Carole-Marie Allard

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am quite happy to speak today to this very important issue raised by the member of the opposition. He calls for a bill to be drafted and introduced to establish a registry of sexual offenders.

There is no doubt in my mind that the opposition's objective is quite laudable. This wish to protect vulnerable people and children in Canada is obviously something that we parliamentarians in Canada all take to heart.

However, I feel the need to say today that I will be voting against this motion. I believe that it duplicates what already exists in Canada. I am part of a government that has been studying this issue for several years and that continues to examine, together with the provinces and territories, better ways in which to protect children and people who are vulnerable in our society.

In the early 1990s, our government held broad consultations across the country. We consulted with representatives from organizations responsible for the care and protection of children, children's aid societies, school boards, the Big Brothers and Big Sisters, Volunteer Canada, police forces and victims groups.

These people have not asked us to create a sex offender registry. They have asked us to help them screen people wishing to work with children and other vulnerable individuals, so as to be assured that they have no record of sexual offences.

Madam Speaker, I should point out before going on that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Oak Ridges.

These consultations have been effective, leading to creation of the national screening system. This was developed with the co-operation of the police forces and child welfare organizations, and is working very well. It led to the creation of the Canadian Police Information Centre.

This centre provides law enforcement agencies with access to a data bank that allows local police forces to assist organizations to search for police records.

According to the latest figures, there had been more than 700,000 search requests from volunteer organizations across Canada. We can conclude, therefore, that this is an excellent tool for protecting children and other vulnerable members of our society.

The government has done a great deal to protect vulnerable individuals and children. These steps include harsher sentences for dangerous offenders, protection orders coupled with special conditions, and more stringent child pornography legislation. The national system for screening persons in positions of trust with children is one key element in the whole government strategy.

I do not think it advisable to adopt the motion presented today by the opposition, because the creation of a national dangerous offender registry poses some real problems.

Which model would we adopt? Would we go along the lines of the registry already in place in the U.S. or Ontario, with which many find fault? What about the costs of such a registry Are they known? What about the related staffing costs? Are we not lulling the public into a false sense of security by talking of a national dangerous offender registry when truly dangerous offenders will find a way to get around it?

So there are fundamental issues involved and it is important today to look at them, because of the costs, the criteria relating to offences and the concerns regarding the charter and constitutional law.

The opposition often blames us for imposing structures on the provinces. In Ottawa, we have a task force that is working with the provinces to find better solutions, to co-operate and come up with effective solutions. This working group will meet again soon, on February 13 and 14. A team of senior federal, provincial and territorial officials has already met on numerous occasions and will meet again in the coming months to improve the existing structure.

I am of course in favour of improving the Canadian Police Information Centre, rather than creating a new structure that stakeholders do not really want. There is no doubt that the government is working. I sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and I can say that this government works relentlessly to ensure that the best possible tools are available to protect Canadians in their neighbourhoods. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Department of Justice, along with the provinces and territories, will continue their work and, on a regular basis, monitor progress.

In conclusion, I want to say once again that the government is doing its best to protect Canadians and will continue to do so. We will continue to find solutions that are innovative and that benefit all Canadians. We will continue to improve our Canadian Information Police Centre. It is a reliable data bank that has proven effective.

The provinces that want their own sex offender registries will be able to use the Canadian Information Police Centre to transmit useful information to all police forces in the country.

For these reasons, I must oppose the motion, because it is important to co-ordinate the efforts made in Canada to protect vulnerable people and children. In my opinion, the sex offender registry is a structure that we should not impose on the provinces, since they are currently not interested in it and since such a structure would interfere with existing jurisdictions.

I trust that our government will continue to work to protect vulnerable people and children in our society. Therefore, I will not support the motion.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

It was a very nice meeting and, on the contrary, they are looking forward to have that money to invest it in young people in Quebec, money that has been frozen for the past four years—

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer this. I met stakeholders on the island of Laval and I did ask them to tell me. I can assure you that I did not find the opposition they are talking about today.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I must say it is indeed very difficult to speak in this House.

Why are opposition members across the way afraid of the truth? The truth is here. They should read the bill. They could see that from now on there will no longer be—

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal members did not feel compelled to hire an artist to promote the coalition against a bill.

The facts speak for themselves. Words are eloquent. The articles are there. I am proud of the fact that from now on young Quebecers will be dealt with in juvenile courts. They will no longer be dealt with in an adult court. Those having committed minor offences will not have to go before a juvenile court. There will be alternative measures in the community.

Police officers will be able to exercise—

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague will understand that in Quebec, we have looked at new approaches. We have gone a bit further. We have developed many solutions, many alternatives.

The member will also recognize that in Quebec, a juvenile court judge rules according to two laws: the Youth Protection Act and the Young Offenders Act. Therefore, those who work with youth in Quebec have to deal with two groups of people, those who have been referred to them because they need protection, coming from a broken family or something like that, and those who are young offenders.

We have indeed developed community alternatives, perhaps more than other provinces have done. But there is still much to do. That is why Bill C-7 is trying to put forward an improvement, a standardization of what is being done in Canada, so that youngsters in British Columbia have the same opportunities and the right to the same alternative measures as those in Quebec.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have been misquoted. Quite the contrary, I have praised the work of stakeholders in Quebec. However, the hon. member has made his opposition to the renewal of the youth justice system in Canada his lifelong cause and I do have doubts about his motives.

Is he against the fact that youth are no longer brought before an adult court? Does he oppose the fact that youth no longer serve their sentences in adult jails? I would like him to answer that. I have met stakeholders in Quebec who are far from the position reported today by the member for Berthier—Montcalm.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

The principles are contradictory and not uniform. The Young Offenders Act is outdated.

Bill C-7 has the great advantage of ensuring that no longer will young people appear before an adult court. The youth court will have exclusive jurisdiction. Let us quit grandstanding and think of the young people of Quebec, who have rights, including the right to freedom and the right to be confident that their rights will be protected in our society.

I see that the game of the Bloc opposition has finally been revealed. Even our senators voted in favour of the bill. They passed it and are proposing a single amendment. Let us congratulate them as well and move forward with Bill C-7 because Quebec society is in great need of it.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

I will give just one example. The primary purpose of the system is not stated in the Young Offenders Act. With the new legislation, it will be.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

They told me that when young people commit an offence, we should be able to make them immediately realize the seriousness of their acts”. When they arrest young people who scribble graffiti, they should make the offenders buy products to clean up their scribblings immediately.

These alternative measures, these extrajudicial measures, as they are called in the bill, are important. It is important to have some flexibility and this is what this bill provides.

Victims want to be involved. The new legislation includes a whole chapter that ensures that victims can participate, meet the young offenders, know what is happening and try to help them. The goal is always the same. Young people are our future. They are the ones who will see to it that tomorrow's society is a good society. We must help them and protect them. We must get adults involved. We must get the victims involved. We must not strip society of its responsibilities.

The Bloc Quebecois has been trying to tell us—and I have actual quotes from some members of that opposition party—that this is terrible, that from now on under Bill C-7 a young offender will not be arrested for a minor offence. For the Bloc Quebecois, putting a young person in a youth centre is a form of therapy.

What we are saying is that depriving a young person of his freedom must be a necessary measure. A young person is subject of the law just like an adult. What happens in a youth centre? I read the report of Quebec's Commission des droits de la personne et de la jeunesse. It mentions cases of young people who are forgotten in youth centres, young people who are there under the youth protection act with other young offenders and delinquents.

The system is not perfect. Despite the goodwill of those working with young people in Quebec, there is a danger of oversights and young people being forgotten.

I visited the Laval youth centre. It has locked cells where young people are forced to live in situations which deprive them of their freedom.

If we can find solutions, get community organizations to participate involve the greatest possible number of members of our community, let us do it. Are we helping our society by saying that this bill is repressive? It is not repressive. It takes into account a situation that already exists in Quebec and which is relatively successful. We must do something to ensure that young people are treated the same everywhere in Canada. We must be able to take what Quebec has done well and apply it elsewhere. The other provinces must be able to benefit from Quebec's success in implementing so-called extrajudicial or diversionary measures.

The existing Young Offenders Act is outmoded. It has no declaration of principle.