Bill S-3 (Historical)

An Act to amend the National Defence Act, the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Criminal Records Act

This enactment amends the National Defence Act to create a scheme that requires offenders who have committed service offences of a sexual nature to provide information for registration in a national database under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. The new scheme parallels the one in the Criminal Code, and that Act, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Criminal Records Act are amended accordingly. The amendments to the National Defence Act also establish mechanisms to accommodate military operational requirements when necessary.
The enactment creates a new offence under the National Defence Act for failure to comply with an order or obligation to provide information to a designated registration centre.
It also makes certain amendments to the Criminal Code and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to enhance the administration and enforcement of the current registration scheme for sex offender information.

Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made an excellent presentation. He detailed how Bill S-3 was passed back in 2007 and how the government did not get it right at that time. Then there was the recent exposé. The parliamentary committee reviewed and had a draft report within two weeks of being available and then the government introduced legislation.

The member does have a lot of concerns about the bill, but by the sounds of it, he and members of his party will support the legislation at the end of the day, at least as far as getting it into committee. At that point, hopefully some of his good ideas will find their way into the bill.

He pointed out the strong points of the Ontario statute. I was not aware of the fact that people use the Ontario statute roughly 400 times a day, while the federal system is only used 150 times a year. Clearly, there are some advantages to the Ontario system that merit adoption.

He also mentioned the very important point that 77% of children who had been abducted were dead within three hours. That is astounding. I was not aware of that statistic.

I thank him for that information.

However, I want to ask him a question regarding the expansion of the registry to include those convicted of sexual offences outside Canada. I am assuming that would include places like Thailand and other countries that have sex tourism. How are we to know how these people are going to be included? Are we going to have the Thailand government giving us a list of people who have been convicted? Is there some sort of international registry for us to determine who should be coming to us from that list?

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Would any of you disagree with the following statement, which is that prior to the passage of Bill S-3, on March 29, 2007, the Conservatives were aware of all of the problems that you've gone through today and they left them unanswered?

[Mary Campbell]

As a public servant, I'm not able to reveal advice that I provide to any minister on an ongoing basis, but it's fair comment to say that this is a very serious matter, and, of course, ministers take it very seriously and advice is provided.

If you look at the sequence of amendments to the bill, you will see that Bill S-3 was an endeavour to get the military incorporated and to make a number of other what we might call “technical amendments”, but also some of the amendments along the lines of what we've been talking about today.

There was quite a time gap between Parliament passing that bill and it being proclaimed in force, partly because there were some important regulations on the military side that had to be created. During that time, no one was inactive. Discussions continued at the federal-provincial level, and certainly at the federal level. These issues have been discussed and analyzed and advice provided.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

This is for all the panellists. Did any of you make representations to Minister Day in terms of what you wanted to fix and the changes you wanted to see before Bill S-3 was actually passed?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I will focus on my new responsibilities as the official opposition's heritage and official languages critic.

I will share my time with the member for Mississauga—Erindale.

I believe that the Conservative government should offer a coherent vision of cultural life in Canada, a vision that does not neglect our cultural industries, our artistic institutions, our museums, our artists or our public broadcaster.

The Conservatives did not do that. In the throne speech there was mention of finally acting on copyright, but there were no details as to content or timing. Legislation had been promised before June 2006 on this matter and then before Christmas 2006. Now, 18 months later, we may get this legislation.

When the minister spoke yesterday, many were hoping to hear a few details on that and her thoughts on a number of other important dossiers in the matters of heritage. Yesterday there was not a word. There was not a word about our public broadcaster, not a word about reassuring Canadians as to whether or not the Reform dissenting opinion of the Lincoln report in 2003 still holds, which would have privatized CBC. There was not a word from the minister on that.

There was not a word about a museums policy. There was not a word about the museums assistance program. The Canadian Museums Association had been given a commitment that a policy would be forthcoming before Christmas 2006. Christmas came and went and it did not get that policy. Yesterday there was not a word.

The Prime Minister announced that the Government of Canada would finance the operational costs of the new human rights museum in Winnipeg, which is fine, but there is still a question mark as to whether or not the $22 million will be coming from an existing envelope or whether the envelope overall will be increased. My information is that it is from the existing envelope, therefore choking off the existing museums, so much so that they have to do fundraising, as has been reported, to make acquisitions. There was not a word about all of this.

There was also not a word about increasing the museums assistance program. In the last election the Conservatives promised to actually increase the funding to small museums across the country. Lo and behold, what they did instead was the opposite. They reduced the museums assistance program. There was not a word about that.

There was not a word about the exhibition transportation services for museums and galleries, which is very useful to the smaller galleries and museums. This will expire at the end of March 2008. There was not a word about that.

There was not a word about the portrait gallery. Many people have been asking about that. What is the policy framework within which the government will be making the decision as to where the portrait gallery should be located?

There was not a word about the television fund. Will it ever be A-based? Will it be indexed? What about funding for Telefilm and the National Film Board? Will they be increased? Will they be indexed? There was not a word.

There was not a word about festivals. There was not a word about where the minister is vis-à-vis the CRTC and Canadian content and foreign ownership restrictions.

Right now we have a situation where the government has, by executive fiat, which comes from the industry department and not from the heritage department, directed the CRTC essentially to let market forces dominate. Is the minister's silence consent as to this direction for Canadian cultural industries, Canadian television and film content? If it is, perhaps she should have said so yesterday.

Canada's cultural and artistic communities have not been given enough information. They do not know what to expect from the Conservative government. This is not unlike what happened when the federal government copied the Liberal Party's promise during the last election campaign to double funding for the Council for the Arts. As it turns out, that is not at all what the government has done.

The minister talked exclusively about official languages earlier, and that is fine, but she could have mentioned her other portfolio: Canadian Heritage.

With respect to official languages, she congratulated herself on having signed service and education agreements with all of the provinces. I should hope so, because by the time the government came to power, those agreements had already been negotiated and confirmed. All she had to do was sign them. The Conservatives can go ahead and take all the credit, but they really should give credit where credit is due.

The minister said that she met with the ministers responsible for la Francophonie a month ago. However, she failed to mention that these very ministers issued a press release demanding that the federal government renew the action plan that was introduced by its predecessor in 2003.

Let us talk about this plan. This begs a fundamental question: does the Conservative government intend to renew the plan? It found all manner of ways to avoid this word, avoid this specific commitment. What the linguistic minority communities across the country are asking for, and what the ministers responsible for la Francophonie across the country asked for, is that the action plan be renewed. In the Speech from the Throne, there is not a single occurrence of the word “renewal”. The government has chosen its words carefully.

The minister wanted to focus on the issue of official languages; we were hoping she would, because it is not clear. Would the plan be renewed for one year, two years, five years? It is not clear. How much money would be allocated? Not a word. Are we talking about broadening this action plan? A promise was made after many consultations with the communities. It was a matter of broadening the plan to incorporate programs for young people, women, seniors, culture and international issues. Not a word.

She did not talk about the setbacks we have had under her government either; the cancellation of the court challenges program, for example. As for the Official Languages Secretariat, which was a branch of the Privy Council, the government decided to transfer it to Canadian Heritage, when we know full well that a secretariat located in a central agency has a lot more influence and a greater ability to take action.

Were it not for the existence of this secretariat at the Privy Council when I was minister responsible for official languages, we would not have succeeded in getting language clauses in the early childhood agreements with every province. What did this government do? It relieved the Privy Council of its role in official languages and gave that role to Canadian Heritage. The communities are having a hard time getting their bearings. The minister could have said a few words about this, but she chose not to say a word.

As for the new round of budget cuts just starting, which her department is subject to, would the action plan for official languages be protected from these cuts this time? Not a word.

As for the Department of National Defence in this struggle to promote linguistic duality, and we totally agree that it is the role of the Government of Canada to ensure that the Official Languages Act is respected across the country, there is not a word. National Defence has given up and there is not a word on this from the government.

Nor was anything said about one of the Prime Minister's first actions when he came to power, informing us that he intended to cancel all early childhood agreements—the very agreements that had been negotiated and that communities were celebrating from one end of the country to the other. It is a major setback for these communities. The minister did not say one word about this.

There is not one word about the fact that, after they were elected, the Conservatives decided that the Commissioner of Official Languages, an officer of this House, would no longer report to the Prime Minister but would report to another minister. Previous governments had indicated the importance they attributed to the issue of linguistic duality and the official languages. They said that, in terms of the government, the Commissioner of Official Languages reported to the Prime Minister. In terms of his mandate, he obviously reports to the House of Commons, as he should.

However, even more disturbing, there is not a word about Bill S-3. When in opposition, his government supported the bill, which dealt with the last amendments to the Official Languages Act made in November 2005, when everyone was celebrating.

Where are the plans that were to come out of the application of Bill S-3? Where is the regulatory framework? Where are the consultations that will result in the regulations? Where is the cabinet committee on official languages, the ad hoc committee that has not met, as far as I know, for 18 months? What is the minister doing about these matters?

All I can do, as did the Commissioner for Official Languages in his first report, is criticize the Prime Minister and his government for not having backed up these lovely words with concrete action.

[Graham Fraser]

I have two points to mention. In our report on the complaints we've received with regard to the government's conduct, we concluded that there was a lack of compliance with the act.

Second, I'm making an effort to stop referring to Bill S-3 because it is as though that amendment to the act were part of the act. The act has been amended. We're talking about compliance with the act. The amendments are not asterisks. It is not beside the act, it's not something separate; it's the act.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

So it's not a positive measure.

Commissioner, if it isn't a positive measure, do you think that eliminating a program that is a positive measure is double talk? What the government did wasn't a positive measure. At the same time, it is that same party that now forms the government, which voted in favour of Bill S-3. Furthermore, the purpose of part of Bill S-3 was to put positive measures in place for the official language communities. They're talking out of both sides of their mouth.

I ask myself the following question. In that situation, under Bill S-3, which is now an act, the government has an obligation to put positive measures in place. However, it has not taken a positive measure by cancelling the Court Challenges Program. Could we conclude that the government was breaching Bill S-3 in certain respects, that it has not complied with one aspect of Bill S-3, because the measures it took were negative?

[Guy Matte]

I will certainly comment on the issue of legal aid. We need to remember that, when cases are assessed, one of the criteria is that the funding is not used to further individual cases, cases that affect only one person. Test cases that affect groups of people are funded. The point is to establish a right that will be recognized for a particular group of Canadians cited in section 15, or, in some cases, for all Canadians, particularly women, because the issue is gender discrimination. That is my first point.

My second point is on former Bill S-3. You said that we have enough case law, but when we pass a bill and promulgate a new statute, its scope has to be tested. You passed Bill S-3, so testing it is important. However, I should say that the Court Challenges Program could not be used to test Bill S-3 directly, since Bill S-3 amended the Official Languages Act, and we cannot fund cases associated with the Official Languages Act. If there was some accommodation to be made, we would certainly be happy to extend the Court Challenges Program to cover the OLA and establish a whole new area of case law.

I would also like to be more specific on something—I think I understood Mr. Harvey to say that the funding allocation might be unfair, with too much of it going to administration. As a program, we would have no problem in reviewing the distribution of funding with the government and the department. We are merely an instrument. We were an instrument of the federal government for years, as we supported cases. That was our purpose. Thus, if there are any aspects of the program that are not appropriate, or if you believe that some things should be changed, we are bound by a contribution agreement which comes from the federal government. We are always ready to consider changes to the program with the federal government.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A few moments ago, I think you clearly explained that, when a case goes to court, it is not to benefit a single individual but rather the community as a whole. In the case of food inspectors from Shippagan who were transferred to Shédiac, people challenged the decision— I believe the case was funded under the Court Challenges Program—and won the case. In the circumstances, the Liberals had nothing to brag about because they were the ones who had to defend their decision in court. There was a battery of Liberal lawyers against ordinary people. If money was spent on lawyers, it is the government we should look to blame. Ms. Lalonde said it very well. In the case I'm talking about, the community as a whole benefited from the decision. The court ruled that services could not be withdrawn from a minority region and transferred elsewhere.

In another case, which concerned the RCMP in New Brunswick, once again the Liberals have nothing to brag about because they were in power when the government appealed a ruling in favour of Ms. Marie-Claire Paulin. At the end of the day, the winner will not just be Ms. Paulin, but the entire francophone community in New Brunswick, as well as all francophones who travel to New Brunswick and might be arrested by the RCMP. The lower court stated that the RCMP was required to comply with constitutional linguistic obligations particular to New Brunswick, Canada's only officially bilingual province. The case was won, and once again, the only reason for which they ended up back in court was that the government appealed the ruling. The lower court is not that expensive. But every time you have to go to a higher court, it costs more. And since people don't have the money it takes to go to those higher courts, communities will lose cases.

It's all well and good to boast about Bill S-3. Yesterday again, I heard the minister declare in the House of Commons that the Bloc Québecois had not wanted to vote for the bill. I can tell you that the Conservatives didn't want to vote for it either. But we were on the brink of elections in Quebec, and at the official languages committee I said that I personally would like to see the Conservatives vote against Bill S-3 just before an election. In the end, Bill S-3 passed. But don't we have to test it? Do you think that if we test it, everything will be all right? Section 41 of part VII of the Official Languages Act stipulates that bilingualism will be promoted in federal institutions, in Quebec and across Canada, so that both English and French are recognized in Canadian society. We still have some way to go. Unlike what Mr. Chong was saying, the Court Challenges Program did not serve only individuals and did not represent some sort of legal aid. It's not that at all. He is missing the point entirely.

It might have been good for the government to test the bill before cancelling the program. The government probably did not know what it was doing. Alternatively, it might have known all too well—it was taking away the rights of minorities. I'm not from Quebec, and I'm not part of the French majority. The reason we have French-language schools in New Brunswick, the reason we have our own school boards, the reason we have furthered our cause and preserved our French language, and the reason there are still 250,000 francophones in New Brunswick is that we fought for it.

Aside from that, I don't know whether I have any questions. However, I would like to hear our witnesses' comments.

Canadian Heritage--Main Estimates, 2007-08

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, in response to the question on the action plan that expires in 2008, I am hearing nothing but empty words.

I would like to know what measures the minister intends to institute to enforce the regular reporting from these federal institutions that have not--I am sorry, I am on the wrong question. I beg your pardon.

The minister voted in favour of Bill S-3, whereby the government is committed to ensuring that positive measures are taken to implement these commitments to enhance the vitality of the English and French minorities and to support their development.

How does the minister reconcile her vote with the fact that she did not oppose the cancellation of the court challenges program?

Official Languages

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, for years, the Bloc was indifferent to official language minority communities outside of Quebec.

In the fall of 2005, the Bloc voted against Bill S-3. We, however, have made a strong commitment to promoting linguistic duality, and we will continue to strive toward achieving that goal.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-3 infringed on the jurisdiction of Quebec and they refused to listen to us. That said, the attitude of the Conservative government toward the Standing Committee on Official Languages also concerns the commissioner. The government decided not to replace the chair of the committee, with the result that the committee has simply disappeared. And what was the reaction of the government whip? “Good riddance”. Those are his words.

Do these scornful words of the whip not support the comments of the commissioner, who criticized this government for being slow to respect—

National Defence Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, March 28, 2007, Bill S-3 is deemed read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

(Bill deemed read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill S-3.

I have supported the sex offender registry for a very long period of time, going back to before it was initiated and I certainly support this bill as well. The armed forces is a profession, and this would bring the armed forces into line with what we used to see in many other professions.

In our communities the issue of sexual offences is very top of mind for many people, partly because our media provides information to people so quickly. It is a subject which causes fairly high anxiety certainly in the constituency that I represent. Any tools that are available to help provide some level of assuredness to people are very positive steps forward.

What we have seen in the past, probably with the armed forces and certainly with other professions, is that offences have been committed and as there has been no registry there was no registration of the offence on a national registry. Therefore, the individual in practising a particular profession would simply move to another area and commit another offence. Parents and others in the public would ask how it could happen that someone with a history of sexually offences was hired.

The sexual offence registry ensured that there was a national database. Employers do a criminal records check and the police could use the national database registry.

The New Democratic Party has laid out three streams of justice policies, which are prevention, policing and punishment. This change, while simple in text, is really quite profound. It speaks to prevention and provides another tool for policing and ensures there is a database that is indeed complete.

One reason this is so important is that people in the armed forces are seen as being in a position of trust. I do not know if it is idealism, but a special respect is accorded to people in the armed forces or people who previously served in the armed forces. They are even more likely to be offered positions of trust. Given that they may be even more likely to be offered positions of trust, it is even more important that this registry be put into place.

When I talk to parents and other adults in the community, they tell me that they believe that because there is a sexual offender registry or criminal records checks they can relax a bit more. This is a very good tool and I absolutely support it, so it is not about this piece of legislation, but I always tell people that we as adults and parents or grandparents have to remain continuously alert. We must teach our children what they need to do to be safe and to report when they feel uncomfortable. Adults need to know what to do if they are uncomfortable or where they can go for help. When somebody is charged with a sexual offence, it is highly unlikely that it was the first time the person committed a sexual offence.

When a new tool is put in place, I do not want people to think that they can relax or be less alert. It is a very good tool but people still have to be very alert in their communities.

According to DND, within the last six years 20 people have been charged and convicted of sexual offences. It does not really matter to me if the number is 20 or it is two, as one is too many. I consider this small grammatical change to be a change with profound impact and matters as much as any number would matter. As I say, one offence would be too many. Anyone who has ever worked with victims of sexual offenders or have family members who have been victims of sexual offenders, and that would probably include most of us in the House, know that it affects the victim sometimes for the person's lifetime, and indeed the person's family and family dynamics. Any additional tool that will be available to the police is an important one.

The forces will deal with this as they see appropriate within the forces and in concurrence with the regulations in the armed forces. When that occurs, we must know that whatever consequences are handed out within the forces are reflected in a national database to which the police will have access.

I do not know how many times police officers have said that they wished they had known that a specific person had a history of sexually offending because they could have found the person earlier and they could have prevented future attacks and maybe even have done some prevention. This is a regulation that will allow that to happen.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on Bill S-3, which is before us today.

This bill is not very complicated. In December 2004 the House of Commons passed a series of measures requiring sex offenders to be listed in a registry. After this legislation passed and came into force on December 15, 2004, if memory serves, people realized that the military justice system did not have a similar provision.

I think it is important to explain for a few minutes what the difference is between civil justice and military justice. Some people will want to know whether this means that military personnel are treated differently in the military system than we are in the civil system. We have a typical example of this in the bill before us today.

When advances are made in the civil justice system, it is important for them to be incorporated into the military system as well. Some of the people watching us today may well wonder whether military system can be more permissive than the civil system. The answer is no. It is important, though, to have a military justice system and for it to be distinct from the civil system, even though it follows this system and adapts to it. The military environment is very distinctive. It has codes of honour. I have had the opportunity to attend courts martial and can assure the people watching us today that the application of the law in the military system is just as valid as in the civil system.

Everything needed for a valid justice system is there. There is a court, called a court martial. There is a judge, who listens to the case, and there are military defence attorneys and military Crown prosecutors who present the evidence. Then the judge decides. As I said, it is distinctive. It is true that it seems different because we are accustomed to seeing large provincial, federal and even municipal courts, and that is not the case at a court martial. For example, there are regular courts martial at the base in Saint-Jean. The trappings may be a little different, but when it comes to the gist of the matter, justice is done.

This bill just ensures, therefore, that Bill C-16 will apply and the military justice system will reflect the goals and objectives of that legislation.

The current Minister of National Defence, who was formerly the Conservative defence critic, stated something that was a bit different, though, back in 2005. He slightly criticized the forerunner of this bill, that is to say Bill C-16, saying that military personnel found guilty of sex offences should be taken out of the Canadian armed forces because the military is set up so that everyone can be replaced in every operation.

We must not confuse the sentence with the registry. The problem now is that the sentences are carried out. For example, someone from the Canadian Forces who was sentenced for a sexual offence before the implementation of Bill S-3 could receive a sentence, could actually be discharged from the armed forces for a serious offence, but they did not have to enter their name in a registry that already exists for civilians.

The bill before us simply opens up the possibility that, from now on, a convicted member of the military who has received a sentence, whether or not they are discharged from the armed forces, will have to register their name. As several of my colleagues have said, there will be registration offices here and there throughout Canada for people to register and the measures will be pretty strict. I think that is a good thing. In fact, I get the impression that is why Bill S-3 before us is being fast-tracked, that is, that one representative for each political party will speak to the bill and then it will be deemed to have been adopted at all stages. We must not think that the matter is extremely complicated. It is simply an adjustment.

I also said a while ago that military justice is just as valid as civil justice, but it must be recalled that it operates in a very different context.

There are some exceptions in the bill. For example, someone could be sentenced in a sensitive theatre of operations. The example is often given of the special forces, whose numbers are not known and who operate in a theatre in an unknown location. If someone is convicted of a sexual offence in a court martial, obviously the event cannot be given a lot of coverage. The chief of staff can even say that, although there are time limits in the act for registering, he will have to exceed these limits because he is in a specific theatre of operations and national security requires him not to reveal where he is. We must understand that this is an exception. We acknowledge this.

Furthermore in the bill before us there are provisions that ensure that this is not a loophole. Not only will the person convicted of a sexual offence be sentenced, but they will also have to register their name. It was said earlier: these are tools that will help the police forces carry out their investigations. The person must register their name in any case. There are even provisions for revisiting a case every 15 days and determining whether the exemption on grounds of national security is still valid. I think that this is something important in the bill.

People must not get the idea that anyone is trying to get away with something or that someone in the military who is charged with a sexual offence, and convicted, is to be exempt from the law. We do not want people to get the idea someone can get away with something, or avoid their obligations. That is not the purpose of the law, or of this provision. It is not to allow someone to evade the law. In circumstances in which military operations are underway, it is important that there be allowance for taking the theatre of operations into account, and for sentencing the guilty person when it is over. The person will have to serve a sentence, and may even be expelled from the army, but in any event will have to register. The law did not provide for that, and now it does.

We are pleased to support this bill. We believe that this is simply a matter of consistency with Bill C-16. There will no longer be any exceptions in society. Even though we have a military justice system parallel to the civilian justice system, there must still be some logic in how they apply, and previously there was not.

In fact I believe that the Senate realized this. I should say, rather, that the other house realized there was a problem. That is why it decided to send the bill to the House of Commons.

I think they have done a good job. I do not believe that we need an exhaustive study of this matter. We may have made mistakes at certain times, for example on the question of the Veterans Charter. At the time, we thought that an election was coming and that the bill had to be passed at top speed, skipping some stages. We may have made mistakes, because not only was the bill longer, but it also had more impact on veterans as a group.

This bill, however, is not particularly long, and it really does not have many consequences, apart, as I said, from updating the law to be consistent with what was done in Bill C-16.

I do not think that there will be any national outcry if we say today that we go along with Bill C-16, that we will fast-track it through the stages, as we have decided to do and as the House leaders have also decided to do.

In conclusion, I would like to reassure the public. The military justice system will now be as effective and as stringent, in dealing with sexual offenders, as the civilian justice system is. Those people will not be able to avoid their obligations. They will have to be registered in the database like everyone else.

I therefore believe that there will be unanimous agreement in this House, at least from the Bloc Québécois. I have heard my colleagues say that they support the bill. The Bloc Québécois also supports Bill S-3.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in the debate on Bill S-3, An Act to amend the National Defence Act, the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Criminal Records Act.

First, it is important to clarify at the very beginning that this bill in no way seeks to discredit our Canadian Forces. On the contrary, they inspire pride and honour in us all. As we well know, our Canadian armed forces are now representing Canada overseas, whether in Afghanistan or in other countries. Some of our men and women have already made many sacrifices and some have paid with their lives to defend our great democratic values. In that respect, in particular, we must pay tribute to them.

Above all, we must not forget that they are also proud ambassadors of Canadian values. In addition, it is important to ensure that they properly represent the values that they are defending abroad. We must also ensure that the actions of these ambassadors respect the values that are enshrined in our own legal system. That is perfectly normal and consistent.

It must be understood that the bill we are discussing today refers to exceptionally rare circumstances. It must also be admitted that the provisions included in Bill S-3 are only rarely applied.

Nevertheless, the bill is an important legislative measure intended to ensure that the military justice system will continue to reflect Canadian legal standards. It ensures that the Canadian military justice system is integrated with the national sex offender registry, while taking into account military operational requirements.

Bill S-3 is almost identical to a bill in the last Parliament, Bill S-39, which was supported by all parties and I am especially pleased that we are proceeding with second reading of this bill today. While the name has been changed and there are slight amendments, it is essentially the same. I hope that it will receive the support of all parties in this House again today.

To properly understand the objective of this bill, we must first look at the current system.

In 2004, when the Sex Offender Information Registration Act was proclaimed and certain provisions were included in the Criminal Code, a registry was created of persons who had been convicted of certain sexual offences.

As part of this system, a criminal court judge can order a person convicted of an offence of a sexual nature to report to a police station on a regular basis in order to provide specific personal information. That information is then entered into a national database. The process can also be applied to persons convicted of a sexual offence who were serving a sentence at the time the act came into force.

I would like to underscore that the principal objective of the registry is to provide the various police forces with another tool to help in their investigations of sex offences, to identify potential suspects.

In that vein, I am sure everyone in this House will agree that it is in the public interest to ensure that military courts martial hand down the same sentences for sexual offences as do civilian tribunals.

I must also point out that members of the Canadian Forces who are required to participate in the National Sex Offender Registry may continue to serve in the military after a conviction. This will be possible by providing mechanisms to allow them to fulfill their reporting requirements from within the military operational environment.

As we all know, the remarkable work performed by the men and women of the Canadian Forces sometimes requires that information be withheld for security reasons. This is why subsection 227.16(1) was proposed.

It reads:

The Chief of the Defence Staff may determine that the communication, under section 6 of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, of information that relates to an operation could jeopardize national security, international relations or the security of an operation that is within a class of operations designated by a regulation made under paragraph 227.2(b).

However, there are measures to ensure that police forces can obtain information required for an investigation.

I already see some honourable members frowning and questioning the transparency of the above clause. I would like to reassure them. There are provisions in place governing the use of this clause and providing for the transfer of the information to the Department of National Defence which, in turn, must report to the two houses of this Parliament. The provisions are found in section 221.171, which reads as follows:

227.171 (1) The Chief of the Defence Staff shall, within 30 days after the end of each year, submit a report to the Minister on the operation of sections 227.15 and 227.16 for that year that includes

(a) the number of determinations made under each of paragraphs 227.15(a) to (d) and the duration of the suspension resulting from each determination; and

(b) the number of determinations made under subsection 227.16(1) and the number of persons exempted under subsection 227.16(4) as a result of each determination.

(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives the report.

I believe that this provision provides sufficient reassurance as it clearly indicates that decisions made by the Chief of the Defence Staff with regard to this act will not remain internal untraceable decisions.

I would like to add one more thing to help us understand the pertinence of this matter. Individuals charge with such offences are rarely found guilty; when they are, they are discharged from the armed forces most of the time. If they do remain in the armed forces, they must undergo counselling and are placed on probation in order to help them.

This bill ensures that the military judicial system reflects the same values and rights as our civil judicial system and, consequently, guarantees that the systems are equitable. Thus, it is with pleasure that I move that this bill be adopted and I strongly urge my colleagues in this House to support it.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of Bill S-3, An Act to amend the National Defence Act, the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Criminal Records Act.

When this government took office, we promised to deliver on five key priorities. Those priorities were: first, to clean up government by passing the federal Accountability Act; second, to provide tax relief to working families by cutting the GST; third, to make our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime; fourth, to help parents with the cost of raising their children; and fifth, to work with the provinces to establish a patient wait times guarantee.

I am proud to note that we have made progress on all five of these priorities, and we are moving ahead in other areas to improve the lives of Canadians. We are working toward building a stronger, safer and better Canada.

The bill we are debating today is directly related to one of our top five priorities, and that is cracking down on crime.

The existing Sex Offender Information Registration Act, or SOIRA, is an important tool for law enforcement. It provides police with rapid access to information regarding convicted sex offenders, which assists them in investigating crimes of a sexual nature.

The bill we have before us would bring the military justice system in line with the civilian criminal justice system through the SOIRA. During my time today, I want to explain how the bill would do just that.

I fully support this bill and I encourage my honourable colleagues to do the same. This is a complicated issue, so I hope to make it as clear as possible for my honourable colleagues.

I think we can benefit from looking at the current system for a moment.

In December 2004 the sex offender database was established under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. The sex offender database is maintained by the RCMP. It assists police in investigating crimes of a sexual nature by providing them with rapid access to information regarding convicted sex offenders.

I emphasize that the obligation to register pursuant to the SOIRA is not intended to be a tool to prevent sexual offences. Nor is it meant to be an additional punishment for a person who has been convicted of a sexual offence. The sole purpose of the database is to provide law enforcement officials with an up-to-date investigative tool for offences of a sexual nature.

Let me give the House an example of how this works. If an alleged sexual offence occurs in Ottawa, the local police investigating the offence here can quickly access the database to determine what sex offenders reside in this area. When necessary, the police can interview such individuals to aid in their investigation.

I would like to emphasize that police officers cannot access the national sex offender registry for just any reason.

Police officers can only access the database if they are investigating a sexual offence. The national sex offender registry is therefore an effective tool designed to help police officers who are investigating sex crimes. However, when the sex offender database was created in 2004, it did not include people convicted in the military justice system. That is what Bill S-3 seeks to change.

Under Bill S-3, a court martial could order a convicted sexual offender to register in the sex offender database. The bill would maintain Canadian legal norms with regard to the SOIRA. It simply would ensure that convictions for sexual offences pursuant to the National Defence Act would have the same effect as in the civilian criminal justice system for the purposes of the national sex offender database. This means that if a Canadian Forces member is convicted of a sexual offence by a court martial, he or she could be required to register pursuant to SOIRA, just like a sexual offender convicted in a civilian court.

Although the amendments to the National Defence Act are designed to harmonize the military justice system with the civilian criminal justice system, they are not an exact copy of the provisions contained in the Criminal Code.

Under the SOIRA, offenders who leave Canada must provide notice and specify the dates of their departure and return. This system may work well for offenders convicted under the civilian criminal justice system. However, it poses potential problems in the case of military personnel, given the unique nature of the military operational environment.

Some Canadian Forces member can, for example, be deployed from their home base with very little advance notice. This can occur, for instance, in response to a domestic emergency or for a deployment overseas. Depending on the nature of the operation, the release of the member's date of departure could put in peril the security of our armed forces and our allies.

Bill S-3 recognizes this fact and a certain amount of flexibility is therefore built into the bill. The bill would provide authority to the governor in council to designate registration centres for the Canadian Forces that could be located both inside and outside of Canada. As well, the bill would allow the Chief of the Defence Staff to determine how a sex offender could fulfill the reporting requirements and exercise the rights established under the SOIRA. I will explain these rights in more detail later in my speech.

First, if an offender's operational obligations prevent him or her from exercising their legal rights or for meeting some of the SOIRA requirements, the bill would address the situation. The key to this authority is that it would be only used to remedy a situation involving two conflicting legal obligation. This authority would allow Canadian Forces members to exercise their rights or satisfy their obligation under the SOIRA once their operational obligations have been completed. Ultimately, the offender would be required to fully comply with the SOIRA requirements.

Second, the bill would allow certain information to be excluded from the database when the Chief of the Defence Staff determined the release of this information could jeopardize national security, international relations or certain types of operations. However, the Chief of the Defence Staff would not exercise the authority granted under Bill S-3 for just any reason. The Chief of the Defence Staff could only exercise this authority when a registered offender could not comply with his or her reporting obligation for operational reasons. We do not expect that this authority would be exercised very often.

In essence, this important provision would allow a sex offender to report under the SOIRA while ensuring that information which could jeopardize national security, international relations or operational security would not be disclosed.

To summarize, Bill S-3 would extend the registration scheme of the SOIRA to individuals convicted of sexual offenders under the National Defence Act. This would bring the military justice system in line with the civilian criminal justice system, while taking into consideration the unique operational requirements of the Canadian Forces.

Bill S-3 would also ensure that the military justice system would continue to reflect the same legal norms that exist within the civilian justice system.

Bill S-3 is a step forward in terms of the government's efforts to fight crime. This government has given the police more tools and resources to fight crime.

The Sex Offender Information Registration Act is a valuable tool for police to investigate crimes of a sexual nature. This is why we want to extend the SOIRA registration scheme to individuals convicted of sexual offences under the National Defence Act.

I am thankful for the cooperation of all members who have allowed this worthy bill to go forward.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

moved that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the National Defence Act, the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Criminal Records Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the opposition House leader takes a very broad view of the definition of technical. However, we hope that Bill C-16 will progress and will be approved in a form that is appropriate and reasonable to approve and that we will have it here to deal with in the House quickly. That has not happened yet, however, and therefore today we are going to continue with the Liberal opposition motion and the business of supply.

Tomorrow we will continue debate on second reading of Bill C-35, which is the bail reform bill. This is one that has been the subject of positive words from the opposition, and we hope that we will be able to move to unanimous approval.

That would allow us to get on with other issues such as Bill C-42, the Quarantine Act; Bill S-2, hazardous materials; Bill S-3, which deals with defence and justice matters; and Bill C-33, which is an Income Tax Act item.

On Monday, we will be having day three of the budget debate. On Tuesday, we will have the final day of the budget debate.

On Wednesday and Thursday we will continue with the unfinished business from this Friday, including hopefully, the addition of Bill C-10 dealing with mandatory minimum penalties, which I know the opposition House leader will want to add to his package of justice bills he wishes to enthusiastically support.

On Friday, March 30 we will begin debate on the budget implementation bill.

I would like to designate, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), Wednesday, March 28 for the continuation of the debate on the motion to concur in the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and Thursday, March 29 for the continuation of the debate on the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Health.

There is one further item that the opposition House leader raised which was the question of the labour bill. I believe he heard a very generous offer from the Minister of Labour today. I believe the ball is now in the opposition's court on this.

Official Languages

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I can only smile as the Bloc throws its little temper tantrum. It is the only party that did not vote to support Bill S-3 and that does not believe in la Francophonie outside of Quebec.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, it always makes me smile when the Bloc talks to me about la Francophonie, when everyone in this House knows very well that the Bloc is the only party that voted against Bill S-3.

The new model sets out a strict timeframe. More than three quarters of the objectives should be achieved by the end of 2007.

I would like to reiterate that, as far as the government is concerned, linguistic duality within the armed forces is a priority.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on the Bloc opposition motion.

Tomorrow I hope to start and conclude the debate on the third reading stage of Bill C-36. This relates to the Canada pension plan and old age security.

Next week and the following week will of course be constituency weeks and members will be working in their constituencies while the House is adjourned.

When the House returns on Monday, March 19, it is my intention to call the report stage of Bill C-10, the mandatory minimums penalty part of our agenda to make communities safer; Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act; Bill S-3, to do with defence; and Bill C-33, relating to income tax.

At 4 p.m. on Monday, March 19, the Minister of Finance will present his budget, as he has previously advised the House. Tuesday, March 20 will then be the first day of the budget debate. Wednesday will be day two.

I am currently asking that Thursday, March 22 be the last allotted day subject to any need to reschedule given that we are three weeks away from that day.

Official Languages

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, we have signed nearly $1 billion in agreements with the territories and provinces: agreements on services for the minority communities in Canada, and agreements with the communities to enable them to promote their activities.

We are committed to official languages. We supported Bill S-3, and I am satisfied that my colleagues are going to fulfil their responsibilities in relation to official languages.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

You can consult former service men and women. Now that they can speak, of course. It's funny how hard it is to get any information out of military personnel who haven't yet retired. They are extremely polite, kind, and do what they are asked.

On the other hand, those who are no longer with the service have no qualms about coming to our offices and telling us stories about how bad things are. For example, we were told that on National Defence's big Airbus the film was only screened in English. Now, that's not the end of the world, but it's the kind of thing that gets me a little riled.

It clearly indicates that steps need to be taken to ensure the public is consulted. These people are part of Canadian society. Why should National Defence be excluded? When bill S-3 was enacted, it made these provisions binding instead of declaratory. Don't we have a new tool to help us enforce the act?

I think that we need to add what I am about to say to the record. No one asked the commissioner anything about the anglophone issue at National Defence. We need to try and make sure these two languages are on an equal footing in the workplace. Francophones can't be turned into anglophones and vice versa, but these people should be able to get service in their own language. Right now, this is not the case.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on the Liberal opposition motion.

Tomorrow morning we will begin debate on the procedural motion relating to the back to work legislation, to which the opposition House leader was referring. Also, we will have Bill C-45, the Fisheries Act, following question period.

On Monday, we would like to conclude the debate on the statutory order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act, which is very important for Canadians for public security reasons. We are also getting down to the deadline when certain provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act will sunset.

I have consulted with the other parties and I will propose a related motion at the end of my business statement.

Next week we will consider the following bills: Bill C-37, financial institutions; Bill C-41, competition; Bill C-11, transport; Bill S-3, defence; Bill C-42, the Quarantine Act; Bill C-36, Canada pension plan and old age security; Bill C-10, mandatory minimum penalties; and depending on developments regarding the railway strike, we may call the procedural motion relating to the back to work legislation.

Thursday, March 1 shall be an allotted day.

As I mentioned earlier, following discussions with the House leaders of the other parties, Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion. I move:

Motion

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, once the Statutory Order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act is called on Monday, February 26, and when no member rises to speak on debate or at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, all questions necessary to dispose of the Statutory Order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act be deemed put, a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, February 27, at 5:30 p.m.

An Act to amend the National Defence Act, the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Criminal Records Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-3, An Act to amend the National Defence Act, the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Criminal Records Act.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

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 a public bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired.

Bill S-3, An Act to amend the National Defence Act, the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Criminal Records Act.

Criminal Code

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of this bill. After listening to the comments from the hon. member for Joliette, it seems the Bloc is more concerned about the dangerous offender than the victim, or the young child who has been abused, injured or sexually mistreated, or the mother or father of that child, or those potential children who might be abused. If we pass this legislation, this could otherwise be prevented.

As we know, safe streets and communities are important to all constituents in Canada. We are rightly proud of the history of having safe streets and homes, but times are changing and Canadians are experiencing not only an increase in crime, but an increase in a crime of the most heinous kind, one that is violent and abuses the sanctity of people, particularly children. They have called upon the government to take action. They have called upon the government to pass legislation not only in this area, but in other areas as well. We cannot ignore this problem. We must roll up our sleeves, do the job that needs to be done and work in committee to get the bill passed.

During the last election, we promised Canadians that we would crack down on crime, and that is exactly what we propose to do. We promised, we made a commitment and we are moving on it. We have tabled Bill C-27 in that regard.

In a nutshell, Bill C-27 deals with dangerous offenders and provides for ways of dealing with them. In particular, it also deals with section 810, peace bonds, which can put certain restrictions upon them should they ever get released.

To make it clear, many are calling upon the government to take action. Recent events in the area of Whitewood, Saskatchewan have brought many constituents together. They have presented a petition to the government asking for action. They have said that dangerous offenders should not be out on the loose or if they are released, they should be subject to some of the severest of conditions, so the public is not endangered by their actions. They have not only united the community in that area, but all of the constituency that I represent, including Saskatchewan, as well as provinces beyond.

We have received petitions signed by up to 24,000 to 25,000 Canadians who urge this government to take action. Today, I had the opportunity to file those petitions. It is fitting that we would do it on the day we are introducing Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation. Let us see what they call for in that petition.

They have asked the government to proceed with changes to the justice system in legislation that would result in harsher penalties for convicted pedophiles. They have asked for mandatory or compulsory electronic or other forms of monitoring of pedophiles upon release from custody. They have asked for compulsory public notification and movements of convicted pedophiles. They have asked that we ensure repeat offenders are designated as dangerous offenders.

Why has this situation incited such an interest in the many constituencies, people and communities of Canada? Because the public is fed up. People have had enough of this easy justice, especially where people have been convicted of the same serious offences on at least three occasions, offences that require two or more years of jail time. They are saying there comes a point in time where something needs to be done. These people need to be contained or released under very strict conditions.

I am quite pleased to say that the Government of Canada has responded to the petition that my constituents have filed, and its response is interesting to note. It says that the Government of Canada is fully committed to protecting children from sexual offenders. In the last Parliament, Bill C-2 introduced mandatory minimum penalties for many sexual offences committed against children. These offences are, therefore, not eligible for a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

Also, a number of criminal law reform initiatives have recently been introduced in this regard, including: Bill C-9 to restrict the availability of conditional sentences, which I just mentioned; Bill C-22 to increase the age of protection; Bill C-27, regarding dangerous and high risk offenders, about whom I speak today; and Bill S-3, regarding improvements to the national sex offender registry.

As introduced, Bill C-9 would toughens penalties for a number of sex offences, including offences against children, by making it clear that the conditional sentence is no longer available. Who could argue against that? Bill C-22 would better protect against youth adult sexual predators by raising the age of consent from 14 years to 16 years.

Who opposes this legislation? The opposition parties, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Party and the New Democratic Party have been obstructionist in committee. They have taken clauses out. They have watered them down. They have made them almost of no effect, when just the opposite is what the people of Canada expect. They expect us to get at least that tough, and tougher. They try to use the argument that it might not be constitutional.

However, these individuals, these victims, need protection, and that is exactly what we are about to do. Most Canadians are calling for us to take that action. It would be a good point for the opposition to take that into account, get behind us and have this legislation passed, as opposed to delaying it in committee.

Official Languages

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, this plan complies with the Official Languages Act and also accommodates the unique structure of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces.

Had the Bloc member truly wished to help francophones, particularly francophones outside Quebec, he would have enlisted support for Bill S-3.

[Luketa M'Pindou]

This is how I interpret Bill S-3. Part VII of the Official Languages Act sets out the government's obligations towards our communities, and this obligation must be met in partnership with our communities, through consultations as to whether or not changes must be made.

Therefore, we were surprised with the announcement made in September, because our communities were not consulted. That is why I said in relation to Bill S-3 that we would at least have felt we'd been considered had we been consulted, but we weren't. We were therefore taking a back by the cutbacks.

Therefore we are asking the government and your committee to make an effort so that the government fulfils the promise provided for under section 17 of the action plan, that stipulates that a community must be consulted.

[Luketa M'Pindou, Coordinator, Alliance Jeunesse-Famille de l'Alberta Society]

Mr. Chairman, members of the Standing Committee, I was pleased to accept the invitation to appear before your standing committee and to present my brief as part of your study of the vitality of the official language minority communities. I thank you for your cordial gesture to me and to our agency, the Alliance Jeunesse-Famille de l'Alberta Society.

Mr. Chairman, the organization I represent, the Alliance Jeunesse-Famille de l'Alberta Society, is a non-profit francophone organization that provides assistance to immigrant youth and families in Alberta in the areas of education and crime prevention. Its ultimate goal is to enhance Canada's cultural diversity. The Alliance Jeunesse-Famille de l'Alberta Society fosters respect for Canada's linguistic duality and promotes its cultural diversity.

We are aware that we live in a context in which respect for linguistic duality often poses problems for us and threatens the vitality of our official language minority communities. Through the support for Official Language Communities Program, the survival of most of the community organizations is directly attributable to this program. I want to assure you that this program, the SOLCP, plays an essential role in the development and vitality of our communities.

Mr. Chairman, in March 2003, the federal government established the Action Plan for Official Languages, an action plan that includes section 17 of the accountability and coordination framework, which precisely describes the steps that each federal institution must take in its strategic planning and in the performance of its mandate as regards official languages. The current government has also expressed its commitment to this action plan. I think that this gesture is a positive measure with respect to our official language minority communities.

Another positive gesture was that the Government of Canada wanted to give more points for knowledge of one of the official languages in its selection of the best candidates in its new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Another cause for congratulations is the amendments made to the Official Languages Act, to its Part VII, with Bill S-3, in which every federal institution will have a duty to take positive measures for the official language minority communities.

The Government of Canada's commitment to come to the aid of our official language minority communities takes many forms. We francophones see this commitment in areas such as education, health, justice, early childhood, immigration, arts, the economy, and I could go on. However, our communities received a surprise in September when the federal government announced budget cuts that threw a spotlight on the survival of our official language minority communities. I don't want to go into detail about these budget cuts, since the majority of our members across the country have already submitted many complaints about this.

Mr. Chairman, I am certain of and aware of the role that your committee plays in developing official language policies in our country. I would like to inform you that our organization, the Alliance Jeunesse-Famille de l'Alberta Society, through its programs and services, is a vibrant and valuable presence in the Albertan francophonie that manifests itself through the participation of our youth and women members on various consultative committees, as guests, delegates and active members. Indeed, our programs and services offer our members opportunities to be heard and to contribute to the vitality of the francophonie by giving them a chance to participate in various activities in partnership with community and government agencies at the local, regional, national and international level.

I can mention a few programs that our youth participate in, such as the Canada Youth Exchange Program, the Young Canada Works in Both Official Languages Program, the Alberta Youth Parliament, the Alberta Francophone Games, the Youth Mobility Program with the Agence intergouvernementale de la Francophonie, and UNESCO's Youth Consultations. We feel that participation such as this contributes to the vitality of the francophonie and also helps integrate effectively into Canadian society.

In addition to these activities, we maintain very good relations with Quebec agencies such as the Fondation de la tolérance and the Chantier d'Afrique, with which we collaborate through the Community Financial Support Program administered by the Secrétariat aux affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes or SAIC.

Mr. Chairman, given that your committee plays a very important role in developing official languages policy, I would like to give you some recommendations.

That the Standing Committee on Official Languages ensure that the federal government's commitment to the official language minority communities respects the equality entrenched in the Canadian Charter.

That the Standing Committee on Official Languages ensure that the federal government take positive measures under Bill S-3 to benefit the official language minority communities while respecting the consultation process set out in the accountability framework in the Action Plan for Official Languages.

I hope that my presentation has given you a better understanding of our participation in the survival of the official language minority communities. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your study of the vitality of the official language minority communities. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address your committee. I am ready to take your questions.

Thank you.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for getting to this question before you get to the wrap-up on your summary page, but I'm watching the clock here, and we're winding down.

As I prepared for today's meeting, I referred to our original briefings on this topic, going back to our early days when this committee was established for this Parliament. I read there that in the 38th Parliament and towards the end of November or October of 2005, this committee actually raised a number of issues regarding lobbyist registration, and admittedly was unable to follow up on those items. These briefing notes don't really lay out specifically what those items were.

I wonder if you could comment in general on what those areas might be, and to what extent Bill C-2 will address them. I assume they're covered in the areas that you've already touched on, about enforcement and the independence of the office. Are there any outstanding issues if we look back to November of 2005?

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

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 the following public bill to which the concurrence of this House is desired:

Bill S-202, an act to repeal legislation that has not come into force within ten years of receiving royal assent.

It being 11:05 a.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

State Immunity Act

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-346, An Act to amend the State Immunity Act and the Criminal Code (terrorist activity).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of all Canadians to introduce a bill entitled, an act to amend the State Immunity Act and the Criminal Code, terrorist activity.

The bill would amend the State Immunity Act to prevent foreign states that engage in terrorist activity from claiming immunity from the jurisdiction of Canadian courts. It also amends the Criminal Code to provide victims who suffer loss or damages as a result of terrorist activity with a civil remedy against the person or state who engaged in the terrorist activity.

The legislation is far superior and more comprehensive than anything ever tabled in this House. Terrorism is not a victimless crime and the victims and their families must be ensured that their rights are protected.

I thank the member for Cambridge for seconding my bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

ALS Month Act

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-244, An Act to designate the month of June as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (also known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease) Month.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to recognize the month of June as ALS month across Canada. Hopefully this bill and the debates that will take place on it will help bring Canadians' attention to this devastating disease.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)