arrest warrant out for him for
two years, who was wanted in Italy and wanted in Germany, is not
only not arrested but fully expects to become a Canadian citizen?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hypothesis of the question is
complete nonsense. The individual is not an immigrant to Canada.
He was refused status.
Further, what the member opposite is suggesting, if I hear
correctly, is that without any evidence, without any warrant, we
should pick up people off the streets and deport them. That is a
police state and that is not what Canada is all about.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the Amodeo
affair, the solicitor general claims not to have been informed.
He did not notify the minister because he himself had not been
informed. Yes, but the Minister of Justice had been informed.
In fact, the Italian government had sent a request for
extradition to the Canadian Department of Justice as long ago as 1999.
Why did the Minister of Justice, who had been informed, not have
the professional conscience to notify her colleague in
immigration?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should be
aware, any extradition request is in the form of a state to state
communication. Those communications are confidential and it
would be inappropriate for me to comment on them.
However let me say that we do know, because the Italian embassy
has reported to the media, that an extradition request was made.
I also want to inform the House that at no time was any court
file opened in this country in relation to the extradition of Mr.
Amodeo.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we not up
to our necks here in government irresponsibility? We have a
solicitor general the RCMP does not talk to, a Minister of
Justice who knows but does not tell her Cabinet colleague. As
far as I know, they are all supposed to have taken the same
oath.
What kind of people do we have governing us? Who is responsible
for international criminals seeing Canada as a kind of Club Med,
a country with revolving doors as far as immigration is
concerned?
Is it the minister responsible for the police who is not doing
his job, the Minister of Justice who is refusing to talk to her
colleague, or the Minister of Immigration who does not know what
she is doing?
1435
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague wishes for me to get
involved in RCMP investigations and relay information from
investigations to other government departments, I am sorry but
that is not the way the system works in this country. Politicians
do not get involved in law enforcement.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): That
is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Deputy Prime
Minister said the reason his government did not deport suspected
terrorist Ahmed Ressam years ago was because Canada does not
deport to his homeland of Algeria. It is part of its tolerance
for terrorists policy.
Instead we let him roam free in our country, take out a phoney
Canadian passport and travel back and forth to a terrorist
training camp in Afghanistan where he learned to make bombs.
My question is simple. How could our security be so lax that
people with this kind of background are allowed to enter
undetected and roam around free within our borders?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the member opposite speaks to
a case that is before the courts.
This is an individual who was arrested. Surely he would not
expect us to give a play by play of what is happening in a court
in the United States and would not want to jeopardize the outcome
of that trial.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that is completely irrelevant. We are looking for an
explanation of how our security can be so lax at the borders that
these sorts of people can come in undetected and jeopardize the
lives of Canadians and the reputation of this country.
Former CSIS director, Reid Morden, has said that as a result of
this incident Canada has been exposed as a haven for terrorists.
There are anti-terrorism laws in other countries like the U.S.
and the U.K. which make this kind of activity completely illegal.
Why is Canada refused to bring in that kind of legislation?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact our frontline officers are
experienced. Last year 65,000 people were stopped. Some 7,200
of them were stopped because of criminal concerns.
When we have evidence, our frontline people can refuse admission
to Canada to those who are inadmissible. That is the way it
works. They have to have evidence before they can stop them.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice tells us that she could not inform her
colleague at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration about
the extradition request because it was part of a confidential
state to state communication.
Am I to understand that Mr. Amodeo could thus have become a
Canadian citizen with the assistance of Immigration Canada
because the minister and the department were apparently not told
of the extradition request from Italy?
Is that in fact what she is now telling us? Would the
confidentiality behind which she is taking cover have allowed
this gentleman to become a Canadian citizen?
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. This individual was not granted
permanent residence status. He was refused permanent residence
status.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the Government of Canada receive an extradition request and
the Minister of Justice not inform the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration?
During this time, court proceedings may have been under way
because, up until June 1999—and the RCMP knew this because the
extradition request was made in September 1999—Mr. Amodeo was
still on the list of those applying for citizenship or permanent
residence.
How is it that the minister did not know? One knew and the
other claims she did not.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let make it absolutely clear.
As I indicated, what we are dealing with in an extradition
request is a state to state communication. The confidentiality
imposed upon that communication prevents me from making the
contents of those communications known publicly.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, economic warning signs continue to come in both here
and abroad. In February Canadian employment posted its weakest
record in four months with a reduction of over 23,000 positions.
Equity markets continue to take a tail dive here and among our
second largest trading partner, Japan.
When will the finance minister finally take action that reflects
these troubling economic developments by tabling a pro growth,
tax cutting budget?
1440
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, in October we tabled an economic statement that
led to the largest tax cuts in Canadian history, the largest
amount of stimulus we have ever seen.
If I might be allowed, the organization WEFA which is one of the
leading forecasting organizations in the country, one which we
have used and one which in fact the Alliance used to look at its
own information, said:
Because the economy is expected to be moving at reasonable
pace...in the latter part of this year, it is not advisable to
reduce taxes beyond the reductions currently scheduled.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we have seen how the markets have responded to that
October financial statement, but the finance minister continues
to live in fantasyland when he tells us again and again that the
economic fundamentals are right. He sounds like Michael Wilson
10 years ago.
Canada continues to have the highest income taxes in the G-7 and
the second highest level of debt in the developed world. We are
moving inflation beyond the target set by the Bank of Canada, and
we continue to suffer with a 65 cent dollar.
How could the finance minister tell us that we are well prepared
for the choppy economic waters ahead when in fact all economic
fundamentals are wrong in the country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is pretty clear that the hon. member has been
sleeping for the last 10 years. The fact is that our capital
gains taxes are lower than those of the United States. They are
much lower than they were 10 years ago. Our corporate taxes are
lower than they were 10 years ago.
We have reintroduced indexation of the tax system. Our
unemployment is four points lower and two million jobs have been
created since that time. I could go on.
The fact is our inflation is low and our interest rates are
lower. The fact is we will do better than the United States.
That is the fundamental difference between today and 10 years
ago.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a year ago at a benefit reception held on Parliament
Hill, parliamentarians and others demonstrated their generosity
in helping to raise funds for the flood victims of Mozambique.
Today, Mozambique is facing a second year of flooding. Could
the Minister for International Cooperation tell us what Canada is
doing to respond to the international call for help by
Mozambique?
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is very
concerned about the flooding in the southern part of Africa.
[English]
We have contributed to date $2 million in humanitarian relief
for essential basic needs for flood victims in Mozambique and
Malawi as well as logistics support and airlift capacity for
relief operations.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 190
workers from Star Metal will be refused EI benefits because the
employer is in no hurry to call back the workforce after a
lockout. Also 50 workers from Aradco in Windsor cannot receive
EI benefits because of regulation 53 of the EI act.
The Department of Human Resources Development said it is
reviewing this regulation. Could the Minister of Human Resources
Development tell us if she is in favour of changing the
regulation? Yes or no.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of ensuring that
employment insurance benefits are not used in favour of one or
another party when there is a labour dispute.
I would note that the 85% rule is the court's interpretation of
a fair business resumption and is now recognized in legislation
as regulation 53. Indeed it provides an objective test of when
unemployment caused by a labour dispute has ended. It does not
favour either the employer or the employees.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last month
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said in the House that
farm income for the grain and oilseed sector was the challenge.
He mentioned that some sectors like dairy, poultry and livestock
were doing reasonably well. However 12 days ago, in announcing a
stopgap measure which even he acknowledged was not enough and
that he would like to have seen more, the money was spread across
all sectors.
Knowing the money was insufficient and that some sectors were
doing reasonably well, why would the money not have been targeted
to those people, the grain and oil seed sector, who need it most?
In the answer I ask the minister not to give us the bromide about
we cannot do it. The Americans are doing it. The Europeans
are—
The Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
1445
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the money will be distributed to the
provinces to use in companion programs. If the government in the
province that he comes from wishes to use that in a companion
program to support the income of grains and oilseed producers it
will have that opportunity.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow thousands upon thousands of farmers will be protesting
across the country in cities such as Saskatoon, Regina, Swift
Current, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Guelph and Pickering. They are
protesting not in support of the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food but against the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
and his inability to provide the necessary support programs for
farmers.
I would like the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to tell
the House why he failed to deliver $900 million minimum to
farmers. What will he tell the protesters tomorrow here in
Ottawa?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member how
successful we have been. Three and a half years ago this
government gave $600 million in support to farmers. We are now
giving $1.6 billion, the highest amount since 1995. When the
provinces put in their portion it will total $2.66 billion in
income support to farmers this year. This goes along with the
announcement last week that farmers will be able to borrow up to
$50,000 interest free to help put their crop in the ground this
year.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, let
me tell you just how successful this government and this minister
have been. We have lost 22,500 farmers. With the package the
minister has put together now it is anticipated we will lose many
more producers before the spring of this year, before planting.
I would like to know how the minister can stand in the House and
say that he has been so successful when in fact he has not been.
Again I ask him, what will he tell the producers tomorrow who
unfortunately will not be able to seed this spring?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will tell the farmers tomorrow what I
and this government have been telling them all along. As
resources become available we will put as much there as possible
to support farmers. We have increased that a tremendous amount.
I will not go over the figures again. Obviously the hon. member
does not want to listen. However, no government since 1995 has
given as much support to farmers as we are at the present time.
* * *
LUMBER
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, some in the U.S. forestry industry are asking their
government to impose billions and billions of dollars on duties
against the Canadian softwood lumber industry.
I would like to ask the minister just exactly what his plans are
on April 2 when these threats could become a reality. How does
he plan to back up our industry? What will he do for the
Canadian industry?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we hear all kinds of noises coming from
the United States right now where U.S. producers are saying all
kinds of things about the nature of our industry in Canada.
Some of them might be preparing to impose tariffs and
countervailing duties on our industry. I am telling the American
producers that time and again they have been proven wrong in
their allegations that we subsidize our industry.
The government will stand by its industry which is much better
organized than it has ever been to meet the challenges of the
U.S. producers.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. administration has told our Minister for
International Trade that it is prepared to back its industry to
the wall.
Just what exactly does the minister plan to do for our industry?
How will he back up our industry? How will he protect our
industry from having these billions of dollars of duties imposed
on it which could cripple our forest industry here in Canada?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will continue to monitor the situation
very closely with them in Washington and we will continue to
lobby the congress in the United States to find allies for our
Canadian producers because we have allies in the United States.
We have homebuilders and homeowners who want and need our wood.
This government will stand with its industry from coast to coast
to coast and we will again unite to meet the challenges that the
American producers are putting to us.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the Amadeo
affair, the Minister of Justice is trying to get us to swallow
the story that the rules require her to conceal from a Cabinet
colleague the fact that she had received an application for a
citizen's extradition, someone considered a dangerous criminal.
1450
My question for the Minister of Justice is this: Will she rise
in this House and tell us just what rules require her to keep to
herself some extremely revealing information on a criminal
likely to become a Canadian citizen if she does not speak up?
Under what rules is she protecting criminals?
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has it wrong again.
The RCMP conducted an investigation. Once it had the evidence it
gave the information to Citizenship and Immigration Canada which
got a warrant and detained the individual who is now awaiting a
deportation hearing. Those are the facts.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
Here we have a justice minister who claims that her duty to
Cabinet, as Minister of Justice, is to keep secret the
information she has on a criminal, to conceal it from her
Cabinet colleagues.
I am asking the Prime Minister, the one responsible for his team
and a former Minister of Justice, if he considers that the
Minister of Justice has a duty to keep information of this type
quiet, even if the individual involved becomes a citizen of
Canada as a result.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously
not listening. Let me clarify it for him and the House. What we
are dealing with in an extradition request is a state to state
communication. The rules around state to state communications
prohibit me from making the contents thereof public.
* * *
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the throne speech committed the
government to supporting the new economy and the scientific
infrastructure required to sustain it.
There is broad agreement among the research community that
Canada needs a new neutron generating facility at Chalk River as
part of that 21st century scientific infrastructure, but this
requires a decision from the Department of Finance to fund it.
Is the minister prepared to fund the Canadian neutron facility
in Chalk River?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, I want to pay tribute to Mr. Hec Clouthier, a
former member of parliament, who was and remains a vigorous
advocate of this particular project.
The government is examining the funding requirement for a
neutron facility with all due diligence and care. It could well
become a very important part of the research establishment within
this country. We will be considering in due course where it fits
within the important priorities of research for the future.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I think the voters of that riding
paid tribute to Mr. Clouthier.
There is some urgency to this matter. The old Canadian neutron
generator is scheduled to be shut down in four years. Even if
the government made a decision today to proceed with the new
facility, it would take five or six years to construct. That
means there is a gap in which Canada loses clients for this
facility and, more important, the scientists who are needed to
make it work.
What is required is a financing decision. In order to finance
this facility is the finance minister prepared to make that
decision?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course we take very seriously the timing
considerations and the magnitude of this particular science
proposal. That will all be considered very carefully.
In the context of the due diligence that the opposition would
want us to give in the economic choppy waters to which the Leader
of the Opposition refers, we have to be very careful about
spending decisions that could total $500 million in this one
case.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of agriculture will know that potato producers in Prince
Edward Island affected by the illegal blockade of potatoes by the
U.S. are very frustrated with the time it has taken Agriculture
Canada to put an assistance package together.
Could the minister now inform the House what assistance will be
available to alleviate this financial hurt? Further, how will
these potatoes be disposed of in an environmental way?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to announce earlier today
up to $12.6 million for the province of Prince Edward Island to
assist with its environmental proposal, as well as $1.5 million
to buy potatoes and transport them for food aid to other parts of
Canada.
1455
When we put this together with the existing farm income programs
that are there at the present time, this makes up to possibly $50
million available to assist Prince Edward Island potato farmers.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last month a forest company in my riding was having a
community meeting to discuss forest management planning with
residents in the High Level area.
However, like a scene out of a Clint Eastwood western, in walked
two Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials outfitted with
flak jackets and sidearms. They pulled aside the forestry
officials and the official from the Alberta government and
notified them of a cease and desist order.
Why did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans think that it was
necessary to have a dramatic show of force in this matter rather
than meet in their offices in a civilized way?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to make sure that we take
our responsibilities seriously in protecting fish habitat. There
are times when department officials do take enforcement action.
That is part of their job, which they do every single day, and
they do a tremendous job.
In this particular case, I will certainly look into all the
facts because usually members opposite have their facts all
wrong. We will look at it and review it.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would call that a pretty dramatic show, flak jackets
and guns at a public meeting.
What is interesting here is that the government and the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans have mismanaged the fishery on
both the east and west coasts. Now they have had to move inland
to landlocked Alberta to ply their trade. In fact, 70 DFO
officials have been transferred to Alberta. Heaven help us.
I would like to ask the minister of fisheries, or maybe the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs can answer it better, whether
he thinks this heavyhanded, guns ablazing approach of DFO is
better than negotiating with the Alberta government in a
civilized manner?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is really dramatic is the opposition
leader coming to do a press conference in his wetsuit. That is
what is really dramatic.
It is the Alliance Party members who stand up in the House all
the time talking about providing guns and providing protection
for our enforcement people. They cannot make up their minds what
they want. One day they want them to get guns and flak jackets
and the next day they are not interested in giving them all those
protections.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice tells us she cannot intervene publicly on
the matter of extradition. I can accept that. However, a
discussion with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is
not public any more than Cabinet information is public, so far
as I know.
If she informed Cabinet or the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, why did the latter not take action immediately.
That would have prevented the office of her colleague the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services from being
involved.
If she did not inform the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, since it was not public, could she tell us why?
She could have done so, as it was not a public matter. Could
she give us an answer that holds water, if there is any logic
there?
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, the individual is not a landed
immigrant or permanent resident of Canada.
Second, there were no inappropriate interventions made on his
behalf. My department receives over 6,000 requests from members
of this House annually.
Third, it was the RCMP that did the investigation. As soon as
it had the evidence it gave it to my department. Within three
weeks that individual was detained and is now awaiting a
deportation hearing. That is the way the job is done.
* * *
AMATEUR SPORT
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, knowing how important the Toronto bid is for the 2008
Olympics and knowing that the technical evaluation has just been
completed, could the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport
enlighten the House and tell us what the Canadian government has
done to make sure we win the 2008 Paralympics and Olympics bids?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, finally a serious question. I think the
first thing I should do is pay tribute to the organizing company
that did a tremendous job. I want to pay tribute to the Toronto
bid because it was the only bid that focused on the athletes,
which is the most important thing.
1500
[Translation]
Finally, I want to express my pride in this government, because
we did more than our homework, we are investing $500 million in
the waterfront and we are putting all our efforts into finally
winning this bid.
[English]
The Speaker: Order, please. I would like to inform all
members that there is a technical problem with the bells. Work
is ongoing to rectify this situation.
As today's opposition motion is votable, the proceedings will be
interrupted at 5.15 p.m. to put the question to the House.
Should a recorded division be demanded, the bells will ring for
15 minutes.
[Translation]
Should the bells not work, the vote will be held at the end of a
period of at least 15 minutes and after the arrival of the
whips. I therefore encourage the members to act accordingly. I
regret any inconvenience this may cause the hon. members.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of today's
question period. There was an announcement made by the minister
of agriculture on a very important issue involving a package of
aid to Prince Edward Island potato farmers. This was essentially
a duplication of effort since the announcement had already been
made at the press gallery earlier today.
This is a practice that the government has undertaken time and
time again. It has been put on record that the government House
leader intends to address the situation and remedy it, but it has
not happened yet. In fact, the minister responsible for amateur
sport similarly chose question period as the forum to make his
ministerial announcement.
The Speaker would be well aware that there is a place in time to
do so. There is a designated period during routine business in
which a minister of the crown can rise to make an announcement,
honour the House with his or her presence, and display an
important respect for the Chamber in making these announcements
through the Chamber to the Canadian people. Instead the
government repeatedly, for reasons that cannot be explained,
chooses to honour the media as its forum.
I say with the greatest respect that the media will be here. If
there are important announcements that are to be made and relayed
to the Canadian people, it can be done more effectively and
purposefully through the Chamber.
In his efforts to modernize and to put more relevance and
importance in the Chamber, the government House leader mouths
those words.
Yet the evidence is clear. The government chooses to use the
press gallery rather than the Parliament of Canada to make these
important announcements.
1505
We would like some direction from the Chair because this is
becoming a repeated problem. I respectfully suggest that it
further undermines the importance of the Chamber, it adds to this
level of cynicism and marginalizes us again.
I urge the Chair to send at least some admonition of this
practice so that the government will heed these words, respect
the Chamber and put greater emphasis on this practice of making
announcements outside the Chamber.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
first, I want to thank the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the House leader of the
Conservative Party, for raising the matter. I was of a mind to
raise it myself because today we have had a couple examples.
I was thinking particularly of the announcement made by the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. This is the kind of
announcement that at one time would have been made in the House,
at all times should be made in the House and today should have
been made in the House so that members of the opposition could
have had a chance to comment.
The member said that this is nothing new. It has been a growing
problem but it is new to this extent. There was a time when
governments would make much more use of the Chamber.
Given all the talk coming from the government about
parliamentary reform, it would seem to me that one of the ways in
which opposition members can be inspired to think that the talk
about parliamentary reform and restoring dignity to parliament
and to this Chamber is serious, is for the government to prevail
upon its colleagues and cabinet ministers to not do this sort of
thing, but come into the House and make announcements.
This is the place where decisions are made. This is the place
where announcements are made. This is the place where the
nation's business is supposed to go on, not over in the press
gallery. That is why we have these things up here, so the press
can come in and see what is going on, not so we can be somewhere
else while the business of the nation is being conducted in the
press gallery. It just shows a contempt for this place and
undermines everything the government might say about
parliamentary reform.
I can remember responding to ministerial statements. I am
sitting beside a former prime minister. When he was the minister
of External Affairs, I was his critic. I will give him the
credit because he used to make many government policy statements
in the House. That was not true of all his cabinet colleagues.
It was during that time that others started to do what this
government now does as a matter of routine.
We need to get back to taking the House seriously. That is what
we are here for. As long as we have a situation where anything
that is really important gets announced somewhere else, and
anything that is really important legislatively cannot be debated
for more than a day and a half, then what the heck is the point
of being here if the government is going to treat this place they
way the are treating it?
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like just to agree briefly with the hon. members
who have just spoken. I would ask the Speaker to check back on
Speaker Parent's ruling in the start of the last parliament.
He was confronted with the same sort of a problem where the
government consistently made announcements outside this place
instead of using ministerial statements. Speaker Parent at that
time said he was disturbed by the trend. He urged the government
to change its policy and to start treating the House with the
respect it deserved. The error, if I can say, was not in the
ruling of Speaker Parent. The error was in the lack of
follow-up.
What happened was that although the Speaker chastized the
government for what was done, and although many people on the
government side kind of nodded that they should do that, nothing
changed. The Speaker did not intervene at successive times to
say that he had enough and that he wanted this place treated with
the respect it deserved.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to review the ruling of Speaker Parent
where he urged the government to change its ways. I urge you to
do the same, only this time say that there will be follow-up on
it, that there will be teeth to your ruling, that you will not
only agree with the suggestions of the opposition parties, but
that you insist that the House be treated with respect.
Even earlier today we could take our pick of subjects. I
listened to the Minister of Canadian Heritage talk about a blue
ribbon panel that she was going to strike to talk about the
future of the CRTC.
What is going on? There is a blue ribbon panel, chosen by the
minister, with people who she is comfortable with. The decision
is probably already cooked up and made, instead of referring the
future of broadcasting in Canada to a parliamentary committee
where it should be discussed and debated by parliamentarians.
1510
What is going on? Why is it that whenever the government wants
something in a certain manner, preordained or in a controlled
press release fashion, it does not come to the House and involve
members of parliament. It does it by fiat. It is time that the
government change that. No wonder its own backbenchers cannot
even see reason to show up for work when the work is all done by
ministers at an executive level somewhere else outside of this
place.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I do not wish to prolong this debate, but still I would like to
join my colleagues in saying how damaging this practice is for
the institution of which we are a part.
Increasingly, we are seeing the public lose interest in
politics, a trend about which, unfortunately, it appears nothing
can be done.
We are seeing a growing cynicism with respect to political
institutions, and this chamber in particular.
I think that one explanation for such an attitude on the part of
the public is the cynicism shown by the government when it
trivializes this institution as it does when it makes
announcements outside the House that have a direct impact on the
conduct of the government's affairs.
I urge the Chair to give very serious thought to this matter,
which has quite rightly been submitted to it by the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to contribute only
briefly to this debate. As you know, Standing Order 33 refers to
the fact that the government may make short factual announcements
or statements in the House under the provision of that particular
standing order. That does not say that government announcements
of any kind must be made in the House, although I agree that more
announcements should be made on the floor of the House of
Commons.
If we are successful in undertaking a program of reviewing our
standing orders, together with colleagues of other parties, I
certainly would be willing to do my share to ensure that we
increase the number of announcements that are made on the floor
of the House.
That being said, I am sure the Chair has probably already
thought of this because it cuts both ways. Today we are debating
an opposition motion on a very important subject. I learned of
this opposition motion because a press conference was held. It
was not because the motion was tabled on the order paper or that
it was made aware to the House in any other way. It was because
a press conference was called in the same room where it is now
denounced that the cabinet minister made his announcement several
days before the debate even took place in the House.
Therefore, although I agree in principle with what is said, it
is not something that applies only unidimensional in this place.
The amount of usage of the facility of this place to make things
known, if it is to increase, and I am one of those who thinks it
should, it has to increase on all sides of the House. Calling
press conferences about a private member's bill not yet released
on the floor of the House and making it available to the public
when a government bill for instance cannot even get that
treatment right now, is not something that I particularly enjoy
either.
It works both ways. I am willing to do my share should we be
able to get that committee started. I hope hon. members from
other political parties will go at it with the same attitude to
see what we can do to increase those kinds of statements,
announcements, motions being introduced and so on on the floor of
the House as opposed to elsewhere first.
The Speaker: I think the Chair has heard enough on
this point to be able to bring the matter to a conclusion. I
appreciate the intervention of all hon. members on this very
important point.
[Translation]
When the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough began his
remarks, I thought he would quote me on this point, because I
clearly remember raising the same point from time to time in the
House when I was in opposition.
1515
[English]
Having done so, I have to say that the points of order I raised
at that time were unsuccessful, as his are today, because there
is now a series of precedents that in my view are quite binding
on the Chair on this point. I refer all hon. members to that
wonderful work, Marleau and Montpetit, at page 379. It states:
A Minister is under no obligation to make a statement in the
House. The decision of a Minister to make an announcement
outside of the House instead of making a statement in the House
during Routine Proceedings has been raised as a question of
privilege, but the Chair has consistently found there to be no
grounds to support a claim that any privilege has been breached.
The learned authors of this work cite a series of examples
starting in the Debates of November 1, 1974, and in March
2, 1977, February 17, 1978, February 8, 1982, December 2, 1985,
October 4, 1989, February 18, 1998, and December 3, 1998.
I would urge all hon. members interested in this point to look
at these precedents that are referred to in footnote 145 on page
379 of Marleau and Montpetit, to examine the words that were used
then and to examine the rulings of the Chair in each case. I am
afraid I have to agree with those rulings, however reluctantly
today, having made, as I say, the same argument myself when I sat
in a position similar to that of the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I think the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona and I probably argued the same point at one
time as well.
I am very sympathetic to the point raised and I think the
government House leader has shown some sympathy, but I hope that
in discussions between the parties suitable arrangements can be
made. Those are beyond the control of the Speaker.
I thank all hon. members for their interventions on this point.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
I may, I will make a final point with respect to the DNA registry
which was created in the last parliament.
Canadians need to know that in the last parliament there was a
DNA registry created. DNA can be obtained by two methods. One
is under section 487.05, which has an ex parte application.
Canadians need to know that when an ex parte application is made
by a police officer to a judge or by a crown attorney to a judge,
he or she has to be satisfied that it is in the best interests of
the administration of justice to issue a warrant.
Then it goes to a schedule of offences for which a warrant can
be issued for a DNA analysis. They include a number of the
offences that members opposite are most interested in with
respect to their motion, namely: section 151, sexual
interference; section 152, sexual touching; section 272, sexual
assault with a weapon, et cetera. There is an ability on the
part of the police and the crown to get evidence of a DNA nature
available to them in order for them to be able to compare their
crime scene index with the analysis.
In the last parliament we also passed a bill which is in some
respects quite radical and to my knowledge has not been tested
before the courts at this point but likely will be, and that is
the ability on the part of the crown to obtain DNA from people
who are convicted and not necessarily make the linkage between
one crime scene index and another. This would apply to people
under section 487.055, before the coming into force. Before
the coming into force of this section, one may make an ex parte
application for someone who has committed a murder, more than one
murder at different times, or who before the coming into force of
this subsection is convicted of more than one sexual offence
within the meaning of subsection 487.05(3).
1520
These are the kinds of applications that members opposite are
most interested in. They give the police a tremendous tool to
compare what they have on their crime scene index with a
convicted pedophile. They can compare those two and in fact link
individuals in prison with DNA analysis.
In summary, the past parliament passed Bill C-7, which tags
pedophiles for pardon applications. Bill C-753 is a long term
offender designation so that people who are convicted of these
kinds of crimes can be required to report for up to 10 years
after they have served their sentences. There is also the DNA
section.
I am quite supportive of the motion and if it means that the
registry needs to be expanded or the computer system needs to be
upgraded, I cannot see how I would mount any argument against the
motion.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the comments of the member opposite.
I think we are getting closer to an understanding.
There is no question that with an upgrade of the 30 year old
CPIC system it is possible to integrate it with a sex offender
registry. I hope that is the intent of the government.
However, a couple of things are missing. For a sex offender
registry to be current it is necessary to have an obligation on
behalf of the offender to report all changes where they occur, at
the time they occur and to reconfirm at least once a year. That
puts the onus on the individual to keep the system upgraded. That
is what we are talking about.
The Canadian Police Association said very recently that CPIC
does not provide police agencies with adequate information and
notification concerning the release or arrival of sex offenders
into their communities. That is what we have been talking about
all day. The difficulty we are having on this side is that
government members are saying they agree with the sex offender
registry, as I think we all do, but they are saying that what is,
is okay. However, the rest of the country is saying that what
is, is not okay, including the police, who ought to know.
I would like to ask my colleague how on earth it is possible to
just plain use what is currently in CPIC without the mandate for
the offender showing up in person to update the record and for
providing a penalty if the offender does not. Let us not debate
about what the penalty is. However, there must be a penalty if
the offender does not show up. That is how we get the mandate. I
would like the hon. member to answer that.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we are
changing the focus of the debate. The initial debate as I had
understood it was that the opposition wished to have the
government create a separate offender registry for sexual
offences. Now the debate seems to be focusing on whether an
individual can be forced to report his or her whereabouts on a
certain schedule of offences.
In principle I cannot argue with that point, except that I would
then ask the member opposite if it is more important that a
community have sex offenders report to a registry or would one
include additional criminal code offences as well, such as murder
or manslaughter. If the member still wishes to limit it to a
certain schedule of sexual offences, I would like to know why
those offences are of more critical importance to the community
than the knowledge with respect to other kinds of criminal code
offences. I am happy to debate that point, but I think that is
the essence of it. If we are going to open it up for these kinds
of offences, why not for all other criminal code offences as
well?
1525
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, certainly this would be an issue where we would want
to examine the very point the member makes: the protection of
our children and the protection of our communities. That is the
point we are attempting to make in the House today. Perhaps that
is lost on my colleague. I do not expect it is, because he is a
knowledgeable individual.
I am going to ask him a very direct question. Will he support
this motion, and not only that, will he also, in his capacity and
his influence with the government, move forward to ensure that
legislation is put in place which will be put into effect to
implement this registry? Rather than simply saying yes, the
government agrees with the motion, will he take the steps
necessary within his own group to move this forward and put it in
place as legislation in order to protect our children?
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I think I have spoken for
the last 20 minutes in support of the generalized motion. What
the hon. member is asking is how to get down to the specifics.
The issue is that the index would have to be expanded. If it is
within the context of CPIC, then I cannot see what the argument
is. If in fact we get the co-operation of all police forces and
all attorneys general, then I cannot see what the argument is. If
in fact there is a funding formula that would be available to
this kind of issue, then I cannot see what the argument is.
I can see some debate as to why it would be this kind of set of
convictions as opposed to a more expanded set of convictions.
That is somewhat more problematic, because we are running into
the fundamental principle of law that once someone has served a
sentence he or she has paid their debt to society and it is over
with. If we can get past that intellectual point, then I can see
how members on this side could actually be much more aggressive
in their support of the motion that is put forward.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing today from the
hon. member across the way is just absolutely unbelievable. He
is suggesting that we should get concurrence from all the
attorneys general and all the police forces across the country—I
do not know whether he is going to take the time to ask every
single police dog what it thinks too—before the government gets
off its hind end and actually thinks about passing some
legislation to protect our children.
It absolutely confounds me that the government has no problem
imposing upon every legal law abiding gun owner in the country
that he or she must register their firearm. When that was
brought forward it was supposedly because if one life was saved
it would be worth the hundreds of millions of dollars it would
cost, worth all the inconvenience it would impose and worth the
attack on the privacy of our citizens. The government said it
was fine if it saved one life, but when it comes to bringing
forward meaningful legislation to initiate a sexual predator
registry, suddenly we have to get all the provinces, all the
police forces and everybody else in line. That did not seem to
be a problem when it imposed upon the provinces the so called
national firearms registration.
Why is it that the government can pick and choose? It can bring
in something very quickly when it wants to, like the registration
for firearms, but it has to have everybody singing from the same
song sheet when it comes to something as fundamental as
protecting the lives and welfare of our children.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, there is a certain irony in
the hon. member's question, because in certain arguments the hon.
member wishes to argue that our indexes and registry systems do
not work, that they are too expensive and that they do not catch
any criminals anyway, but for this kind of registry, it is not
expensive, it is protection and it is a good initiative in
criminal law. I must admit that it does strike me as a somewhat
ironic argument from the opposite side.
Having said that, the administration of justice is a joint
responsibility between the provinces and territories and the
federal government. Frankly, if there is no consensus among the
attorneys general and the police forces with respect to this
issue, then I would respectfully submit that we are wasting our
time.
1530
I understand the police to be supportive of this initiative. At
least the Canadian Police Association is supportive. I assume
the chiefs are supportive. I assume that many of the
municipalities are supportive. I assume that a number of the
attorneys general are supportive. If all those people are
prepared to be co-operative in this initiative then I cannot see
why the Government of Canada would not be similarly co-operative.
I reiterate the point that if there is that high level of
co-operation among all the participants in the system, then I
cannot see why we would not update and upgrade the CPIC system to
do what the hon. members have in mind.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, again I cannot understand where the
hon. member is coming from. He says that it is ironic that the
Canadian Alliance questions a registration system that imposes
upon law-abiding citizens the need to register their firearms,
but we do not impose the need for convicted pedophiles and sexual
predators to register when they move into a community. Can he
not see the difference?
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a mixing
of apples and oranges in the hon. member's mind. Where there is
an efficacy that can be established in the creation of the index,
then I do not know why we would oppose it.
To stay with the debate, the issue is: Would this be a useful
police initiative? Would it be a useful initiative on the part
of the Government of Canada? Obviously, from our side, we think
the motion is supportable. We are into the how's rather than the
principle.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure for me to stand and
speak in support of establishing a national sex offender
registry. I do so today in memory of Christopher Stephenson, an
11 year old Toronto boy who was abducted, raped and murdered by a
repeat sex offender.
Joseph Fredericks had a long history of assaulting children. He
spent most of his life in psychiatric institutions. He was on
mandatory supervision when Christopher was killed. I fully
recognize that in this particular case a registry may not have
prevented this sadistic killer from committing such a horrific
act. However, as many have argued here today, it may have
prevented him from killing the young boy. It may have allowed
police officers to find and incarcerate Fredericks before
Christopher's death.
As noted in many of the speeches already presented by my
colleagues, we are proposing to establish a registry that would
contain the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders. Every
offender would be required to register in person at his or her
local police station at least once a year. During that time they
would be required to provide any updated information that the
police force may ask for in order to combat sex offences.
As already mentioned today, a number of provincial jurisdictions
have established this registry already. In the case of Ontario,
Christopher's law, or Bill C-31, received royal assent in April
2000. It established a registry that aims to ensure the safety
and security of all persons in that province by providing the
information and investigative tools required to prevent and solve
crimes of a sexual nature.
Before proceeding further, I would like to caution members on
the other side of the House, particularly those who were here in
or prior to 1993, to carefully consider their position on the
motion today.
I issue such a warning because I have a copy of an April 1993
document titled “A Liberal Perspective on Crime and Justice
Issues”. Contained within that document are a number of
recommendations put forward by the then official opposition, one
being to “combat Canada's growing violent crime problem.”
I commend the Liberal Party that while it was in opposition it
recognized and realized there was a growing violent crime
problem. That problem is still here today.
1535
One of the recommendations that was put forward appears on page
7 of the Liberal document: “to support the establishment of a
national registry of convicted child abusers”. The rationale
for the recommendation was:
Sex offenders represent almost 20 per cent of the incarcerated
population and 10 per cent of the conditionally released
population. These numbers are not an accurate representation as
they include only those sentenced to two years or more in prison.
Actual figures are much higher.
Over the past five years there has been a 20.4 per cent increase
in the rate of admission of sex offences. Evidently more and
more sex offenders will be reintegrating into Canadian
communities.
The Liberal's own findings went on to reveal:
Repeat sex offenders are more than twice as likely to commit
further sex offences, much more likely to violate conditional
release conditions and more likely than any other offenders to
reoffend with a non-sexual offence. However, treatment programs
for sexual offenders are sorely lacking.
When referring to the Tory government at the time the document
stated:
The federal government is spending approximately $98 million a
year to incarcerate sex offenders and only $2 million a year on
treatment programs to rehabilitate them.
It went on to state:
It is the norm, when it should be the exception, that convicted
sexual offenders return to communities without any counselling or
rehabilitation therapy.
I do not often agree with the Liberal Party, but I certainly
agree with its findings in this instance. Most of my colleagues
and I agree with the information that was given out by the
Liberal Party in 1993 to support its own recommendation for a
national registry of convicted child abusers.
The Liberal's information is fully supported by a number of good
studies which repeatedly indicate that sex offenders have one of
the highest recidivism rates of any criminal group, with an
estimated 40% reoffending within five years of release.
As well, research indicates that offender treatment programs
have shown limited results. Practitioners in the field of sex
offender treatment never claim to cure sex offenders, but rather
they claim to manage the risk of reoffending.
What has changed over the last eight years? What has changed
since the Liberals produced this great document on growth and
violent crime? What is it that has so adamantly changed their
minds that they have not implemented the program they wished to
implement in 1993? Why have they not established this registry?
Moderately more money is being spent on treatment programs.
According to the CSC's most recent figures, approximately $150
million is spent to incarcerate offenders and a little over $8
million is spent on treatment. That is a slight improvement over
the figures released by the Liberals when the Tories were in
power.
Not all sex offenders are fully completing the courses, the
necessary plans that are prescribed by the CSC officials, because
treatment is not compulsory. When they are incarcerated it is
not compulsory that they undergo rehabilitation programs.
I can only surmise that it must be amnesia. Perhaps the Liberal
Party is growing old or perhaps it is strictly amnesia that is
causing it to forget about the recommendations or promises it
once so believed in, or claimed to believe in.
The Liberal government forgot the recommendation to support a
registry just like it forgot the recommendation to scrap the GST,
just like it forgot the recommendation to forget free trade, just
like it forgot the recommendation to have an ethics counsellor
who reported directly to parliament. We have a very forgetful
government.
To better illustrate the need for a national registry I will
read some excerpts from an article that appeared in the Montreal
Gazette a number of years ago. It stated:
A pedophile named Martin Dubuc was convicted...for offences
against children—again. This is the same Martin Dubuc who, as a
boys' hockey coach in Laval, was convicted in 1986 for molesting
team members, the same creep who, after his release from prison,
did not let a lifetime ban on coaching in Quebec stop him.
He simply changed locales, becoming a coach and eventually
president of the Minor Hockey Association of Southwest Montreal.
But that neglect by the recreation establishment is an old
scandal. The new scandal involves the schools. It came to light
last week when Dubuc pleaded guilty to using the telephone to
threaten several boys aged 10 to 13 and to incite them to touch
themselves sexually. Somehow, he had slithered his way into
elementary schools as a substitute teacher. And this was not a
slip-up by just one organization. In recent years, three
different school boards in the Montreal area had hired Dubuc.
1540
The Gazette went on to say:
This case illustrates the chilling way in which predators with
long criminal records can worm their way into positions of trust
and authority to harm children.
The author of the article went on to say that this was not a
slip-up by simply one organization. It was a slip up by many
organizations. One of those organizations was the Liberal
organization across the way. One of them was the Liberal
government because it failed to establish the national registry
that it had once recommended.
In closing, I call upon members sitting opposite to honour their
past promises. It is better to be late than never. Sexual
criminal offences are all about control and power. For the sake
of our children, let us take control away from the offender and
give it back to our police forces, back to those who would fight
crime. For the sake of our children, let us protect society and
let us begin now with a national sex offender program and
registry.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague. He is
certainly right.
Unfortunately the well known rat pack and the well known
fighters for crime back in the good old days when the Liberals
were in opposition have totally gone by the wayside in terms of
the information they were trying to bring forward in this place
to tighten the laws that protect our children.
Now they seem to have a short memory about what they intended to
do. They have forgotten the vigorousness they put into proposing
their solutions to the government of the day, the Conservatives,
about what they would do. Now they have totally backed down.
That is not a surprise. After being here seven years I see that
going on all the time.
I am really concerned that we have a major issue here where a
number of offenders are getting very short sentences. Our
justice system is not doing a service to a lot of people when it
comes to sentencing. These offenders are in for a short time so
we know they will come out. They will come out in huge numbers
because, as my colleague said, about 20% to 25% of those
incarcerated are sex offenders. It could even be higher than
that.
Does the member not agree that the justice system treats
offences lightly and that the justice system believes in plea
bargaining, such as with Karla Homolka who will be released one
day soon because of plea bargaining? It has been stated numerous
times that she will kill and offend again. These kinds of
indicators are one of the greatest reasons we should have this
registry in place? The government should be sitting here in
droves to fight for the children of the country instead of the
piddly few we see here.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
member beside me for such a good question. It boils down to
this: Do we want to fight crime or do we want to deal with the
effects of crime? Do we want to put in place what the police
forces are asking for? They are asking for a registry that would
not only be a record of the case or of the conviction of an
offender but a record that would allow them to know where the
offenders were so they could prevent it from happening again.
1545
We want more than record keeping. We want a tool put in place
to help us fight crime. As we learned in question period today,
people on the most wanted list are in Canada. They have been
here for two years. The government does not seem anxious about
this until these individuals are forced to leave. Then two years
later it will deal with the crime and say that at least the
individuals did not commit anymore.
The Liberal document that I received this morning deals with the
need to fight pornography at the root and not allow it to go the
next step. The document states that there should be a registry
available to groups who would hire people who work with children.
It goes on to talk about pornography and making it illegal to
possess it.
In the past we have sat passively by watching the courts rule on
decisions. The government has had no will to fight crime but
there has been a will to rehabilitate and reintegrate. One of my
greatest concerns is that we are now compromising on that. That
is exactly what this member said.
We are now saying that not only are we not going to fight crime
by giving police officers the ability to know where these
individuals are, but we are going to lower the amount of time
they are incarcerated. We are not going to make it compulsory
for these individuals go through education programs while
incarcerated. This is an injustice to our society and to our
children. It is time we stand up for the sake of our children
and our grandchildren.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, the Saturday headline in the
Globe and Mail said it all “Pedophile back in jail for the
fourth time”.
Finally after four convictions one sex offender has been
required by the courts to tell police where he lives after he has
been released from jail. A sex offender registry for one
pedophile. What about the thousands of sex offenders who are on
the loose and the police do not know where they live?
Last week the Calgary Sun headline screamed “Attack Stuns
Community; Cops Launch Manhunt for Pedophile”. The newspaper
reported that the assault took place Sunday night when a male
armed with a knife rang the doorbell and forced his way into the
house after the 14 year old babysitter answered the door. The
pedophile locked the babysitter in the bathroom and then
proceeded to sexually assault two sisters, aged 6 and 7.
Outraged Calgary parent Carrie Kohan said “What happened Sunday
was the last straw”. She organized a rally last Friday to
demand tougher first time penalties for child abuse and a
national registry.
Fortunately the police were able to arrest the sex offender in
this case within a few days. How much faster would they have
apprehended this sicko if they had a registry of sex offenders
residing in the city of Calgary? Would a sex offender registry
have prevented this attack? We will never know.
It is terrible that the government has lost touch with the
priorities of the people when it comes to fighting crime. Instead
of implementing a national sex offender registry for convicted
criminals back in 1995, the government implemented a national
firearms registry for law-abiding citizens.
The Liberals by their actions demonstrated quite clearly that
protecting women and children was not one of their priorities.
They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk. This speech
will expose the government's complete lack of political judgment
when it comes to understanding people's priorities. The Liberals
give the impression they are compassionate but the opposite is
true when we examine what they did.
Until today, the government opposed a sex offender registry that
could help police prevent crime and protect the public. Instead
it supported spending $600 million on a useless gun registry.
The police asked for a DNA databank for all criminals which would
operate just like the national fingerprint system. However, the
government refused opting instead for a system that protected
criminals more than it did victims.
While the government refused to give police real tools to use to
investigate sexual crimes and violent offences, the government
chose to blow hundreds of millions of dollars on a gun registry
with a 90% error rate. Now in an admission of defeat, the
government is laying off staff, tripling production of
registration applications and halting all attempts to accurately
verify and identify firearms. This is another broken Liberal
promise.
Members may remember in 1995 when parliament was promised that
the gun registry would help police trace firearms. Police cannot
trace something the registration system does not accurately
identify.
1550
Why did the government refuse to implement a national sex
offender registry? We will find the answer in a government
document entitled, “Report to Federal, Provincial and
Territorial Ministers on Information Systems on Sex Offenders
Against Children and Other Vulnerable Groups”. It was prepared
by a federal-provincial-territorial working group on high risk
offenders in October 1998.
The minister's working group reached a number of conclusions and
arguments but not proceeding with the sex offender registry. I
will spend the next few minutes outlining these reasons and
arguments and commenting on each one.
First, the minister's working group said that a separate sex
offender registry would duplicate a part of what has already
available through CPIC. The same argument is true of the gun
registry but that did not stop the government. Obviously the
government thinks law-abiding gun owners are more dangerous than
convicted sex offenders.
Second, the minister's working group said that a separate sex
offender registry would be expensive and difficult to administer.
The government has spent $600 million on a gun registry and
employs about 2,000 government workers. Would a sex offender
registry for convicted criminals really have been more expensive
and difficult to administer than the gun registry it uses to
track law-abiding citizens?
Third, the minister's working group said that the sex offender
registry raises serious privacy concerns. On February 16 this
year the Privacy Commissioner of Canada wrote me a three page
letter outlining the serious privacy concerns he had with the
information being collected and how it is used in the gun
registry. He said the RCMP's firearms interest police database
of some three and a half million Canadians, which is only
supposed to have the names potentially dangerous individuals,
actually included the names of witnesses and victims of crime.
RCMP sources tell us there is a 50% error rate in this database.
Canadians will be wondering why the Liberals were more interested
in protecting the privacy of convicted sex offenders than they
are in protecting the privacy of witnesses and victims of crime
and law-abiding gun owners.
Fourth, the minister's working group said the administration of
a sex offender registry would be particularly difficult with
regard to the verification of identity. This is somehow an
insurmountable administrative problem when trying to create a sex
offender registry. However when it comes to the gun registry,
the Liberals came up with a simple solution, force every
law-abiding gun owner to carry a photo ID card. Would the
government please explain to victims of sexual assault why it
forces law-abiding gun owners to carry a photo ID but a sex
offender does not have to?
Fifth, the minister's working group said the information in a
sex offender registry would be of limited value unless supported
by a more comprehensive screening process. The government did
not hesitate to implement a more comprehensive screening process
for law-abiding firearms owners. It even asked about marital
problems, common law relationships and financial difficulties.
These people have not even broken a law. Could the government
please explain to the victims of sexual assault why comprehensive
screening of convicted sex offenders is off limits?
Sixth, the minister's working group said that the Canadian
Police Information Centre, CPIC, is so effective that it really
is a national registry of sex offenders. In the very next
paragraph it states that CPIC does not provide “compulsory
registration of current addresses of sexual offenders beyond the
end of any sentence”.
Why does the government not force convicted sex offenders to
tell police where they live? A law-abiding gun owner can go to
jail for up to two years if he or she fails to report an address
change. If the Liberals force law-abiding firearms owners in the
country to report every time they move, why not convicted sex
offenders? The only conclusion one can reach is that the
Liberals obviously think a law-abiding firearms owner is more
dangerous than a convicted sex offender.
Seventh, the minister's working group said even with compulsory
registration of sex offenders compliance would be low and that it
would drive sex offenders underground. Gun owners who do not
comply face a criminal penalty of up to 10 years in jail. Why
does the government threaten sex offenders with 10 years in jail
to see if they will comply? The Liberals are already claiming an
80% compliance rate with gun owners.
1555
Eighth, the minister's working group said that without
fingerprinting identification it would never be possible to be
certain of the identity of a registered sex offender. The group
says verifying the identity of the sex offender is further
complicated by the falsification of records, misspelled names,
duplicate names and can lead to serious problems of
misidentification.
This is an every day occurrence in the gun registry where
totally innocent people are confused with someone who incorrectly
entered the RCMP database. Firearms officers are forced to
investigate totally innocent people to confirm their identity.
The RCMP records are never corrected so it happens again and
again. Totally innocent people are publicly humiliated and
investigated over and over again. Heaven forbid the Liberals
would ever put convicted sex offenders through such a process.
Meanwhile, as the Liberal government put millions of law-abiding
gun owners through this bureaucratic nightmare and humiliating
hell making them pay a fee for the privilege, the Liberals gave
thousands and thousands of sex offenders a free hand.
Unfortunately some of these hands ended up molesting our
children.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I did not expect there would be any Liberals who would
get up and ask a question. Therefore, I am pleased to do so in
order to give the member an opportunity to tell us more with
respect to his excellent comparison he put forward on what the
law-abiding people, called gun owners, are going through
regarding the registration that was implemented by the
government, by the way, without the approval of all the
provincial attorneys generals. However with this particular
registry, it insists it must have the approval of all the
provincial attorneys general.
Is there anything else that the hon. member could deliver with
regard to this great comparison?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, the member makes a
good point. When the Liberals choose to find an excuse for not
doing something they will find it. They will blame other people.
When they have ample opportunity to do something right, they do
not.
In 1995 the government had a choice. Sadly for our children and
the most vulnerable in our society they made the wrong one.
When the next election rolls around I hope that the women, the
children, the elderly and all Canadians who care about making our
lives safer will remember the bad choice the Liberals made when
they opposed the sex offender registry.
The Liberals are good at sounding compassionate without really
being compassionate. I will continue to tell Canadians the truth
about what the Liberals do. It is always the opposite of what
they say. Registering law-abiding citizens but not criminals may
be the Liberal way but it is the wrong way.
I heard today about how the Liberals agree with this motion.
Will they act on it? We will see. Their past record does not
speak well for them. Everyone in Canada should know it should be
the other way around but try to tell them that when they are
playing politics with the safety of our children.
Just today the solicitor general said that the government was
not just going to spend dollars to create new registries. What
did it do? In the next two years it is going to create a
registry of private property, namely firearms. It is going to
cost a horrific amount of money and there will be no benefit to
it.
Back in 1995 the government said that if it created a gun
registry and it saved one life it was going to be worth it. It
has already cost one life. It was so poorly drafted that it has
already cost one life in Newfoundland. We do not hear the
Liberals saying anything about it. Here we have the opportunity
to save lives, to protect the most vulnerable in society and they
talk the talk but they do not walk the walk.
The solicitor general said that politicians do not get involved
in law enforcement. The police in this country would like to
have what we are calling for today. If we talk to grassroots
policemen they have no use for the gun registry. It is an
absolute useless tool to them. Professional criminals do not use
a registry that can link them to any crime. It is as simple as
that.
I would like to conclude with this.
1600
It seems that when real criminals become more difficult to find,
arrest or prosecute, the government lawmakers, the courts and the
police turn to increasing their control of law abiding citizens.
That seems to be what is happening in Canada.
Let us go after the real criminal.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to this motion, which reads:
That the government establish a national sex offender registry,
by January 1, 2002.
Obviously I am able to support that motion because there already
exists such a national registry. It is called the Canadian
Police Information Centre, CPIC. I want to make it perfectly
clear that while I am able to support the motion, I certainly do
not support some of the premises and some of the arguments we
have been hearing from the official opposition in the course of
today's debate.
If we would listen to the official opposition, we would believe
that the government has been sitting on its hands and doing
absolutely nothing as far as protection of society is concerned.
Madam Speaker, I know that as a former Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Justice you are fully aware of many of the
initiatives the government has undertaken over the last few
years.
I would like to mention just a few of them. There is the
national screening system that was put in place in 1994 and
allows an agency serving children to request a local police
criminal background check through CPIC on anybody wanting to be
involved with that agency. In 1999 the solicitor general
announced an additional $115 million to renew and enhance CPIC.
The Liberal government has taken a number of steps to protect
our children and other targets of sex offenders. For instance,
in 1997 the Liberal government passed a number of tough measures
dealing with high risk offenders, including sex offenders, to
strengthen the sentencing and correctional regime. These include
a new long term offender designation which permits supervision of
up to 10 years following release from prison. There is also a
strengthening of the dangerous offender provision which requires
judges to impose indeterminate sentences on all dangerous
offenders. There are also new measures in judicial restraining
provisions for certain individuals.
There is also the national flagging system. In the year 2000,
Bill C-7 was passed, which ensures that even the records of
pardoned sex offenders are available through the screening
process. Colleagues have made also reference to the DNA
identification act, whereby DNA profiles are preserved in a
convicted offenders index.
These are all measures that have been put in place by the
government to ensure the protection of society, and in
particular, children and people who might be susceptible to sex
offenders.
I will take the rest of my time to concentrate on what it is
that we are doing here today and what the gist of the motion is.
Today is a supply day, commonly known as an opposition day, when
the opposition gets to choose the topic for debate and put a
motion forward for consideration by the House.
Unfortunately, inasmuch as the whole issue of sex offenders is a
very serious subject, we are once again seeing partisan politics
coming from the opposition party. We hear those party members
complain about the way things function around here and about how
the government does not listen to their concerns, et cetera. When
they have an opportunity to bring forward serious subjects in a
serious fashion, we get tricked up opposition day motions. They
employ a little device whereby, in this case, they amend the date
on the motion, which prevents the government from bringing
forward meaningful amendments to the motion so that we can deal
with the very serious issues that this whole topic engenders.
1605
There are a lot of things we could be discussing. There are a
lot of implications in the subject matter we have here, but with
the limited motion designed to entrap the government members so
that they would be embarrassed by the vote, it is that trick
question where a person is held culpable whether he or she says
yes or no. This is the type of tactic that has been employed
here. That is why I personally have no compulsion in supporting
the motion on the basis that the registry already exists, because
I think that is more or less in the spirit of the motion that has
been presented.
It also gets us to the point that the opposition would have
Canadians believe that crime is out of control in our streets and
that we need these draconian measures that have been suggested
from time to time in order to increase penalties and in order to
protect society. That is the spirit I do not want to be seen to
be contributing to and supporting through my support for this
motion.
We have a perfect example of this, and that was the Sharpe
decision on possession of child pornography, where the
opposition, in an opposition day motion, brought a motion to
invoke the notwithstanding clause to overturn the B.C. court's
decision. Obviously the government was not prepared to invoke
the notwithstanding clause to overturn a trial court decision or
even the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision when we had
recourse to the Supreme Court of Canada, so the government voted
against that opposition day motion.
Lo and behold, in the most recent campaign in November 2000 it
became an issue when the Alliance candidate in my riding said
that the member of parliament for Simcoe North obviously
supported child pornography because he voted against an
opposition day motion, refusing to invoke the notwithstanding
clause to overturn the Sharpe decision. By the way, the Alliance
candidate was only parroting what his leader was saying on that
same motion in the middle of the campaign. To that I attribute
the increase in my plurality from 45% to 51%.
[Translation]
The constituents of Simcoe North know their member. They know
that he does not condone child pornography, but that these
arguments go too far. When one is dealing with extremists who
take their arguments too far, this is a big help in opposing
them.
The House should also know that polls were released this week
showing that 54% of the Canadians questioned think that more
funding is needed for crime prevention programs.
What we do not need are measures such as those proposed by the
opposition, which keeps calling for tougher sentences because
they think that is what the public wants, even though all the
experts say the opposite.
[English]
However, I think the Canadian public has passed the opposition
on this issue. The Canadian public in that poll this week is way
ahead of the opposition and knows full well that crime prevention
and measures that lead toward rehabilitation are the best ways to
protect Canadian society. The best way is not necessarily to
bring in more draconian measures.
In conclusion, I just want to confirm that since the CPIC system
already exists, which is in conformity with the motion, I will be
able to support the motion, but I do want to make it very clear
that I certainly do not support the spirit behind the motion.
1610
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I think it is a known fact
in the House and certainly I believe in Simcoe North and
elsewhere throughout Ontario and Canada, that the hon. member who
just spoke is a leading advocate when it comes to crime
prevention and rehabilitation. At the end of his speech he spoke
eloquently about that.
Over the last little while and certainly today again we have
heard from the reformed Alliance people the knee-jerk kind of
reactionary, simplistic view that they hold with respect to
issues regarding law and order. It really is unbelievable.
Registries do not work, they said. They are too bureaucratic,
they said. Registries are too expensive, they said. They are
too expensive to justify the crimes they prevent, they said. They
will not work if people are expected to voluntarily register.
There it is. There the reformed Alliance people go again, saying
one thing when it suits their purposes and quite another when it
suits other purposes, and usually in different parts of the
country. Gee whiz, is that not always the way they are?
My question to the hon. member for Simcoe North is this: would
he go on to elaborate a little about the benefits of crime
prevention and the good work the government has done in that
area? I know that he has worked hard and has done so, rightly
so.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Madam Speaker, I think the government
has demonstrated through its crime prevention initiatives and in
the most recent election platform where more funds were dedicated
to crime prevention that this is definitely the way to protect
society. We need to invest in programs. In my riding of Simcoe
North there are several good examples of groups of people working
with young offenders and taking a sort of sentencing circle
approach, where the young offender is brought before the person
who suffered the damage from the offender's acts of vandalism et
cetera.
These are the types of initiatives that the crime prevention
funds are there to support. Those are the kinds of initiatives
that will be successful in protecting our society. We need to
know that early intervention is the best method of dealing with
these folks.
What we do not need are references to Karla Homolka, because
that catches people's attention. I heard it referred to again
today. I noticed in the TV coverage this morning that the
corrections minister for Ontario was talking about Karla Homolka
and using her as an example of how statutory release is not
working, but Karla Homolka has been detained until her warrant
expiry date.
The minister of the provincial government was referring to Karla
Homolka in a statutory release situation and saying that the
federal government has to fix it. The problem with the Karla
Homolka case was the plea bargain that was done through the
office of the attorney general of Ontario. It is a provincial
issue. There is no lax federal policy that contributes to the
concern that people are experiencing there. It is something that
they can look to their own backyard and deal with, but no, they
want to use that example because they know it catches the
attention of the media and the public.
That is the type of thing we do not need. What we do need are
reasonable programs of crime prevention and rehabilitation.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. When it comes to
the matter of protecting children and other potential victims
from sexual offenders, as an educator for over 20 years I
certainly support the motion and indicate that in our society
there are no more precious individuals than children.
Anything we can do to protect them from the scourge of sexual
predators is extremely important.
1615
In a nutshell, it is acknowledged that our shared objective in
the House as parliamentarians is to put into place every measure
we can find within the jurisdiction of parliament that will
effectively protect society from the threat posed by sex
offenders.
Because of the importance of this issue, deserving of the utmost
attention from all levels of public policy makers, it is only
logical that any such registry does not and cannot exist or
operate in isolation from other tools and elements in the
criminal justice system. These other elements include tough
penalties in the criminal code to punish sex crimes, restrictions
on parole and probation, peace bonds, treatment programs and
crime prevention strategies.
I would like to take a moment to examine the various tools that
are already being used to respond to the threat posed by
convicted sex offenders.
First and foremost, and in the spirit of prevention, effective
criminal laws are key tools and parliament can be proud of its
legislative record over the last five or so years in addressing
the vulnerability of women and children to sexual exploitation.
I would commend the legislative package that was passed in 1997,
generally known as Bill C-55, which strengthened the dangerous
offender rules in part XXIV of the criminal code and also created
a new sentencing provision called long term offender.
Members will recall the dangerous offender system allows the
sentencing judge to designate a serious offender to be in a
special category based on proof that this individual poses a high
risk of violent re-offending.
Studies have shown that over 90% of successful dangerous
offender applications involved sex offenders. It was clear that
the DO law was a useful tool for going after criminals with long
patterns of serious sex crimes but that, given the limited number
of dangerous offender designations each year, there were probably
a lot more potential DOs out there.
Bill C-55, which was passed early in 1997, strengthened the
dangerous offender system. Where it had once been possible to
order a dangerous offender to be incarcerated for a certain
limited period, the law now required the sentencing judge to
impose an indeterminate period of incarceration. The process of
risk assessment was streamlined. The amendments also shifted the
initial parole review of dangerous offenders from three years
into the sentence to the seventh year.
Since 1997 we have seen a doubling of a number of successful
dangerous offender applications each year. This is an example of
a legislative approach that is meeting the test of effectiveness.
The Bill C-55 package also created an innovative sentencing
measure called long term offender. Whereas the dangerous
offender sentence targets the worst kind of offenders, as
reflected in the fact that we lock them up indefinitely, it was
recognized that there were other sex offenders who might not
quite meet the high threshold of violence and the risk of a DO
but who were risky enough to require an extensive period of
supervision.
As specified in the criminal code, sex offenders are clearly the
focus of this sentencing category. A convicted long term
offender will receive an appropriate penitentiary sentence
according to the crime for which he was found guilty, but the
court will add up to 10 years of intensive, parole-like
supervision. The offender must complete his penitentiary
sentence in its entirety before the long term supervision period
kicks in. Federal correctional authorities will then add special
conditions to the long term supervision order and a breach of
those conditions may result in a person being brought back into
custody and charges may be laid. This innovative measure has
already resulted in over 60 successful long term offender
applications.
It is a tragedy that any people, especially children, are
subject to sexual abuse and exploitation.
The government has declared that the well-being of children and
youth is a top priority. In 1997 and later in 1999 parliament
passed important measures to protect children from being drawn
into the sex trade. The new offence of aggravated procuring was
created with a minimum five year sentence to deal with those who
use violence against a child and force that child into
prostitution related activity. Special protections were
instituted to make it easier for children to testify against
pimps.
1620
However I must highlight the fact that legislation is not the
only solution to the problem of sexual abuse of children. In
1995, in conjunction with the Canadian law enforcement agencies,
the solicitor general released a police manual for cases of child
exploitation. It is used throughout the country for training. In
1999 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, working with the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service, added new guidelines for law
enforcement to handle sexual exploitation cases. The guidelines
cover intelligence sharing, investigations, officer training and
media awareness.
Furthermore, in November of last year the government convened a
meeting of federal, provincial and territorial officials to
discuss integrated approaches to helping youth involved in
prostitution. This turned out to be a good opportunity for
workers in the justice and child welfare systems to exchange
ideas on prevention, physical and emotional recovery and ways of
reintegrating these young people into society. In fact police
forces in Canada are steadily improving their ability to deal
with sex offence cases.
As another example of progressive contributions to the law
enforcement agencies, the RCMP sexual assault investigation
course which teaches investigative techniques to members of the
force. It is also a forum in which police and social workers
communicate and co-operate in techniques to assist sex abuse
victims.
In November 1999 the Department of Justice launched an
initiative aimed at these citizens who all members would agree
are the most vulnerable. The consultation called “Children as
Victims in the Criminal Justice System” had the goal of
consulting as widely as possible on four areas: deterring sexual
offenders from reoffending against children; creating further
child specific offences if needed; making it easier for child
victims and child witnesses to testify in court; and reviewing
related issues in the area of age of consent. I understand the
project is closely linked to the government's national children's
agenda.
It is unfortunate that abuses continue requiring us to be
vigilant in protecting vulnerable groups from exploitation such
as the example of pornography. Fortunately, the supreme court
upheld for the most part the existing criminal code provisions
outlawing the possession of child pornography. However, there is
still the risk posed by distribution of pornography on the
Internet. I know there are plans in the works to present a new
anti-luring offence to parliament which will combat the insidious
form of exploitation.
I am providing this background in order to impress upon all
members the fact that protecting our children from sex
exploitation is a multifaceted approach. It is the process of
building on what has proven successful and then innovating with
new strategies. It involves and interlinked system of laws and
law enforcement, of education and prevention. The initiatives
that I have highlight in the House have been tested in the
crucible of the streets, the courts and the prison system.
It is evident that sex offenders would be required to register
once they are released from prison or penitentiary, presumably at
the expiration of their sentence, although that is not entirely
clear. Perhaps they would have to register even if they were
still serving their sentence on probation or parole. It is
important that we know where these people are. It is important
that there is a penalty if they do not register. I do not
necessarily think the penalty would be financial. I think it
would be re-incarceration.
I conclude by saying that parliament in 1997 passed a peace bond
measure, section 810.2 of the criminal code. This recognizance
applies more generally to anyone who poses a risk of committing a
serious personal injury offence. It is not confined to
situations where the potential victims are under the age of 14.
I commend members to support this resolution.
1625
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will splitting
my time with the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port
Coquitlam.
The Liberal Party justice system is not working. It is long
past time that the government went back to the drawing board to
revise its philosophy. Even that most liberal organization known
as the John Howard Society seems to finally be accepting that all
we have been doing is warehousing criminals for a period of time
in our institutions, only to have them released back into society
to continue their offending ways.
Maureen Collins, executive director of the Edmonton John
Howard Society, stated:
For some people, jail won't teach them a lesson. It just gets
them off the street long enough so they don't victimize any more
people. They go away for a long period of time and never really
show any signs of rehabilitation and when they get back on the
streets, they re-offend. It's their choice. And it's those few
who never change their ways who may be forcing the violent crime
rate up.
When rehabilitation does not work, and there is more than ample
evidence that it does not, then what we are doing is releasing
dangerous and violent offenders back into a society where they
will commit further violent offences. Is this any way to protect
our citizens? With sexual offenders, the victims are almost
entirely women and children. As parliamentarians we have a duty
and responsibility to attempt to provide whatever protections are
necessary while being fair and still recognizing the rights of
the offenders.
First, I would like to mention some of the recidivism rates of
sex offenders. In 1991 the British Columbia ministry of health
tracked the history of 30 child sexual offenders. That study
found that each sex offender had molested an average of 70
children, for a total of 2,099, by moving around 62 communities
and across five provinces. A similar study in the United States
found that 453 offenders admitted to molesting more than 67,000
children in their lifetime. Those who abused girls had an
average of 52 victims each, but men who molested boys had an
average of 150 victims.
Psychologist Vern Quinsey found that 38% of the sex offenders
treated or assessed at the regional treatment centre inside the
Kingston penitentiary were rearrested for violent or sex offences
after they were released. I am astounded that 38% reoffend.
We allow these individuals to return to our communities without
a whole lot of supervision or control and almost 40% of them are
caught reoffending. I wonder how many are not caught? We are
deliberately permitting violent offenders to return to society
and we do not even provide a system whereby our police become
aware that these people are in their jurisdiction.
What are we doing? Is this some kind of game where we ensure
that the police and the criminal have equal opportunity to do
their thing? Are we afraid to put too much information into the
hands of law enforcement personnel so that these criminals are
given a better than even chance to commit their hideous crimes?
Perhaps the government refuses to create a sex offender registry
because the police would have more information on potential
suspects within their area. The government seems to want to
prevent the police from becoming too successful. We recently saw
how the government, through the office of the corrections
commissioner, had a quota system to get 50% of sentenced
individuals out into the community in order to cut down on
imprisonment costs.
Sex offenders are the fastest growing segment of federal
offenders. From 1990 to 1995 the number of imprisoned sex
offenders grew by 50%. More than 700 federal sex offenders were
being released back into our communities each year during the
mid-nineties. I do not have more recent statistics, but would
suppose those numbers rose under Commissioner Ole Ingstrup's
regime of getting more and more criminals released in order to
reduce the workload within our institutions.
Even the government seems to acknowledge the risk to our
children of sex offenders being returned to the community. The
government program known as the national screening system permits
organizations to inquire within the Canadian Police Information
Centre, or CPIC, to determine whether potential employees or
volunteers working with children have a criminal history. Child
sex abusers can be screened out from involvement with children.
The system is only good for those sex offenders who apply to work
or volunteer with these organizations.
The screening process is limited only to those offenders who
decide to participate in the scheme. The system does nothing to
stop those who live in the community and prey on children for
their sexual gratification. That type of offender remains
protected and hidden from disclosure and police supervision. A
sexual offender registry would assist to keep control over those
individuals.
While the government closes its ears to the complaints and
concerns raised about sex offenders continuing to terrorize
citizens, it is interesting to see the provinces being forced to
act.
1630
The Saskatchewan Association of Chiefs of Police, or SACP, has
unanimously supported a provincial sex offender registry. Terry
Coleman, chief of police of Moose Jaw and vice-president of SACP
states that it does potentially provide a measure of deterrence
for offenders because it removes a degree of anonymity.
Ontario has Christopher's Law. It received royal assent back in
April 2000. I understand other provinces have been looking at
setting up their own sexual offender registry, including my own
province of British Columbia.
However this is not the proper way to proceed. Crime statistics
support the fact that sexual offenders will move from one
province to another. We need a national system. Only in that
way can we have a uniform process to assess all our criminals to
determine whether they should be included within the sex offender
registry.
We have seen time and time again that with justice issues a
national setup is often necessary as it cuts the costs to the
taxpayer by having one system rather than 13 different
operations. With a national system we can also utilize RCMP
facilities to maintain the information for everyone. For
example, the only way a police officer in British Columbia can
learn about a sex offender who used to live in the maritimes is
by checking with a central agency or by checking with each of the
maritime provinces.
For almost four years now our country has been waiting for the
government to act and set up a national sex offender registry.
Ontario has grown tired of waiting and has decided to go it
alone. It seems to care more for our women and children than do
the Liberals, especially the majority of whom come from the
province of Ontario. The problem created by this situation is
that Ontario may in fact be forcing its sexual offenders to move
to other provinces to commit their sexual crimes. The failure of
the federal government to act has created a problem in and of
itself and has put citizens of other provinces at greater risk.
I recall how the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance used
to belittle the Ontario government when it decided to reduce
taxes to generate the economy. It took the federal government a
couple of years to come to its senses and realize the
intelligence behind that move. Last fall the finance minister
finally decided to follow the Ontario example and promised lower
taxes.
Similarly I recall the Prime Minister being encouraged to
address the brain drain a couple of years ago. His answer was
that there was no brain drain, that it was all fear mongering.
Just this past week I note the industry minister was quite proud
to announce $750 million in new money toward addressing the brain
drain that has been dramatically hurting our country. It would
seem that the light does indeed go on occasionally.
The government has indicated that it will support the motion. I
suggest that it is attempting to scam the Canadian public. It
qualifies its support by saying that we already have a registry
in the form of CPIC. Thirty thousand members of the Canadian
Police Association do not seem to share that few.
In the last election my colleague and neighbour from Surrey
Central soundly defeated his Liberal opponent, Peter Warkentin,
who proudly proclaimed to the media and anybody else who would
listen that he had permission from the Prime Minister to put the
issue of a national sex offender registry before parliament if he
got elected. I note that he had to have the Prime Minister's
permission to do his job, but that is debate for another day. The
Liberal campaign co-chair confirmed the commitment and is quoted
as saying that the Prime Minister responded by saying that
pedophilia was a big issue and that parents had the right to be
concerned about that.
I say to the Prime Minister that the issue is now before
parliament. This is where the rubber hits the road. Each and
every day citizens are put at risk and we will continue to have
needless sex offences committed against more innocent victims.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Surrey
North for the way he has presented his research and the amount of
research that he has brought to his speech today.
Knowing his reputation and his interest, is it his opinion that
convicted juvenile offenders who have been sexual predators
should be included in the proposed registry?
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Madam Speaker, in my opinion, yes. I
will use one example that I use every time I speak to the issue
of young offenders and sexual predators.
In October 1992 in Courtenay, British Columbia, there was the
case of a 15 year old offender who had been convicted of
molesting three children. Indeed there were up to 22 but he plea
bargained to 3. He was put on probation for a year and was
supposedly receiving treatment.
1635
He moved from Nanaimo to a Courtenay, unknown to the residents,
the townhouse complex and the elementary school that he lived
right next door to. One year later he murdered a little six year
old girl named Dawn Shaw after sexually assaulting her in the
bush. He was the next door neighbour. Her parents, Ron and
Carol Shaw, obviously did not know about him and indeed the RCMP
in Courtenay did not even know about him.
In my opinion young offenders who are convicted of violent
sexual offences, and we are talking about convicted, not
suspected, should be included in the registry.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to
the Canadian Alliance motion on the establishment of a national
sex offender registry by January 1, 2002.
At the outset I should like to wholeheartedly thank my
constituents in Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for having
endowed me last November with their trust and confidence to
represent their best interests in the House. I also thank the
member for Langley—Abbotsford for drafting and raising the issue
in the House, because it is a central concern to countless
families in my constituency.
This is my maiden speech, and I am pleased to have the
opportunity to participate in the debate on what is the first
order of responsibility of the state. What do I mean by that?
Simply put, if the government cannot balance its budget, if it
cannot agree on a standard for weights and measures, if it cannot
organize its monetary framework or agree on a national anthem,
the first principle and responsibility to state, above all else,
is to protect law-abiding citizens from law breakers. It is to
separate those who play by the rules of civilized behaviour from
those who do not. This is reflected in Abraham Maslow's famous
hierarchy of needs that many academics speak about.
The Canadian Alliance motion calls for an effective and
meaningful national sex offender registry with teeth. It is
something which despite declarations from the government side
does not yet exist. We are talking about legislation which
mirrors laws that currently exist in the province of Ontario and
is being considered in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British
Columbia. The United Kingdom has already implemented a sex
offender registry and all 50 U.S. states have sex offender
registries. There are national governing mechanisms in place to
organize it.
Instead of taking bold steps and showing leadership, the
government has taken refuge in the Canadian Police Information
Centre rather than offer real protection for Canadian families
and their children through a new national sex offender registry.
The very fact that provinces have moved to implement registries
should compel the government to act on a national basis to avoid
differing regional and jurisdictional standards and to prevent
sex offenders from wandering from one province to another,
avoiding accountability for their actions.
This was the exact problem that Americans faced before former
president, Bill Clinton, established a national registry with
uniform standards. Different states were using different
registration criteria and standards as well as different
notification and database logistics. This led to
inter-jurisdictional disputes and confusion. Under national laws
that were established many of these problems have been ironed
out.
Canada has an opportunity to learn from those difficulties and
establish a national registry. This is an opportunity for the
government to show leadership by setting up a national registry
ahead of time and avoiding the pitfalls experienced by the United
States. The issue is about more than jurisdictions, amendments,
committee work and legislation tightening. It is about victims
and the right to live free from fear.
Abby Drover is a constituent of mine. In 1976 she was the
victim of a horrendous crime. For 181 days she was sexually
assaulted and brutalized by Donald Alexander Hay. From March to
September of that year, Mr. Hay kept the then 12 year old Abby in
a prison under his Port Moody garage for his sexual pleasure. He
lured Abby to his house on the offer of a ride to school and
forced her into a 36 square foot room. He handcuffed the young
child and secured the handcuffs to the wall of her cell with
chains that were bolted into studs anchored into the cell's
concrete walls. He fondled, sexually assaulted and raped the
young girl repeatedly.
During the final six weeks of her captivity all he brought her
to eat was two chocolate bars. He later testified in court that
the reason he did this was because he hoped she would just die.
On the 181st day of her captivity police found Hay with his pants
around his ankles coming up from the entrance to Abby's prison.
1640
He was charged with kidnapping and having sexual intercourse
with a female under the age of 14. He was jailed and sentenced
to life, but like so many spineless laws we have in the country,
Mr. Hay's life sentence allows him to apply for freedom every 24
months.
Parole reports say that Hay has low victim empathy and still
needs more insight into his offence. There is every legal
possibility that every 24 months Mr. Hay could be released into
my constituency and my community.
Will he reoffend if he is released? We do not know. What we do
know, according to U.S. department of justice statistics, is that
about 50% of rapists and sexual assaulters released into society
are rearrested for a new crime and more than one-third are
reconvicted. In Canada research from the federal government
shows that the longer one tracks a sexual offender, the higher
the recidivism rate is. Data indicates that between 42% and 45%
of sexual offenders will in fact reoffend.
At issue here is the potential to reoffend and the right of
communities to live free from fear. Given the statistics
associated with sex offenders and their recidivism rate, there
seems to be an obvious responsibility on the House, on our
shoulders, to prevent future crimes when and where we can. The
registry is a tool to help do precisely that.
Recognizing this reality, some Canadian provinces have already
shown leadership in creating sex offender registries, as has been
mentioned by the member for Surrey Central and others. In
Queen's Park on February 28, 2000, the standing committee on
justice and social policy met to debate bill 31, also known as
Christopher's Law. The most interesting aspect of the
committee's meeting was the cross party support for the bill. It
was a cross party consensus that a sex offender registry was
needed, appropriate, and would move the province toward greater
justice and greater responsibility to victims.
The all party support was not a tongue in cheek, foot dragging
type of endorsement like we heard this morning from the solicitor
general but a thorough commitment to a registry with teeth. All
NDP, Liberal and Conservative MPPs in Queen's Park supported the
bill. Not only did Dalton McGuinty's Ontario Liberals support
the bill, but in committee the Liberal attorney general critic,
Michael Bryant, who is an adjunct law professor from Osgoode Hall
Law School, mentioned “We support this bill and this bill should
have been passed a long time ago”. All three elected political
parties recognized that the government should establish a sex
offender registry because public safety should reach beyond
partisan slugfests.
Our proposed national sex offender registry would provide our
police with something that they have not yet had: a mechanism to
keep track of sex offenders from coast to coast to coast. The
registry would be a vital investigative tool allowing police to
monitor sex offenders in our communities.
Studies from the United States show conclusively that registries
have enabled law enforcement agencies to solve crimes quicker and
to identify suspects sooner. Convicted sex offenders would be
required to register as a condition of release from custody. Any
failure to do so would be a violation of a condition of their
release and result in an immediate return to custody. The
information would be entered into a national sex offender
database and made available only to police services.
Ontario's law provides for effective monitoring of the offenders
by requiring them to register with police within 15 days of a
change of address or within 15 days of coming to or leaving
Ontario. The offender must provide the police with his name,
address, date of birth and other information deemed necessary by
the police, not bureaucrats, not politicians, not posturers, that
will best suit the safety of citizens in their communities.
If an offender does not comply, Ontario's legislation mandates a
first time penalty of $25,000 or a year in jail and for more than
one offence, $25,000 and two years in jail. This is a common
sense approach to crime prevention. It provides for safer
streets and a sense of security in neighbourhoods like Port Moody
for victims of sex offences like one of my constituents, Abby
Drover.
In conclusion, a national sex offender registry is long overdue.
Safe communities should be a national priority as is the case in
the United States, our largest trading partner, and in the United
Kingdom. Police deserve every reasonable tool available to
protect the innocent from the evil and the depraved.
I urge my colleagues in the House, especially the government
members, to think of innocent victims of sexual abuse, rape,
torture and torment when they consider supporting the Canadian
Alliance motion to establish a meaningful and effective national
sex offender registry tonight.
Let us join with other provinces and nations, the real leaders
of the world, in taking a solid step forward for a safer future
for all Canadians in their communities. Safer families and safer
children is the way to go.
1645
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I have a quick question for the member. Today we have
heard a number of government members talk about prevention and
early intervention. I do not think any of us on this side of the
House would disagree with that. That is obviously the way we
stop these things from happening in the first place.
I just wondered if the member would agree with this. How can it
not be preventative to know when convicted offenders are in a
community? How can that not be considered prevention? Prevention
is what this is all about. We know these people are in our
communities and they are convicted pedophiles and convicted sex
offenders. I am not quite sure where the government side is
coming from when it does not see this as preventative.
Mr. James Moore: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
Surrey North for the question. This is one of those difficult
aspects of law, where a government gives, frankly, awkward
explanations for why it is supporting a bill. Why does it not
just come out and show leadership? Why does it not just come and
say that this might prevent some crimes, that maybe we are right,
that maybe it should have supported this a couple of years ago?
The government members say that CPIC already provides this
service but it does not. If it did, victims would not be
calling our offices and e-mailing and faxing us and asking us to
support this motion. I would not have had Abby Drover tell me
yesterday that I had her consent to tell her story because
Canadians needed to know about it and because she would like to
know when Mr. Hay is going to come out of prison so that she and
her family can feel safe.
If constituents are calling our offices and telling us all these
stories, and if police associations, victims' right groups and
CAVEAT are contacting us, then clearly there is something in this
motion and something in the potential for a sex offender registry
that is not already on the books. However, the government does
not seem to recognize this and that is not leadership.
Why does the government not just say that its legislation falls
short? The RCMP recognizes that. Canadians recognize that.
Abby Drover recognizes that. Organizations and academics
recognize that. Everyone recognizes that. Why does the
government not admit that and say that it is going to adopt this
motion and make some serious reforms because the country and
victims deserve it? That is leadership. Leadership is admitting
insufficiencies and taking risks, and the government should be
doing it.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for bringing up the very
personal story that he did, with the permission of Ms. Drover. I
would like to add a bit to that story.
I was a young person in that community who was very much the
same age as Abby Drover. I remember reading in my local
community papers about this incident and I remember how horrified
I was and how horrified the entire community was that this young
girl had disappeared. We suspected that she had been murdered,
that something terrible had happened. We found out that
something very terrible did happen. To learn that she had been
abducted by her neighbour and kept in a closed dungeon and
repeatedly assaulted for months was beyond the scope of our
understanding. It has taken her very many years to talk about
this, which is understandable. I think that very personal story
illustrates why we need to move on this issue.
I wonder if my colleague could add a bit more to that particular
story and tell us how this proposed change would make a
difference.
Mr. James Moore: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from
my neighbouring riding of Dewdney—Alouette for his question.
This specific story does speak volumes.
Abby Drover was abducted in March of 1976. Three months before
I was born she was abducted and here we are, 24 years later,
finally seeing an ounce of progress. She was abducted. Halfway
through her abduction I was born. She was finally found in
September of 1976. I was born in June. Here I am, 24 years
later, and finally the House is moving a step closer, in the
right direction.
What does it say about the injustice of our laws that it takes
that long, 24 years, for the government of this country to show a
bit of sanity, compassion and respect for victims of crime, and
to put in a mechanism so that people and police services know who
the bad guys are and where they are living, so that we can
separate those who play by the rules from those who do not?
1650
Finally, I hope that tonight when we vote the government will
make the right choice and will, in a good faith effort, take this
to committee and establish real laws with real teeth and real
foundations so that it can show justice 24 years later, finally,
to people like my constituent, Abby Drover.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, today in the National Post I read that the
opposition MP who spoke earlier and his colleagues support this
registration. At the same time, he admits that this registration
will not prevent people from committing a crime.
Let us compare this registration to gun registration. Why is it
that in this case registration will help to prevent crimes but
gun registration will not?
Mr. James Moore: Madam Speaker, quite frankly the hon.
member is totally missing the point. If a registration is good
on one hand and not on the other, the hypocrisy is on the
government's side. It is absolute hypocrisy. It would rather
register pieces of long—
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Order, please. It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that
the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is
as follows: the hon. member for Champlain, Lake Saint-Pierre.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, first of all I want to apologize. I am sporting a bit
of a cold, but in spite of that this is an issue that I feel very
strongly about and that I want to speak about in this place.
The first thing I want to say is that it is interesting to me
that the opposition does not seem to be able to take yes for an
answer. I have heard member after member after member stand up
in his place here today and say he will vote for this.
I will vote for it. I will put that on the record right now.
However, maybe the motivations and the reasons are important so
that we in fact understand what is going on with this particular
motion. Members opposite will know that I can be as partisan as
anyone in this place over certain issues from time to time, but
this is an issue that is unfortunately being used for what we can
only call partisan political purposes.
Who cannot feel sympathy when the member speaks of Abby Drover?
Who cannot feel that the 24 years of torture she has suffered
reliving that horrific crime is the worst thing anyone can
imagine? Who cannot feel frustration and anger when we read the
inquest report on the death of Christopher Stephenson, which
happened in a community just up the road from where I live? A
young man, an 11 year old boy, was sexually assaulted, tortured,
raped and murdered by a pedophile who was out on parole and who
was subsequently incarcerated. These are the most horrific
crimes imaginable.
I listened to the member for Surrey North speak. I know of his
personal involvement in the loss of a loved one due to violence.
While it might not have been of this nature, it was still violent
and it was still a young person. I understand, I think, because
I do not know if I truly can. I do not know if we can truly
understand the loss of a child. We are not supposed to outlive
our children. The fact of having a child die is unimaginable in
itself. To have that child murdered or sexually assaulted by a
perverted, sick individual, I do not know how I would live with
that, I really do not.
In the inquest into the death of Christopher Stephenson, which I
share with you, where the members of the jury dedicated their
report to the memory of Christopher, they said they would like to
express their deepest appreciation to Jim and Anna Stephenson for
showing great courage in their pursuit of the truth.
1655
It is one thing for us to bring these examples forward. We
cannot hide from them. We have to talk about them. However,
would somebody please tell me that a national registry that
requires convicted pedophiles who have completed their sentences
to register their addresses is going to save an Abby Drover or
someone else from being assaulted sexually? Is this really the
panacea?
We in the government have done some things. If the members
would be honest when they speak, they would admit that the
government has made some financial commitments to try to resolve
the problem. However, no one can stand on either side of the
House, including the mover of the motion, and with any amount of
sincerity claim to have the solution to the problem.
I will tell the House what the one solution is. The one
solution is the one that was imposed on Mr. Bernardo.
An hon. member: Lock him up.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: That is right. We declare them
dangerous offenders at the time of conviction. I recall listening
to the news on the reports of the jury's decision in Paul
Bernardo's trial for one of the most horrific crimes we have ever
seen in this province and in this country. I remember waiting
for the report to come out and praying that this man would be
declared a dangerous offender so that we would never—whether we
are in elected office or anybody is, or just as unelected
Canadians—have to face the fact of someone like that being
released into society.
Families of victims continue to go through these unbelievable,
painful scenarios of having the murders and rapes of their
daughters and young boys, their children, dragged through the
press, and for what?
I have respect for the member for Surrey North who had a
personal tragedy, but when he stands up and says that the
Alliance members care—I wrote this down—for women and children
more than the Liberals do, goodness gracious. Can anybody
honestly say that because one belongs to a particular political
party one somehow cares more about our women and children and the
safety of our communities? It is just impossible for me to
understand that.
One could have the most right wing approach to this thing, a
lock them up and throw away the key approach, or one could have
the most left wing approach, where one thinks that the solution
is in mollycoddling or rehabilitating them without ever putting
them in jail. One could take either of those extreme positions,
but I think it is so unfair to suggest that because someone
belongs to a particular party or happens to belong to the
government of the day he or she does not care about this issue.
An hon. member: Stick to the subject.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The member says to stick to the
subject. The subject is about solving and somehow finding a way
to prevent horrific crimes against our children. This may help,
just as our CPIC system may help. It does not solve it all. I
am the first to admit that. That is why I am willing to support
the motion. It is an add-on. It is an addition. It is
something else that might help.
What the province of Ontario has put in place is a system
whereby the convicted pedophiles are released from jail and have
to register where they are living. They have to register within
15 days where they are moving to or after they have moved. If
they fail to do that, they can be arrested. They can be fined a
minimum of, I think, $25,000 or receive one year in prison. For
subsequent offences, it is another $25,000 or two years in
prison, et cetera.
Yes, it is a mechanism, so that if in fact the police are able
to find these individuals, if the police happen to pull them over
in some kind of a traffic violation, if they are arrested in some
other scenario or if the police come across them, the police will
be able to find out whether or not these individuals have indeed
registered where they are living.
1700
It is not a panacea. The member says we are missing the point
when we compare the registration of weapons. A sick pedophile is
a weapon, without a doubt.
Mr. James Moore: So register them.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The member says that we should
register them. We will, as I said in the beginning. Those guys
cannot take yes for an answer.
We are agreeing with the motion, not because it is politically
expedient or somehow we can stand and say that only we on this
side of the House want to stop the terrible travesty of having
our young people raped and murdered. We do not say we are the
only ones with a social conscience, with a respect for justice or
with a concern for our kids. That is what I have been hearing
all day.
What Christopher's Law does is put in place a system. Members
opposite say the gun registry is no good and that it will not
work because criminals will not register their guns. That is not
a bad point. Are we then to say we will not do this because
convicted pedophiles will not register their addresses? That is
the point. Will it solve the problem?
Mr. Darrel Stinson: There is a difference.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I understand the difference. The
member should not worry. I am not picking on him. I have been
nice to him lately. He should settle down. I do not want the
member for Wild Rose to have another heart attack at my expense
so he should take it easy.
The point is that if we are counting on all these people to
register we should at least recognize it is only one more thing
we can do to try to solve the problem. If they honestly believe
we have seen the end of pedophilia, or that we will never see
another tragedy like Abby Drover or like Christopher, I say with
all due respect to the mover and his colleagues that they are
very naive.
I do not know what the total solution is except for the Bernardo
solution: declare them dangerous offenders. The man who did what
he did to Abby Drover 24 years ago was not declared because there
was not a dangerous offender section in the Criminal Code of
Canada at the time. It is there now, and it has been used and
will be used to ensure that these monsters are not allowed to
prey on our children.
An hon. member: Tell me about Karla.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: He asks me to tell him about Karla.
Let us take a look at what the conviction is about. It is a
different issue and they know it.
Does anyone think we like that? Does anyone in the country like
the fact that she was able to cut a deal because evidence was not
found by the police officers when they did their investigation?
They had to make a deal to get a conviction against Paul
Bernardo. After they made the deal they found the tapes in the
ceiling. Does anyone like that? Absolutely no one likes that.
An hon. member: Stay on the topic at hand.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The topic at hand is about creating a
registry system for convicted sex offenders who commit sex
crimes, particularly against children. I do not think anyone
around here would say this is a bad idea. I wish it would have
been put forward in the spirit in which it was intended: to try
to solve the problem instead of grandstanding.
We all know the story of when the Leader of the Opposition was
in Alberta. He decided he would publicly write to criticize a
local lawyer-school trustee because he had the unmitigated gall
to take a case defending someone who had been charged, not
convicted but charged, with pedophilia.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. As we started out I had hoped that all members would
treat this subject with the respect it deserves in the House of
Commons and not slag on one another or one another's parties. It
is much too delicate a subject.
I would hope that the member would keep the subject as delicate
as possible without the slagging. It would help a lot.
1705
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I feel duly admonished.
The point I am trying to make is that we must find solutions for
the problem that work. I have not seen anybody in this place on
either side, other than the dangerous offender declaration, come
up with something that will solve the problem. This will not do
that. I think we should do it but it will not solve the problem.
The dangerous offender aspect of it does at least create the
ability for us to ensure, as in the case of Paul Bernardo, that
he lives in his little cell and is locked up for the rest of his
life. I could care less if he watches a colour television as
long as he does not get out on the street to do what he did to
Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy.
That is what we care about, how to solve that problem. That is
an aspect of our justice system that has evolved. I recognize
that it evolved too late for my friend's case in point in his
riding 24 years ago. Not all problems can be solved instantly.
It concerns me when we think that one way of dealing with it
will eliminate all the problems. I heard one member opposite
make the statement that rehab does not work. When the Ontario
government to its credit brought in Christopher's Law it was
supported on all sides of the House. Had I still been in the
Ontario legislature I too would have supported it. However, it
did something that was not talked about in its press releases or
other information. It cut funding to treatment by 85%.
Will we just wash our hands and say that as long as we have a
registry where these people can register their addresses we do
not need to worry? Can we say that as long as we have the CPIC
system that allows volunteer organizations and sports groups to
do background checks, and that as long as there is all the good
due diligence that is required and necessary and should be done
by anybody, we can sleep at night and have what the member
referred to as a feeling of safety in our communities? We know
that is not the case.
What can we do? Do we just ignore the treatment side of it?
The inquest jury into Christopher Stephenson's death recommended
a number of things over and above something like a registry. It
recommended that funding be provided for research into
psychopathy and sexual disorders.
What is it in the makeup of human beings that would drive them
to sexually abuse a child? God knows none of us in here would
understand it. Should we not try to understand it? Should we
not put money into research to try to find out what it is that
drives and motivates that?
Mr. Randy White: Nobody disagrees with that.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The funding for exactly that kind of
research has been cut by 85% in the province of Ontario.
I do not think that would solve all the problems either. I have
said and continue to say that there is not one issue. There is
not a panacea, save and except the Paul Bernardo solution. If
that is what we will do, simply lock up dangerous offenders and
never deal with anything, then I am afraid we will have jails
full of people. We will have serious cost implications and we
will not be dealing with the broader picture, the societal
problem.
1710
If they are indeed dangerous offenders, if they are declared
dangerous offenders, then that is what should happen to them.
Under the current justice system that is exactly what happens to
them when they are declared dangerous offenders.
The frustration is that some people opposite would not suggest
that we deal with some form of research into what drives it and
what causes it. Is it a chemical imbalance? Is it abuse by an
parent somewhere in the past? Did they suffer through some
problems perhaps in school? What has driven them to this
situation in life? With this registry how do we control the
person who lives in Brampton where Christopher was murdered and
decides to travel across Canada? I do not see that here.
The registry system in Ontario provides that they will give
their name to the police, that it will be registered and that
they must continue to register it for a period that approximates
the time they were incarcerated. If it is a 10 year sentence it
will be a 10 year registration period, but then it is over. What
happens in the 11th year? Do we say we have not spent any money
on research and therefore do not understand?
I will support the bill but I think we all collectively need, as
much as possible in a non-partisan way, to find better solutions
than just simply having a registry.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I listened for 20 minutes to the hon. member for
Mississauga West going through his rendition of how he sees this
bill coming into effect.
I know he has concentrated, as have most members on the Liberal
side of the House today, on the value of CPIC as a form of
registration. Yes, CPIC is a tool. It is a tool used by the
police. That is what it is designed for. It is designed to
collect and build up a database on the criminal pasts of many
people. Sex offenders certainly would be part and parcel of that
whole affair. Nobody denies that CPIC is a tool. However we are
talking about something far beyond what CPIC provides.
As a police officer for 22 years I know the value of CPIC. I
also know it does not track pedophiles or sexual offenders. It
does not require sexual offenders to register. That is the
downfall of relying solely on the CPIC system that is designed
for a police database and expecting it to account for that
problem.
I recognize that the member realizes that CPIC is not the total
panacea. It will not fix everything. This registry, I believe,
will be a leap forward in making sex offenders more accountable.
To go back to the CPIC situation, what happens if a pedophile
changes his name? They do that on a regular basis while in jail.
What happens if a sex offender has a pardon? That is as much a
part of the process as it is for any criminal. They are changing
their names and receiving pardons, and a stop by a police officer
on the street or even a check on the CPIC system will not reveal
that they are in fact a criminal.
Mr. Randy White: What if they are out on parole?
Mr. Art Hanger: Or if they are out on parole. There are
a myriad of things that must be dealt with.
Those are questions I would like the member to answer. The one
thing I feel is probably the most important, and I think other
jurisdictions have really come to grips with this issue, is
placing the onus on the sex offender to keep the registry
current. CPIC does not track an offender if he goes from Halifax
to Vancouver. These characters are very crafty. Sex offenders
are probably the most manipulative of all criminals when we look
at how they operate just to get hold of our kids. On that basis,
I would like the hon. member to comment.
1715
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Unfortunately the
member does not have time to answer.
It being 5.15 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
business of supply.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The next question is
on the main motion, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
An hon. member: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
yeas have it. The Chair sees four members standing.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I am simply trying to clarify what is happening here.
You called the vote on the motion and as I recall most people
said carried. You called for yeas. Everybody on the government
side of the House said, yes, carried and you said the yeas have
it. Then the members of the Alliance stood, but only four stood
to request a recorded division. Is that right?
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, we had agreed and we want
a standing vote. Under the provisions of getting a vote that is
the way we had to do it. I hope the Liberals understand that we
want this vote on a national sex offender registry recorded.
That is all we are trying to do.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Madam Speaker, everybody agreed
to the motion in the name of the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford. Obviously he stood up and voted against his
own motion. How can that be?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): We will call in the
members because, I have to admit, members of the opposition were
up and down. There were four to six members standing but I
believe the consensus among the House leaders was that there
would be a vote.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Call in the members.
1750
(The House divided on the motion, as amended, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alcock
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
|
Blaikie
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Burton
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carignan
| Casey
| Casson
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
| Coderre
| Comartin
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
Cuzner
| Davies
| Day
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lanctôt
|
Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McCallum
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
| McTeague
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pallister
| Pankiw
| Paquette
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Rajotte
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
| Scherrer
|
Schmidt
| Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
|
Spencer
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Toews
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood
| Yelich – 255
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Godfrey
| Lalonde
|
Minna
| Perron
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion, as amended, agreed to.
It being 5.50 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance) moved that
Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (forfeiture of
property relating to child pornography crimes), be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be here today to
once again present my bill, Bill C-247. For those who do not
have a copy in front of them, Bill C-247 is an amendment to
section 163.1 of the criminal code which would allow a court that
convicts a person of an offence under those provisions to order
the forfeiture of anything by means of which or in relation to
which the offence was committed.
Before I start, I would like to recognize a number of people who
have helped me with this process. One of the main drives behind
this bill and this initiative is Detective Inspector Bob
Matthews. He is the head of Canada's lead agency in the fight
against child pornography. That is the 16 member Ontario
Provincial Police child pornography unit, project P.
1755
Detective Inspector Matthews is a widely respected voice in the
debate between free speech advocates and law enforcement, and is
one of Canada's top law enforcement agents in the field of child
pornography investigations.
The second person I wish to thank is Detective Noreen Waters of
the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia. Detective Waters
has been a child pornography investigator for eight years and was
part of the team that brought in the now infamous John Robin
Sharpe. She has been an enthusiastic supporter of our bill.
I also wish to thank Sergeant Randy Brennan of the
Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police high tech unit. Sergeant Brennan
has been involved in many successful child pornography
investigations and is a valuable source of information.
I also want to recognize Mr. Steve Sullivan, the hardworking
president and CEO of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of
Crime. Steve has been a tireless advocate of victim's rights and
has worked with members of parliament to change the justice
system to place the rights of victims before criminals.
The list goes on. These individuals and many other law
enforcement officers, victim's advocates, federal
parliamentarians, provincial justice ministers and everyday
normal Canadians from across this country have contacted me and
offered their support. I want to thank these concerned Canadians
and tell them to keep up the good work. I also want to thank
them for fighting to protect children because today more than
ever they need our help.
I want to broaden the theme of my speech today to discuss the
challenges of controlling child pornography in today's Internet
age. In my speech I hope to expose the depth of the problem
facing policy makers and law enforcement. I also wish to share
with members and viewers some of the ideas that I have to tackle
these challenges.
At the root of these challenges lies the hydra like nature of
the Internet. In its humble fledgling as a forum for academia
and the military, the Internet was boring and difficult to
navigate. It contained only dry text, no images or flashy
graphics. However the creation of the graphical interface known
as the worldwide web in 1993 has created a surge in popularity.
From just over 100 sites in 1993, the web has exploded to the
point where some industry experts estimate that over 800 million
web pages exist today with some 160,000 pages being added each
and every month.
The Internet has revolutionized communications. Most of us in
the House did not even know what e-mail was up until five years
ago, yet today our children and our grandchildren are growing up
having never known anything else but instantaneous communication.
Businesses, organizations, government agencies and individuals
have seized upon this technology by setting up websites and
revolutionizing the interaction between people.
As in all facets of life there are decent, virtuous online users
and there are deviant predators making use of this potent tool.
In his report “Innocence Exploited: Child Pornography in the
Electronic Age” prepared for the Canadian Police College,
Winnipeg Professor Doug Skoog estimates that there are at least
one million pornographic images of children on the Internet.
Detective Waters shared recent statistics with me that estimate
that 53% of Internet traffic is concerned with sexually explicit
material.
Calgary police detective Butch Dickens of the vice unit had this
to say about child pornography on the Internet in a newspaper
article last year. He states:
A year ago, we probably only got one phone call a month about it.
Now we get four a day.
Before the advent of the worldwide web, child pornography
detectives around the world could say with confidence that they
were winning the war against child pornography. The old methods
of creation and distribution were extremely perilous. Carefully
arranged meetings, secret mailing lists and postal drops placed
pedophiles at tremendous risk of being caught and punished. Those
days are gone.
Inspector Bob Matthews relates:
The Internet has become almost the perfect vehicle for pedophiles
to distribute child pornography, the reason being that at the
stroke of a key, anyone can send large volumes of information
from one country to another without being detected by the
authorities.
The anonymity offered by the Internet allows child molesters to
stalk their victims in their homes, schools and libraries without
ever being physically present in any of those places.
The following are a few of the techniques they use to exploit
children: Chatting online, Internet chat rooms, where users can
send type to each other in real time, provide plentiful hunting
grounds where child pornographers can stalk their young victims.
The next one is the sex tourism trade. With the increase in use
of the Internet for the sex trade and sexual abuse against
children, the number of websites providing information to
travelling pedophiles has increased dramatically and is extremely
explicit in detail.
Another technique is image morphing. With a decent computer and
a little skill child pornographers can turn almost any picture
into a pornographic image.
1800
One of the worst of all is real time molestation, or streaming
video, which shows live video on the Internet and enables child
molesters to display their victims in real time to selected
members of child pornography rings and clubs.
Skilled child pornographers will encrypt their messages,
rendering them unreadable to outsiders.
These are some of the ways that they have been intruding into
our homes and the lives of our children using the Internet.
Parents who were once confident that living in a small town
would insulate them from the troubles associated with big cities
can no longer be unmindful about the security of their children.
With the click of a mouse, children in remote areas can be
exposed to the seamy underside of the net. In what is becoming
an all too often occurrence, cases are occurring where children
under the age of 18 are being threatened or even molested by
someone they met online.
In July of last year, a 45 year old man from the P.E.I. town of
Summerside plead guilty to a child pornography charge. He had
secretly videotaped a 14 year old girl whom he had coerced into
doing a striptease and then played it live on the Internet for
viewers in a special interactive online chat room. That same
month, on the other side of our country, police arrested a 28
year old Washington man in the ferry line up, ready to leave
Vancouver Island. Police found a 14 year old B.C. girl in his
van. They had been exchanging e-mails.
In March of last year, the Ottawa Sun reported that an 18
year old man was arrested and charged with possession and
distribution of child pornography. An undercover police officer
met the man online while the accused was looking for a partner in
a plot to kidnap, rape and kill a young child.
While for pedophiles, child molesters and pornographers the
Internet is like a dream come true, it has become a nightmare for
decent Canadians. The downward spiral into child exploitation
usually commences with the collection of child pornography,
progressing to sexually explicit online conversations with
youngsters and eventually seeking child victims online for sex.
Tragically, authorities can only act when the pedophile acts on
his urges. Experts report that before they are arrested, the
average child molesting pedophile abuses 35 children. They will
share methods and techniques in finding children, gaining their
trust and facilitating seduction. Along the way many,
compulsively save mementoes to validate their actions. This is
how child pornography is created.
However, understanding the problem, as difficult as it may be,
is only half the job. Problems require solutions. Some of those
concerned about this problem advocate complete censorship and
regulation of anything that appears online. Others lecture that
any restriction on speech is unacceptable and prefer to place the
responsibility on the users. The answer lies somewhere in the
middle of these two polar viewpoints. As policy makers, it is
our task to strike that balance, for we alone have the democratic
mandate of the Canadian people.
Shortly after her swearing in as chief justice of the supreme
court, Madame Justice Beverley McLachlin predicted the court
would deal extensively with issues of computer crime. The court,
she said, would have to find ways to cope with offences that were
international in scope, given the breadth of the Internet and
computer communications.
Strong, effective legislation is one way the impact of child
pornographers can be reduced. The supreme court did the right
thing in upholding the ban on this illicit material in the Sharpe
case, but now we must provide another tool to the justice system
to stem the tide of child pornography flooding the web.
In 1993, in the wake of the R. v Butler decision, parliament
passed Bill C-128, criminalizing all aspects of child
pornography, including the creation, distribution, importation
and possession of such material. It is considered among the
strongest anti-child pornography legislation in the world. That
is something of which all Canadians can be proud.
Unfortunately, a provision ordering forfeiture of equipment was
omitted. This omission can be best described as an oversight
when one considers forfeiture orders exist in 55 different
federal statutes and in various places in the criminal code.
This clearly demonstrates the justice system is not opposed to
such penalties for criminals. To correct this omission in the
law, I introduced C-247, which would have given courts the
authority to order forfeiture, providing police with an extra
weapon in their fight against child pornography.
Currently, forfeiture of equipment, in the context of a child
pornography offence, is handled differently across the country.
In Ontario the equipment is often forfeited as part of a
bartering between the defence and the prosecution. In British
Columbia prosecutors rarely ask for equipment to be turned over.
To see the danger in this patchwork practice a little insight is
required into how charges under Section 163.1 of the criminal
code are dealt with.
One must struggle to conceive of a crime more horrible than the
sexual victimization of children.
1805
Because of the strong public condemnation of child pornography,
many offenders will do anything to keep their names out of the
public domain, often eagerly agreeing to plea bargains, resulting
in reduced sentences and often with no jail time. This creates a
situation where the case law on this section is scant because the
courts have had few opportunities to comment on it.
More dangerous is the fact that these plea bargains often allow
the offender to return to the same environment in which he
initially committed his crime. Returning him to that environment
with high tech equipment intact is a temptation that could prove
too strong to resist.
By ordering forfeiture, I believe the risk of recurrence can be
lowered. Because a child pornography addiction is fueled by
psychological problems, not by profit, many offenders will have
limited means. Indeed, their compulsion likely creates financial
hardship as the individual spends much of his free time and money
in pursuit of his fantasy.
Confiscating several thousand dollars worth of computer
equipment and perhaps even a vehicle or something more
substantial will create a financial barrier to reoffending. I
understand it is only money and does not address the root of the
problem, but it is one way we can slow down the traffic in this
repulsive time.
The technology of our rapidly changing world continues to create
legislative challenges for parliament. Expanding the
legislation, filling in the holes, adapting to change, as we are
trying to do, is necessary. Criminals do not stand still and
neither should we.
It is out of my concern for the safety of Canadian children that
I took this initiative, researched the issue of child pornography
and the Internet and tabled the bill. I acknowledge that my bill
may not have been written in the most precise of legal
terminology, but I am nevertheless disappointed that it was not
deemed votable this year, as it was last.
I took on the challenge of tabling a private member's bill, a
justice themed bill no less, knowing the odds were stacked
against my success, but I did it because I believe in the spirit
of the bill and I could not stand by without doing something to
help.
I urge all members to take some time to think of the difference,
even if it is a small difference, that the bill could make in the
fight against child pornography so that one like it may return to
the order paper in the near future. I implore the justice
minister to take the spirit of the bill and enshrine it in law.
Consider the law enforcement agents who have made it their life's
work to make our country safe from the perversions of these child
molesters. Think of the victims of these cold-blooded criminals
and help us make a difference.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate of Bill
C-247, an act to amend the criminal code, forfeiture of property
relating to child pornography crimes. I share the hon. member's
concern about child pornography and I congratulate him for
introducing the bill.
I can assure the hon. member that the concern about protecting
children from predators is also of primary concern to the
government. The Speech from the Throne was clear on that point.
In the Speech from the Throne our government stated its full
intention to “act to safeguard children from crimes, including
criminals on the Internet” and to “take steps to ensure that
our laws protect children from those who prey on their
vulnerability”.
We all recognize that our children are the most vulnerable
members of our society and we must do all we can to protect them
from harm. No one will deny that child pornography seriously
harms children. It does so in at least two ways. It creates a
permanent record of the sexual abuse of children and it
perpetuates the message that children are appropriate sexual
objects. Indeed, they are not.
Child pornography was specifically prohibited by an amendment to
the criminal code enacted in 1993. This amendment, which is now
163.1 of the criminal code, creates new offences for the
production, importation, distribution, sale, possession for
purposes of sale or distribution and simple possession of child
pornography. All these offences carry a greater penalty than the
offences prohibiting obscene materials involving adults.
These criminal code provisions against child pornography were
enacted to respond to the prevailing practices at the time.
These practices were still primarily paper oriented and involved
mechanical production and physical distribution practices.
Although the current offences have been successfully applied to
electronic practices relating to child pornography, no one in
1993 anticipated the technological advances that were experienced
in the last five years. No one anticipated how quickly new
technologies would be embraced by such a large portion of the
population, particularly young people. In particular, it was not
anticipated at the time that computer systems, including the
Internet, would become the instruments of choice for trading
child pornography.
The Internet has made it easier to communicate valuable
information and carry on discussions on all kinds of subjects
with people who share similar interests. Unfortunately, it has
made it easier to disseminate and collect images of child
pornography.
1810
Perhaps the time has come to take a close look at the child
pornography provisions in order to determine whether they still
apply to current practices.
The purpose of Bill C-247, like the purpose of Bill C-321
introduced by the hon. member for Lethbridge in the previous
parliament, is to create an additional deterrent to the
commission of a child pornography offence. The bill would add a
component to the sentence currently available under the criminal
code and deprive the person convicted of the offence of all tools
and instruments that were used to commit the offence. The bill
would provide for the forfeiture of these instruments to the
crown.
I note the hon. member has added to the bill an element that was
lacking in Bill C-321. It now specifies that an order cannot be
made in respect to a thing that is not the property of a person
who is not a party to the offence. It also specifically excludes
the forfeiture of communications facilities and equipment.
I recognize that these changes make the bill more sound. However
I have some questions on the working of the provisions as
drafted.
For instance, while the bill provides that the judge should not
order forfeiture when the person guilty of the offence is not the
owner of the thing, it does not provide for the manner in which
the owner would have his or her right to the property recognized.
I commend the hon. member for introducing the bill. It is a
step in the right direction in our fight against child
pornography. I support the principle of the bill. However more
must be done if we want to adequately protect our children
against sexual exploitation.
The Minister of Justice has a bill currently on notice. The
hon. member might be pleasantly surprised when he sees it after
introduction.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
too must congratulate the member on his tenacity when it comes
to this issue because, in an earlier parliament, he introduced a
similar bill. He made certain amendments in response to
comments made in the House.
Today, we have a bill that is, all in all, very acceptable. I
would immediately say to the member that he has the full support
of the Bloc Quebecois in his efforts to have the criminal code
amended.
I am the third member to speak. Those members of the House who
are listening are aware of the bill and the amendments.
I just want to remind them, and I will do this quickly, that the
primary purpose of the bill is to protect some very vulnerable
people, children, from actions of adults which are completely
unacceptable.
I think that, of all the offences mentioned in the criminal
code, those involving child pornography, using children for
sexual purposes, are the most serious. Amending the criminal
code to permit the seizure of any thing used by the offender for
child pornography, for these very reprehensible actions, has my
full support.
As the Canadian Alliance member noted, many of Canada's
statutes, including the criminal code, provide for the seizure
of certain property in certain cases.
I will give an example familiar to everyone, from the Tobacco Act.
When people smuggle cigarettes, when they have contraband
cigarettes in a vehicle, the vehicle is seized because it was
being used to break the law, to seek to commit an offence.
Why not apply this to computer equipment, since more and more
people have computers, and computers are more and more powerful,
and can yield far more information? Why not allow police forces
and the justice system to seize these assets?
Was a mistake made when the government amended section 163 in a
previous parliament without allowing such a seizure?
Perhaps it was, and perhaps not. At that time, I did not
consider it a priority or a goal in itself to seize computers
that had been used to view images of child pornography. Today,
however, I think we need to conclude that yes, seizing these
assets that have been used by the offender would be a normal
thing to do.
1815
The wording would, I believe, allow this to dovetail very nicely
with the section of the criminal code.
It is also in keeping with the philosophy of the criminal code
and related legislation allowing police and crown prosecutors to
impose a sentence on the individual who has been found guilty,
to impose a fine, but, more importantly, it sends a fairly
strong signal that computers are not intended for such purposes
and that individuals caught using them for those purposes stand
to have their computer confiscated.
The important point the member has added in his bill, from the
remarks made in the House when Bill C-321 was introduced, concerns
the restrictions on the assets of third parties in order to
protect people who lend their computer to a friend or employers
who are not aware what employees are doing at lunch with office
equipment.
Just like that, because the individual is caught at child
pornography sites, the computer loaned by a friend or belonging
to the employer is confiscated.
Subsection 163.2(2) included in the bill provides a restriction to
the effect that the equipment or computers will not be seized
because they belong to a third party who was unaware of the use
being made of them.
At the time, when we debated the bill in the House, this was our
greatest concern. Today, we note that, on the whole, the
remarks and adjustments made in this clause with respect to the
amendment of the criminal code fully satisfy the concerns of the
Bloc Quebecois.
Accordingly, we offer the hon. member our full co-operation and
support this approach. We hope that we will find these
amendments in the criminal code one day.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Madam Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for Lethbridge for his efforts on this file and
for the opportunity to denounce child pornography.
The people of Saint John and my party support the bill with
great enthusiasm and with a strong determination to stop the
creation, production and distribution of child pornography.
Hansard will show that it is not the first time I have
risen in the House to denounce the sexual abuse of our children.
When I rose earlier this afternoon I said that there was nothing
that hurt or saddened me more than when a child was abused.
It was some time ago that one of the hon. members on the
government side brought forth a bill to make changes to the
criminal code. It would have allowed the RCMP or the police
department to enter a home and seize material, where it was
suspected that a person was dealing in child pornography and had
pictures and other material. As hon. members know, it went
through the process and it was not changed.
I asked the Prime Minister a question at the time and he assured
me afterwards by saying that he did not believe in child
pornography and that the government would straighten it out
sooner or later.
Tonight members on both sides of the House voted on a national
registry to try to put a stop to sexual abuse of children. Once
again we have again another opportunity to do what is right for
our young people.
1820
Let me be clear when I say that we consider child pornography to
be nothing short of child abuse. I will not hold back from
saying that I believe child pornography is not only disgusting
but that those who take pleasure in it are sick and perverted.
Mr. Roy Bailey: You can say that again.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I will say it again. They are sick and
perverted. They truly are. It is only logical therefore that
anyone who seeks to participate in this obscene trade should have
the tools of the trade seized by authorities and destroyed.
The laws of Canada and the charter of rights and freedoms must
not be used as a shield for those who would seek to corrupt and
exploit our very young. Any just society must balance the rights
it extends to its citizens with the responsibility it expects its
citizens to undertake.
Persons violating the spirit of the law should not be afforded
any protection by the mere letter of the law. Canadians are
compassionate and understanding. We are a patient and respectful
people who have on many occasions sent our sons and daughters
into harm's way to protect our way of living. Yet when the
system, whatever its best intentions, becomes a tool for evil it
should not be left unchanged.
Earlier today we debated a national sex offender registry. I
said then that we had a duty and an obligation as representatives
of the people to take the action required to protect our people.
Tonight we are fortunate to have another opportunity to send to
the government a clear signal on what action is required for the
sake of our children.
I hope that our plea falls on the same compassionate ears that
heard our call this afternoon for the national sex offender
registry. I hope that the same courageous members on the
government benches that saw fit to support that registry will
stand with us again on Bill C-247.
There comes a time in public life when we are forced to decide
on a personal course of action. We sit down with a piece of
legislation to try to determine what the people who elected us
would want us to do. We have before us an excellent piece of
legislation and one that I know my people back home in Saint
John, New Brunswick, would cheer with a loud chorus of support.
The House would suspect that I find pornography in any form to
be distasteful and degrading. If it were possible for me to
detest one form of pornography over all others, it would be child
pornography. The House knows that I am a mother and a
grandmother. To think that someone could do this with my
grandson or my granddaughter, I will fight that tooth and nail.
The House knows that I have tried to use my time in public
service to work with children and families in need, not only in
Saint John but across the country. It is for these reasons and
many more that even the thought of someone profiting from the
illicit trade of child pornography makes me feel very ill.
I also know that the Minister of Justice has wrestled with the
same issues for some time. I know that various members on the
government back benches have been forced to hold back tears in
the past because they have not seen their government take the
decisive action against the disgusting child pornography problem.
We saw it with that man out in Vancouver.
I consider Bill C-247 to be a solid first strike against the
child pornography trade. It would give pause to those who deal
in this perverted trafficking. The hon. member for Lethbridge
has ensured that we remain as respectful as possible to property
rights of law-abiding Canadians. Bill C-247 is clear in its
limitations and clear to avoid the unlawful seizure or forfeiture
of the property of those who are not a party to child pornography
offences. It is a necessary limitation and one that strengthens
the legislation and the laws it seeks to change.
The House may not recall that my cousin is Gordon Fairweather.
He stood side by side with John Diefenbaker when they first
crafted the bill of rights. I know that when they set out to
protect the rights of Canadians they did not do so with the
intent of protecting criminals or the tools of their trade.
1825
When the charter of rights and freedoms was being crafted it was
not created to shield those who would seek to abuse and exploit
children. Knowing this, I say without hesitation that Bill C-247
is in keeping with the best intentions of both the bill of rights
and the charter of rights and freedoms. If my cousin Gordon
Fairweather were back here, he would be with the hon. member for
Lethbridge all the way.
This is a step worth taking to strengthen the security of our
children from the clutches of truly depraved individuals. Even if
one child is spared from exploitation and abuse by the child
pornography trade, and it is a trade by its very nature, it will
have been all worth while. That said, could we deny our families
that added security for mere partisan political reasons?
If we do not support Bill C-247 are we not saying that we accept
in some form or another that child pornography is tolerable? Is
that the message we want to send out to the mothers and fathers
of Canadian children? Is that the message we want to send out to
my grandson Matthew and granddaughter Lindsay?
We have a duty and obligation to all Canadians to deliver them
from evil and to protect them from injustice. We have a duty and
obligation to every generation of children to make them safer
from the generation before them. This is the mantle of
responsibility we all assumed when we put our names on the ballot
last fall. It is a duty from which we must not shy away. I
fully support Bill C-247 and so do my colleagues in the PC Party.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I too commend my colleague from Lethbridge for
bringing forward this very important bill. I know he has worked
very hard behind the scenes gathering support from many
organizations, groups, police associations and those involved in
having to deal with the issue firsthand.
I am encouraged tonight by the debate I have heard in the House
from members of all parties who have spoken in favour of the
bill. It is fitting that we would be debating this topic on the
evening where we also, as was indicated by my hon. colleague from
Saint John and others, worked together to support the creation of
a national registry for sex offenders. It is a great
accomplishment that we have been able to achieve together in the
House.
Some of the debate was a little off topic today and somewhat
partisan at times, but for the most part it was not. That is
encouraging. The legislation fits very much into that very same
category. Who could stand in the House and defend child
pornography? No one has tonight and no one will. We understand
the seriousness of the issue. The bill being brought forward by
my colleague is another tool being offered as a way to combat a
very serious issue.
By focusing on important issues, it is time that we work
together in the House. We must look to build with each other on
the commonalities, across party lines, including government
members, to solve the issues before us. That is what people are
looking for, from those of us who have been sent as leaders to
this place. It is with passion, conviction and strength of mind
that we must work together to solve these very serious issues.
The issue of child pornography is one that has a very great
implication. Our children are our greatest resource. There is
nothing we could hold more dear than the health and well-being of
our children, the next generation coming up behind us, not only
for ourselves as individuals, as members, as families and as
communities but for the future of our country.
1830
A big part of the health of our children has to with protecting
them. We only have the opportunity to live as children once in
this life. We have all experienced that. We are involved in the
joys, triumphs, tragedies and moment to moment involvements with
children in our families, or those without children with
relatives. We know this is a very important thing to focus our
attention on.
We know there are individuals involved in activities that will
harm children. Child pornography is one of them. My colleague,
the member for Erie—Lincoln, the parliamentary secretary, raised
some very good points. I agree with what he said on those
points.
He mentioned two points about the crime of child pornography
creating a permanent record of the abuse of children. For that
very reason it is wrong to be participating in such an action.
The creation of child pornography creates victims itself. This
causes not only great damage for those children who are victims
of those crimes, but they are then a part of this permanent
record that is being used, abused and displayed on the Internet
and other ways. It is at the very hub of this issue.
It violates what is right. It is wrong to be involved in child
pornography. It causes children to be abused by creating a
permanent record of that. My colleague's bill attempts to
address that. The bill attempts to shut this down. It is to be
used as a tool to help stop the spread of this issue of child
pornography.
I will agree with my colleague from Saint John when she said it
was evil. We have the right as members in this place to say such
things because it is truly wrong. I believe there is such a
thing as right and wrong. Many of my colleagues would agree with
this particular point. Let us build on what we can agree on and
we can agree. Tonight we heard that we agree child pornography
is wrong. This is a bill that is being introduced to help
address that.
I was encouraged by my colleague for Erie—Lincoln who said
changes will be coming to the criminal code. I can only hope and
encourage him to work with his government. We will work together
to bring these changes forward, to incorporate this forfeiture
clause that my colleague brought forward, so we can help stop the
wrongs that are occurring. We can help stop the individuals who
are involved in this industry. We can help stop the wrongs that
are being perpetrated against our children.
I may have indicated inadvertently in my earlier comment that I
do not have children. I would like to correct that because I
have four young children. My oldest daughter is 10 and my
youngest, who is a son, is four years old. The others are six
and eight. This is an issue that strikes at home for me.
I worked for 10 years as an elementary school teacher. I was
able to see the need for our children to be protected, not only
in our homes and communities but in our institutions like schools
and in other areas. Those who attempt to abuse children in this
way find their way into those areas of protection that are
supposed to be safe havens for our children. We need to be on
guard for that. With the tools suggested in this piece of
legislation from my colleague from Lethbridge, we need to be able
to shut down this kind of activity.
I am encouraged by the agreement tonight from all parties on
this issue. In fact, we have agreed that child pornography is
wrong. This amendment should move forward and should be put into
practice immediately.
1835
Would it not be wonderful if we could do that tonight, on a
night where we have already had agreement on a major issue having
to do with protecting our children.
We should not wait another day. We should move forward on this
issue right away. Our children are our most valued resource. We
need to show, not only in our words but in our actions, that we
mean that. There is an opportunity to do that tonight. I hope
we speak loudly with our words on things that need to be fixed,
but even more loudly with our actions.
In closing, I would like to commend my colleague, the member for
from Lethbridge, once again. We do not care who gets credit for
the idea or the issue, we want to see it put in place no matter
where it comes from. That is why I think there would be
agreement on this issue from all members. We need to move
forward on it.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to lend my support to Bill C-247, tabled in the House by the
hon. member for Lethbridge.
This House was seized with the issue of child pornography,
probably polarized mostly by the Sharpe case, the B.C. case where
the constitutionality of our laws on the possession of child
pornography were challenged in the B.C. court. In fact the court
case was lost. As members will recall this was quite outrageous
to Canadians at large and certainly to everyone in the House.
However, we have a process and that process led that case, not
only through the B.C. Court of Appeal but also right to the
Supreme Court of Canada. I think we are all very grateful that
the decision of the supreme court upheld the law. However, in a
way that raised some interesting questions for the House.
The fact that the member has brought forward a bill that
addresses another element of the child pornography issue,
probably should remind us that we should continue to work on
developing good legislation, step by step, to be sure that we
deal with many of the items which hon. members have raised in the
debate.
This particular bill seeks to provide the court with the
discretion to forfeit anything by means of which, or in relation
to which, a child pornography offence was committed. It
basically says that the tools of the person who was in possession
of or creating child pornography would be forfeited to the crown.
There were some questions raised by the parliamentary secretary
with regard to this matter, but the questions are resolvable.
Fundamentally, the proposal is sound.
As we know this is a non-votable matter. That is unfortunate
because when items like this come before the House, especially
when they are so important, not only to the members proposing it
but to Canadians in this case, there should be a greater debate.
Using it as a starting point, we can make it deal with the
principle that has been raised by the bill. We can work on the
technicalities to make sure that the protection of third parties
is dealt with. We can make sure that, for instance, employers
are protected in the event that an employee would use employer
assets for the perpetration or production of child pornography.
I wanted to lend my voice as support. Members know that today
we unanimously passed a resolution before the House to consider
the creation of a national registry for sex offenders.
It is characteristic that the motion was unanimously endorsed by
the House. We all want to be constructive and productive on
legislation that will create a safer and healthier environment
for our children and our families.
1840
I congratulate the member for bringing this bill forward. I am
sorry that it is not votable but I think it is encouraging that
the Ministry of Justice has indicated that the principle is a
good one and that it will be dealt with by the government. The
member should take full credit for it when it happens. I hope
that he will.
Private members' business is a maligned part of the business
that we do in this place. I cannot say that I am very happy with
the way it works. I have seen many good bills come before this
place that were not votable and I have seen some questionable
bills come before this place that were votable. I am not sure
whether the system right now is serving the best interests of the
House.
I also lament the fact that so few private members' items ever
get through the full cycle of second reading, committee
consideration, third reading and report stage, as well as Senate
review. It is unfortunate because many good ideas do come
forward to this place.
I hope members will remember this particular bill the next time
we come around to a debate on the propriety of how we handle
private members' business. Perhaps they will use it as an
example of just another good idea of members of parliament that
somehow have to be set aside for the wrong reasons.
I appreciate the member's thoughtfulness in bringing this bill
forward to the House. I think it is important to have every
opportunity to talk about issues that are important to Canadians.
This is a non-partisan issue. We should be grateful to the
member for raising it in the House today.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, a few minutes is all the time I will need. I want to
say just a very few things in the highest support possible of the
bill.
Today has been a really heart-rending day in the House. We have
been dealing with issues which really in a respectable society
should not even have to be mentioned. We have been dealing with
sexual predators. Now in this evening's session, we are talking
about a bill that would limit and restrict advantages that people
can make in producing child pornography.
I just want it on record that I fully support this bill. I am
very concerned that in our society we somehow think that by
passing a whole bunch of laws that we can make people good. I do
not think we can. We have to really do what a number of members
said in the debate; that is we have to look at moral teaching
when these children are young, so they grow up to be responsible
adults and behave in a socially acceptable way.
The role of law is still to restrict those who will not conform
to that. While law cannot make people good, it can serve to
restrain the evil. I think that is really the essence of what we
are dealing with today and in this bill as well.
I want to congratulate the member for Lethbridge for the bill.
We need to support it. I sincerely call upon the government to
act, not just to engage in a bunch of nice words here, but to act
and to put into place mechanisms that would fulfill what this
bill requires.
1845
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I thank all members who spoke tonight for their support.
This is obviously an issue that needs to be addressed. As the
member for Elk Island said, we have talked all day about the
things that happen in our society that we should not really have
to talk about but we do.
We need to give our law enforcement agencies and our courts the
tools to do a good job, and that is where we went with this bill.
The research that was done on it was to add one small item to
their arsenal that would help them put a pedophile or a
pornographer out of business for as long as possible.
I am encouraged by the comments made by the parliamentary
secretary. I will take him at his word that there are some
changes to the criminal code coming down and that this particular
aspect of the amendment to the code to allow for forfeiture will
be included.
I hope that when the legislation comes before the House again
there will be a public and open debate on it and all Canadians
will have input. Literally thousands of Canadians have supported
me in this endeavour. The Canadian Police Association on down
through the police organizations in Canada have supported this
bill as well. This is something that needs to be done and I am
encouraged to hear that the government has recognized that.
The issue of our children and the Internet scares me. I have
two granddaughters, aged five and eight. The five year old can
sit down at the computer and make it do things that I cannot.
This scares me but that is the way of the world.
The one thing I would like to leave with the people who are
watching is that as parents we have to be diligent when our
children are on the Internet and on the computer because there
are all kinds of people on the Internet system who like to prey
on kids. Parents should keep an eye on what their children are
doing and be aware of who they are talking to and the agreements
that are being made.
I was going to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to
make this bill votable but I will take the parliamentary
secretary at his word, that this bill will be included in the
amendments that are coming in to the criminal code, and leave it
at that.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for
the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
As the motion has not been designated a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
LAKE SAINT-PIERRE
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, on February 26
of this year, I asked the Minister of National Defence a
question in the House about Lake Saint-Pierre. The answer did
not satisfy me, nor did it satisfy those who live on the shores
of this body of water and even use it to earn their living.
Lake Saint-Pierre is one of the lakes which purify the St.
Lawrence River. It purifies the water from the Great Lakes,
from cities such as Montreal, and from tributaries and various
rivers. UNESCO has recognized Lake Saint-Pierre as a world
reserve.
The lake is extremely rich in flora and fauna. There are
professional fishers and hunters. For fifty years now, the
Canadian army has been firing shells into Lake Saint-Pierre, for
training purposes I believe.
1850
More than 40% of the southern section of Lac Saint-Pierre, some
22 kilometres starting with the channel, belongs to the Canadian
Forces. The lake has been polluted by some 300,000 shells,
8,000 to 10,000 of which are potentially dangerous. They are
moved around by the ice in the lake.
They travel so far that every year helicopters scan both shores
of the St. Lawrence right up to Île d'Orléans to try to recover
shells that had been carried away by the ice. Even last year, a
little girl found one, which most fortunately was disarmed.
What I am asking of the minister, on behalf of the users of Lac
Saint-Pierre, is that it be restored to a safe condition, so that
it can again be used as it ought to be. It is nonsensical to
say that it cannot be cleared because there are no known
techniques for doing so. This is not true. There are
techniques known at this time for clearing the lake, and even
people prepared to bid on cleaning up the lake and removing the
potentially dangerous shells in and around it.
I am therefore calling upon the minister to promptly review the
Lac Saint-Pierre situation. It is extremely important for the
flora, the fauna and the users of the lake, both those who make
a living from it and the tourists. It is a huge tourist
attraction, because it is a large lake, some fifty kilometres in
length and some twenty wide, stretching from Trois-Rivières to
the islands at Sorel.
We are told it would be too costly.
However, if the Canadian forces spend some $200 million on
shells they say are no longer used, I think we could perhaps cut
part of this money and take some $40 million a year to clean up
this body of water. This is what I am asking the minister.
The minister said “Yes, eventually. We are studying and
perhaps”. I say to the minister that this needs to be done
urgently. Every year the ice carries shells, and they are found
along the shore of the St. Lawrence. Action must be taken
before something dramatic happens. There has already been loss
of life. It could be even more serious, because some of these
shells could be armed just by fishing gear.
I do not want to cause anyone to panic, but Lac Saint-Pierre has
to be cleaned up. The Canadian forces, responsible for its
pollution, have to do their job as user-payer.
Companies are asked to clean up the sites they have polluted,
but the Canadian forces have been polluting this lake for 50
years.
I think urgent that the Minister of National Defence ask the
Canadian forces to return the body of water to the state the
users want it in.
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
sustaining and protecting the environment as well as human life
are priorities for the Department of National Defence.
The Proof and Experimental Test Establishment at Nicolet,
Quebec, has provided technical services and carried out munitions
proof and engineering tests for the Department of National
Defence since 1952.
The ammunition tested at Lac St-Pierre is used by Canadian
forces members on military operations all over the world as well
as in their day to day training.
The main objective of the munitions testing program is to ensure
the safety of the men and women in the Canadian forces who use
the ammunition. We must have absolute confidence in the safety
and suitability of our munitions. Firing a small sample from
each new lot of ammunition that is produced is the only way to
ensure the safety and suitability of the ammunition.
Lac St-Pierre was initially selected because of its proximity to
several munitions factories. This rationale still holds. Testing
at Lac St-Pierre minimizes the costs of transporting the
ammunition as well as the public safety hazard associated with
the transportation of live ammunition.
The Department of National Defence takes its public safety
responsibilities very seriously. It has always had an open
relationship with local residents, working with them to satisfy
their concerns.
We in the department also have a close working relationship with
Environment Canada and provincial officials, and we ensure that
all our activities comply with provincial standards and
regulations.
Since the early 1990s, we have cut test firings in half and
reduced noise levels. Almost all firings are now done through
mufflers and all ammunition is now fired into a mound of earth
from which we can recover the ammunition. We no longer fire into
Lac St-Pierre itself.
1855
We have always undertaken measures to clean up projectiles.
Every spring and summer the shoreline of Lac St-Pierre is
examined for projectiles that have been freed from the lake bed.
Additionally, in 1999 DND began an environmental study of the
sediments of Lac St-Pierre in co-operation with Environment
Canada. The study will be completed in the fall of 2001.
Preliminary results indicate that the ordnance on the lake bed
has not caused any environmental damage. DND is also examining a
proposal to begin a more thorough cleanup of projectiles from the
lake. However, this is a long term project with no quick fix.
There are very real environmental challenges and difficulties
involved in cleaning up unexploded munitions in water. We are
actively pursuing potential solutions with all stakeholders.
As one of the federal government's largest landholders, DND
remains strongly committed to minimizing the impact of its
activities and operations on the environment.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.56 p.m.)