Bill C-55 (Historical)

Public Safety Act, 2002

An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety

Public Safety Act, 2002

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-55, the Public Safety Act, 2002. This new bill proposes to amend 20 acts of parliament and to enact one new one as part of the government's anti-terrorism plan.

Following the tragic and horrible events of September 11, we acted immediately to put in place the necessary strategic, operational, financial and legislative tools to strengthen our ability to protect Canada and Canadians against terrorism.

To that end, the 2001 budget included a $7.7 billion investment in safety over a period of five years. During this initial process, we drafted Bill C-42, which was our original framework to ensure public safety.

Since that time we have reflected upon how we can best contribute to making our country as safe and secure as possible. We have listened to the provinces, the territories, the public and of course most important, the members of the House, especially my colleagues in the Liberal caucus.

We have responded to their views. This is the essence of parliamentary democracy. Initiatives are brought forward, they are debated and arguments are made. The government has listened, has withdrawn the original bill and has brought forward a new bill which is improved and would deal with the criticisms that were levelled. While the new bill contains many of the important elements of Bill C-42, it also incorporates many significant improvements.

Several technical and consequential changes were made to the new bill, and several clauses were renumbered. I can discuss this in committee.

I would like to look more closely at three of the main changes that we made to the bill, namely the provisions dealing with interim orders, with access zones and with providing the solicitor general with access to airline passenger information for transportation security, antiterrorism and other law enforcement purposes.

First, we have revised the provisions concerning the government's ability to issue interim orders when they are essential to combat an immediate and serious threat or risk to health, safety, security or to the environment.

As we know these orders are issued in extraordinary circumstances when there is no regulation or inadequate regulation to address the threat under acts within the mandate of the Ministers of Health, Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, and Transport.

Members will recall that the provisions would ensure that the interim order must be valid for a period of up to one year and must be published in the Canada Gazette within 23 days from the time it is issued. It could be repealed at any time and would be subject to judicial review.

We felt that all of those safeguards were in place in the original Bill C-42, especially the fact that any of these orders could be challenged in the courts. There were a number of questions raised in the House and we have added additional safeguards to the new bill.

For example, we have reduced the period within which a minister would be required to obtain approval from the governor in council from 90 days to 45 days after the order is made. We have also required that a copy of these interim orders of general application, including those made under the Aeronautics Act, be tabled in parliament within the first 15 sitting days after the order is issued.

This is a particularly important feature of the act. Unlike in Bill C-42, the orders would be tabled with the Clerk of the House. That means, when a document is given to the House, hon. members may move the appropriate motion if they wish it to be debated. I would submit that this does give parliamentarians a formal role to express their views on these interim orders.

It is not a question of parliamentary consent being given. That consent of course is given when the law is passed in its original form. That means it is legal for the government to issue such orders. If there is a challenge to a particular order, if it is controversial, if public pressure is needed to ask the government to modify that order, then we believe, by tabling that order in the House, it means there is an opportunity to have it debated if indeed that is required.

We believe this strikes the right balance between ensuring that the government can meet its responsibility to act immediately in a crisis situation while ensuring that an appropriate degree of control is exercised.

Second, we are following up on issues raised in connection with a number of amendments in Bill C-42 concerning the National Defence Act.

“Military security zones” have been replaced by “controlled access military zones”. The new provisions significantly reduces the size of these zones by limiting their use to the protection of defence establishments as well as Canadian Forces and visiting forces personnel and property located outside the defence establishments.

We have also included time restrictions and more stringent requirements for zone establishment and approval. For instance, a zone would be designated for up to one year, unless renewed by the governor in council. Also, we have taken all appropriate measures to ensure that a zone designation or variance notice is published in the Canada Gazette within 23 days.

Third, we responded to assertions by some hon. members that the former bill did not go far enough to prevent access by terrorists to Canadian planes. We have added an amendment to the Aeronautics Act that would provide the solicitor general with access to airline passenger information for transportation security, anti-terrorism and other limited law enforcement purposes.

Under this amendment select designated RCMP officers would be able to match the passenger information with other information under their control. For example, the RCMP officers in the air carrier protective program would be able to use this information to determine which passengers may pose a risk to public safety or to transportation security so they may decide on which flights RCMP officers should be present.

Other designated RCMP officers could use the information to check whether a passenger is subject to an arrest warrant for a serious offence such as murder or kidnapping, or subject to a warrant issued under the Immigration Act.

Also, CSIS officers would have access to this information for the purpose of investigating potential terrorists or terrorism threats, pursuant to their mandate under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

In addition to these strict access and use provisions we have added other provisions limiting disclosure. For example, these officers would only be able to disclose this information to a third party for purposes restricted to transportation security, outstanding arrest warrants, compliance with a subpoena or court order, or for immediate threats to life, health, safety or transportation security.

We believe it is essential to protect the privacy of personal information. For this reason we have built in numerous privacy safeguards. For example, under this proposed regime: passenger information must be destroyed within seven days unless it is reasonably required for transportation security or for investigating security threats to Canada; written requirements of all retention and disclosures must be kept; the RCMP commissioner and the director of CSIS must conduct annual reviews of information retained by designated officers and further retention must be justified; and only a CSIS designated officer would be able to disclose to another CSIS employee for a counterterrorism investigation under the CSIS Act, and only after approval by a senior designated CSIS officer.

We believe that we have effectively balanced the legitimate information needs of law enforcement and intelligence officers with respect to the privacy of Canadians. We believe that we have protected both our democratic rights and our rights to live safely and securely. Once we begin to evaluate people the debate between the privacy of individuals and the security of the flight begins.

Bill C-55 places this debate squarely where it should be, within parliament with its proposals on how, and for what purpose, airline passenger data can be accessed. I know there will be a vigorous debate on this and other matters in the bill. I understand that today the privacy commissioner issued a letter of concern on some of the provisions in the bill. I met with him last week to talk about the general direction of the bill and told him the aims of the government in bringing the bill forward. After the bill was tabled he had an opportunity to look at its wording, and he has some concerns. I am sure he will address those concerns and be called before the relevant committee to make his point.

I would ask members to keep in mind that prior to September 11 it was generally accepted that screening should ensure that no undesirable item be carried onto an aircraft such as a gun, hunting knife or hand grenade. It was obviously made clear on September 11 that a group of five people could take over an aircraft with ordinary objects. We believe this requires that screening no longer simply look for the object, but that people themselves be considered. That is why we need some of the changes in this particular bill.

I want to look at the major changes in the new bill which directly come under my responsibility as Minister of Transport.

We have retained our amendment to the Aeronautics Act to be able to access airline passenger data for transportation security purposes only. Under this limited regime we would collect airline passenger data on a specific person or on all persons on a specific flight in the event of an immediate security threat so that we may issue appropriate security measures or emergency directions. Once again, we have built in strict privacy safeguards to the regime.

In the interest of enhancing transparency we have added to the bill the details that we said previously would be set out later in regulations. As a result we have specified: the exact data elements that are to be provided to the minister in the schedule attached to the bill; the persons to whom the minister may disclose the information, namely the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and to persons designated by the RCMP or CSIS; and strict use and destruction requirements, namely that the information could be used only for transportation security purposes and could only be disclosed within the organizations I just mentioned, and that it must be disposed of within seven days of the date it was first received by those organizations. The only exception is when that information is disclosed by Transport Canada to the officers designated by the RCMP and CSIS, those agencies would follow the provisions of their regime.

Given that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority or CATSA was not in existence when Bill C-42 was drafted, we have proposed some amendments to the CATSA act in the new bill.

We have clarified the definition of a screening point to indicate that an authorized aerodrome operator may act on behalf of CATSA in the delivery of screening services.

In addition we have added amendments that would allow CATSA to enter into agreements with any airport operator to contribute to the costs of policing at the airports. There were some airports that were not covered originally. One in particular in the home province of the critic for the Alliance, Kelowna, which is owned by the city, would not have had the benefit of receiving such contributions. This would deal with that particular anomaly.

Finally, following concerns expressed by Canadian port authorities, we are proposing amendments to the Marine Transportation Security Act so that the Government of Canada can make financial contributions in respect of actions that enhance security on vessels or at marine facilities.

These contributions would need the approval of the Governor in Council given on the recommendation of the Treasury Board. This financing comes with a sunset provision that will come into effect after three years, since all security initiatives requiring capital investments should be over by then.

In tabling this new bill the government has signalled its openness to improve the legislative framework that would enhance our ability to respond quickly and effectively should a significant threat arise and to provide Canadians with a safe and secure environment. It will continue to be flexible as we move forward in the legislative process, and we will continue to work in the interests of all Canadians as we strive to protect Canada from the tragedy of war or terrorism.

I believe that the Government of Canada acted with dispatch after the terrible events of September 11. We introduced new regulations. We provided moneys for additional security. Canadians have been assured by what the government has done.

Just in the aviation field alone, the president of the Canadian Air Force Council was here yesterday to meet with some of us. He told me that airport traffic as of the end of last month was down only 9% over a year earlier. Given what happened on September 11 and given of course the slower economy last year, this tells me that Canadians are coming back into the skies, they are flying, because they have confidence. Yes, the economy is improving, but they really have confidence in the security that we have put in place.

In the United States the situation is not the same. Our friends in the U.S. are still not really assured that it is safe to fly. I believe the U.S. government has done an admiral job. We have worked with the FAA. We have worked with our counterparts in the department of transportation in Washington. For any Americans who are watching the proceedings today, they should know that their government has done an admirable job in bringing in tighter controls and newer regulations.

Of course on September 11 the attacks were made in the United States. Americans feel that they are perhaps more vulnerable and they are the targets. Perhaps Canadians do not feel that way. However we believe that air travel is safe and that people are indeed flying once again.

I know the hon. members would like me to not be as thoughtful. They would want some histrionics. I am sure my friend from Port Moody--Coquitlam--Coquitlam will be there, arms waving and making the normal outrageous insinuations that he has made over time. I will not fall into that trap today because this is serious business. I can see the gravitas on the faces of my colleagues because they take this seriously.

We have done a good job. We continue to do a good job. I would hope that the members of the House will support this initiative. It is worthy of their support. We have listened to parliamentarians. We have listened to Canadians. This bill is worthy of the support of all members of the House and I hope that they will support it.

Terrorism

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to support the decision of the government to ratify the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. This brings to 12 the number of conventions we have ratified.

In this war against terrorism, as mentioned by my colleague from Mercier, we must also ratify the other international instruments dealing with human rights.

All states should be encouraged to ratify international human rights conventions at the earliest possible time, particularly the six core treaties. As well, ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court should be promoted along with a strengthening of the mandate of the court to enable it to deal with terrorism which may not constitute a crime against humanity. In the struggle against terrorism the importance of respecting fundamental human rights and freedoms must be underscored. As Bacre Ndiaye of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights pointed out:

There is evidence that some Governments are now introducing measures that may erode core human rights safeguards.

In some countries, non-violent activities have been considered as terrorism, and excessive measures have been taken to suppress or restrict individual rights--

Here at home the so-called anti-terrorism legislation Bill C-36 and the legislation just tabled, Bill C-55, raise serious human rights concerns as well.

In the fight against terrorism we must do far more to tackle the conditions which give rise to desperation and hopelessness and can ultimately be exploited by terrorists. These include poverty, the injustices that continue in the Middle East with respect to the illegal occupation by Israel of the occupied Palestinian territories, the inhumane sanctions on Iraq, and the continued denial of the rights of the Kurdish people.

We in our party welcome the decision of the government to ratify the treaty. However much more work must be done if we are to effectively counter terrorism around the globe.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, seven and a half months after the attacks of September 11 in the United States, I would like to commend Canada's ratification of the international convention on the suppression of terrorist bombings.

This convention, adopted at the UN General Assembly on December 15, 1997, will improve international co-operation in fighting the problem of terrorism, which is defined as the actions of a person who:

unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility

The 19 states that ratified this convention are committed to criminalizing such acts, bringing those who commit such acts and their accomplices before the court, and co-operating with other states by sharing information in order to prevent new attacks.

When it comes into effect, following the 22nd ratification, the convention will in no way change the fragile, but critical balance between security on the one hand, and freedom on the other. It specifies that the normal rule of law will continue to apply, as will international conventions safeguarding human rights.

With the ratification in February of the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism, Canada has now finally signed the 12 UN conventions on terrorism.

The Bloc Quebecois is very happy about this. Terrorist violence only leads to more violence and repression. For this reason, in the days following September 11, the Bloc Quebecois asked the government to ratify these conventions. This is why we supported the principle of anti-terrorism legislation that would allow the government to put these conventions into effect.

However, we deplore the fact that the government took advantage of the climate of crisis to diminish citizen's rights, as in the controversial Bill C-55. The government should have taken its cue from the convention and maintained the balance between security and human rights.

Public Safety Act

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 allows the Minister of National Defence to promulgate martial law, even within the precinct of the National Assembly, should he decide to park one of the military vehicles there, and parliament will have no say on this.

The present Emergency Measures Act gives parliament the power to revoke or modify any order issued in an emergency situation.

Could we have an explanation of why these powers are not included in Bill C-55?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 lets the Minister of National Defence establish martial law wherever he puts something that belongs to the military. It could be a tank. It could be a staff car. That martial law applies to the air above and any water or land surrounding the military vehicle. This is drive-by martial law.

Moreover, the minister may choose not to tell anyone the order has been issued. Yet he can fine or imprison any person found in the area surrounding the vehicle. How will a citizen know when the car he is beside makes him subject to martial law and a fine and imprisonment?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, never have we seen a Prime Minister of Canada so incapable of responding to questions in the House of Commons that he passes his responsibility on to his MPs.

In committee, we all know that the Prime Minister is not there and the Minister of National Defence will not answer questions. The MPs are the ones who will.

Instead of patting himself on the back about his Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as he has been doing for the past two weeks, I call upon the Prime Minister to require his government to respect the rights of citizens. Bill C-55 violates those rights.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the privacy commissioner is justifiably concerned about the powers conferred upon the RCMP and CSIS by Bill C-55, which gives them unrestricted access to personal information relating to people travelling within Canada or to other countries.

Is the Prime Minister going to take steps to ensure that the government respects the rights of citizens, as requested by the privacy commissioner and demanded by the Bloc Quebecois?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

So the answer is, Mr. Speaker, that the government does not need the bill and it already has the powers it needs. What it wants to do is shut down parliament.

I assume the government intends to have Bill C-55 enacted in its present form. In that case, if the government has to respond to an emergency created by a terrorist threat, which law will the government apply? Will it be the Emergencies Act, which gives parliament some control over ministers, or the new bill, which does not?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The existing law of Canada, the Emergencies Act, gives ministers all the powers they seek in the proposed new Bill C-55. The Emergencies Act also gives parliament the right to amend or reject interim orders. Bill C-55 gives parliament no right to amend or to reject. It is just like the War Measures Act.

Would the Prime Minister tell us what new powers does the government need that it does not already have in the Emergencies Act?

Public Safety

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 gives to the Minister of National Defence enormous power that will be based on his judgment alone, without any real guidelines.

Will the Prime Minister admit that it is worrisome to think that controlled access military zones will be determined based only on the judgment of a minister who, in the recent past, did not deem it important to inform the Prime Minister, the government or the Privy Council that Canadian troops were capturing prisoners in Afghanistan?

Public Safety Act, 2002

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety.

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

Supply

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on today's opposition motion regarding protection of children from sexual predators, an issue that is extremely important to all of us in the House. The implication of the motion is that the government is doing nothing while our children remain endangered. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would like to note the government's efforts to date on this matter. The solicitor general rose in the House in March 2001 and stated emphatically that he supported a motion by the member for Langley--Abbotsford for a registry of sex offenders, as did all members present. We supported the motion because, as the solicitor general said then, this nation already possessed one of the most technologically advanced criminal history registries in the world in the Canadian Police Information Centre referred to as CPIC.

Further, he told the House that his department would begin evaluating potential improvements to CPIC in the specific area of sex offences, citing the criticism that CPIC was not address searchable by police officers. In a very short period of time he fulfilled that commitment when he announced in September 2001 that a new database within the CPIC system was to be created and it was to be known as the sex offender category. Further, he announced that this database would be address searchable and more, and it would be up and running within a year, funded completely by the federal government.

That is not all that the government has done in recent years to combat the dangers of sexual predators. In 1997 we proclaimed Bill C-55, which strengthened the dangerous offender rules in part XXIV of the criminal code and also created a new sentencing provision called the long term offender. As a result of these changes, prosecutors in almost every province are aggressively pursuing dangerous offender and long term offender options. In fact, since 1997 the number of successful dangerous offender applications has doubled every year.

The 1997 legislative package also created a new category called the long term offender, targeting individuals who are clearly a threat but would not meet the threshold as a dangerous offender. This new designation recognized that released sex offenders who receive supervision and treatment in the community experience dramatically lower reoffending rates than offenders who enter the community at the end of a sentence without conditions for supervision or treatment. In addition to their normal custodial term, long term offenders can be ordered to comply with a further 10 years of community supervision and conditions. This innovative measure has already resulted in over 100 long term offender orders.

In addition, another provision was created in section 810 of the criminal code. So-called community protection orders can be issued by a court and reviewed every 12 months to place conditions on a sex offender even when no sentence is being served. Today these orders are frequently used by police when they have concerns about high risk sex offenders.

None of these initiatives happened overnight. While I agree with my colleagues that this is a pressing problem, cobbling together a mandatory sex offender registry without looking at all the issues, all the details and all the facts will not result in good legislation. The solicitor general has taken a different approach. He has asked his officials to work with all the provinces and territories to fully explore the issue, to determine what is and what is not feasible in the Canadian context, to determine what works and what does not, and to find out where some jurisdictions have succeeded and where others have failed. I fully support this approach. The Minister of Justice completely supports this approach as well, and this side of the House, without reservation, also supports this approach.

Finally, it is obvious to me that all of the provinces support it. Why else would they be participating fully in the federal-provincial-territorial working group on high risk offenders, which is currently seized with this matter? It is clearly of major importance to all of us. Indeed, our provincial and territorial partners spoke with one voice in August 2001 when their premiers unanimously voted to call for a national sex offender registry. They want it, and now we are all working together to design a system that everyone can support.

That collaboration to create a truly national system based on a national consensus is well underway. An effective system can exist only if all jurisdictions work together on agreed upon objectives. That is why we are working closely with all the provincial and territorial ministers to do that. Since March 13, 2001, the solicitor general and Minister of Justice have discussed the issue of sex offender registries with provincial and territorial colleagues on two occasions. As well, a team of senior federal, provincial and territorial officials continues to work to establish the following: a common understanding of the necessary components of a sex offender registry; the principles and objectives of such a system; the respective jurisdictional roles and responsibilities; and the potential charter and privacy risks.

The government has kept its promise to work with provincial partners to examine enhancements to CPIC. Last September in White Point, Nova Scotia, the solicitor general announced funding to develop the national sex offender database in the Canadian Police Information Centre to improve its capacity to keep track of sex offenders. These changes were a direct result of requests made by our provincial and territorial colleagues. These enhancements will give every police force in Canada instant, around the clock access to information about sex offenders who are registered in the sex offender category. The enhancements will be operational by November 2002 at an estimated cost of $2 million in capital costs and $400,000 on an annual basis.

The special category or database will be able to link to other criminal history and police information already contained in CPIC by doing a name search. Provinces will be able to enter that information in the sex offender category so that the information is shared with all police forces across the country, something that is long overdue. The new category would allow police to conduct a sophisticated search according to a current address and the offence of a sex offender or a combination of the two. I am confident that these changes will make a significant contribution to our efforts in seeking a national approach.

Last September, federal, provincial and territorial ministers also asked senior officials to give advice on issues relating to a national approach to a sex offender registration. The approach prepared by the working group on high risk offenders was submitted to ministers last February. While it discusses a number of issues regarding a registry system that jurisdictions agree with, further work is needed to develop answers on a number of fundamental changes. These include criteria to identify registerable offenders and to identify cost implications and potential charter concerns on the elements of a sex offender registry that jurisdictions wish to consider.

At the Moncton meeting last February, federal ministers agreed that they will attempt to bring forward legislation to support a national registration process in the same timeframe as completion of enhancements to CPIC, including the mandatory registration of specified offenders. The solicitor general asked that all jurisdictions work closely together to reach a consensus as soon as possible. I understand that the federal, provincial and territorial deputy ministers will again discuss this in June at their meeting. It is essential for senior officials to continue this important work and develop a common model before deciding how best to proceed. A detailed model will help us consider and hopefully come to an agreement on important matters.

On the issue of cost, we know little about the costs about this point and most of the policy work has been done without reference to resources. It would not be acceptable to arbitrarily impose on jurisdictions, particularly smaller jurisdictions, a system they do not support or cannot afford. We must carefully address this and other fundamental issues in the consideration of a national system while recognizing that not all jurisdictions have the same needs.

In closing, let me say again that the government has done and will do its utmost to protect Canadians. We have made exceptional progress since last March and we will continue to work with our partners on a regular basis. We need effective solutions that we know will work for all jurisdictions.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and British Columbians in general to take part in the debate on the official opposition's motion regarding softwood lumber.

This is a very important issue in various communities, particularly in British Columbia, where thousands of jobs have been lost, businesses have been crumbling and communities have been hurting because of mismanagement of this issue by our federal government.

Today the Canadian Alliance is using its supply day for the important issue of softwood lumber. It seems to me that all parties in the House are supporting it. It is due to the ineffective, weak and submissive position of the Liberal government that led us into this chaotic situation. The hon. member for Vancouver Island North, who is the international trade critic for the Canadian Alliance and the former international trade critic, the hon. member for Peace River, who has just spoken on this issue, have highlighted some of the weaknesses in our trade policy. I would like to spend some time looking into the background of this issue.

In 1987 John Turner, then leader of the official opposition, said that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had abandoned his federal leadership responsibilities by proposing higher prices for softwood lumber exports to the United States. The Liberals also said that in offering a 15% price hike as a substitute for a new American tariff, Mulroney sacrificed the national interest to regional concerns.

Back then Turner accused Mulroney of selling out the national interest which demanded that Canada resist the American duty through an uncompromising legal and diplomatic fight. When in opposition the Liberals called on the government to have the matter decided through the forerunner of the WTO, the GATT, to find a solution rather than dealing bilaterally with the Americans who were intent on imposing a hefty duty on softwood lumber. This was true when the Liberals were in opposition. Why is it not true now when they are in government?

Softwood lumber agreements were signed in 1986 and 1991 but when the Liberals came into power they signed the agreement in 1996. In a massive flip-flop Canada signed a softwood lumber agreement in which it agreed to cap Canadian shipments to buy some peace with the Americans. The peace was not to last or we would not be debating this issue here today.

They have been abetted in this by a Liberal government that failed to intervene earlier in the process before the 1996-2001 period when the softwood lumber agreement expired.

Turner called it the greatest sell out in the history of negotiations with the U.S. Today it seems not to be free trade but a managed trade dominated by the bigger elephant. It seems like a veritable capitulation by the Canadian government to pressure from the United States lumber interests.

What is at stake is our sovereignty and ability to create our own resource policies in our country. If the policies of the government are not working we should probably look into reviewing our international trade policies. Unlike the government, the Americans know they hold a stronger hand in any bilateral trade negotiations. Why? Because 87% of our exports are destined for their country. We have the largest bilateral trade with the Americans. Canada supplies about one-third of the softwood lumber used in the United States.

They take advantage of our trade, economic situation and dependency on them. They know that the Canadian government will not be doing anything to jeopardize all this trade by playing hardball with softwood or other industries. Like the Canadian Alliance they also know that the Canadian government is a soft touch when it comes to negotiations.

I was talking to one American senator who was surprised at how Canadians were negotiating with the U.S. He was talking to me in confidence. He said that when Canadians come to the negotiating table they are not well-prepared. When Americans are sitting at the table they are determined to win the negotiations whereas their Canadian counterparts are not fully prepared. They do not do their homework properly to prepare for negotiations whether it is on fisheries, softwood lumber or any other industry.

The motivation of the Americans, driven by U.S. lumber interests, is to keep as much Canadian timber out of their market as possible. The only motivation behind the measures being suggested by the Americans is to drive up the price of Canadian softwood lumber relative to U.S. timber to reduce its supply in the U.S. market. This is a demand and supply situation. This is true whether it takes the form of reduced stumpage fees or countervailing duties.

Part of the conflict arises from the Bush administration's backing of the U.S. forest industry's bid to hit Canadian lumber with billions of dollars in duties. Canadian exports south of the border are charged a 19.3% countervailing duty, a tax applied on imports found to be unfairly subsidized, that the American government imposed on Canadian exporters earlier this year. Then there is the anti-dumping duty of 12.57% introduced in October 2001. Dumping is a term used to describe the sale of goods to another country at less than what it costs to produce them.

The two duties were applied separately in the period since the expiration of the softwood lumber agreement between the Canadian and U.S. governments which governed exports from April 1, 1996 to March 31, 2001. Under the agreement, the U.S. guaranteed market access to Canadian exporters for five years and permitted the import of 14.7 billion board feet per year of lumber without fees. It applied to $10 billion worth of lumber manufactured in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec.

About two years ago, along with the member for Vancouver Island North, I organized some meetings in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies. We met with lumber mill owners and people who were working in the industry, as well as the remanufacturing industry of the wood. I was surprised at how those people felt. They felt that the government was not doing the right thing and they warned the government then. The international trade critic from the official opposition of Canada has risen from his seat time and time again and raised this issue but the Liberals did not take any action.

When the U.S. coalition for fair lumber imports commenced the court challenge against Canada's lumber industry on April 2, 2001, it asked for a countervail duty rate of 40%. When the department of commerce made a preliminary determination in August 2001, a duty of 19.3% was imposed.

The most recent request by the U.S. coalition for fair lumber imports is asking for a 50% duty. It is using this as a bargaining tactic. It is an attempt to gain some leverage for bullying and an attempt to stampede Canada into a bad deal prior to the March 21 deadline. It should not be given any credibility; rather, it should be vigorously opposed.

On March 21 the U.S. department of commerce will make its final determination. I ask the government to stand by its nerve, negotiate with the Americans and be firm on their position to protect our lumber industry. We all know that the Canadian government cannot negotiate with the Americans. When we were debating Bill C-55, the heritage minister threatened the Americans by saying they were affecting the steel, plastic, auto, and textile industries. However, when the stuff hit the fan and they started their offence, the minister caved in.

The Canadian government should not cave into the Americans. It should protect Canadian interests, the interests of British Columbians and others where the livelihoods of people are affected.

I urge the government that if its policy does not work it should change it.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. This issue of softwood lumber is very important for all Canadians, particularly people like me who come from British Columbia where it is so absolutely important to the survival of the province. Many communities in B.C. depend on softwood lumber.

The hon. member talked about the bullying tactics of the Americans. I tend to agree. I have seen it happen on two fronts since I have been in the House, on fisheries as well as on softwood lumber. We have had this unfortunate situation in dealing with these two files with the Americans. At the same time, Americans are our neighbours. I think we need to co-operate and have a co-operative environment on various issues. We need to have free trade with them. We can always create a synergy of our resources and approaches with our neighbours.

First, I would like to know how the hon. member would balance having a co-operative approach, because the softwood lumber issue will be affecting various other industries and many other items on the agenda of co-operation and friendship between our two countries.

Second, how does the member see this hardball approach the Americans are taking with us, such as they did on Bill C-55 in the past, which affected the steel, plastics, textiles and agricultural industries and so on? What impact on other industries and free trade with America does she see as a result of this file not being dealt with properly?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Langley--Abbotsford on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Justice.

We on this side of the House are unequivocal in our support for any feasible measure that will effectively protect our children, indeed all of our citizens, from sexual predators. At the same time, however, I would urge all members to exercise caution and not jump at any measure that promises a quick fix, that claims to be a cure-all for this most pressing problem. I fear that a temptation in the specific area of sex offender registries is to leap first and look later. That appears to have happened all too often in some jurisdictions that have gone before us.

In fact this morning in the justice committee the hon. member for Prince Albert commented that often we are too quick to pass laws, to push a button that makes us feel good, but we are weak in evaluating and monitoring. Now the opposition wishes to charge forward on this issue. It seems to pick whatever process best suits its political purposes. What hypocrisy.

For example, over the last decade, the number of registries of sex offenders has jumped from a few isolated ones to registries in the 50 American states, in the United Kingdom, in Scotland, Ireland and even recently in Canada, in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia.

Given the implementation of these registries, one might easily assume that these registries stop sex offenders in their tracks. With all of these registries by now, one might assume there are all kinds of studies that empirically support such claims. Imagine my surprise when I found out that not one single study has been published that empirically concludes that sex offender registries reduce reoffending rates. Imagine my surprise when I found out that in many jurisdictions quite the opposite has happened.

For example, in the majority of states in America that have implemented a sex offender registry, anyone, even those of us sitting at home in Canada, can log on to the Internet and see pictures and addresses of every known sex offender living in that state. In many cases their pictures will be available like that for the rest of their lives. Has that active publication of personal information reduced sex crimes? Apparently not.

Here in Canada where sex offender registries have yet to have any impact on available data, the incidence of violent sexual offences per capita has been steadily dropping over the past few years. This is not the case however in most U.S. jurisdictions that publish the names of sex offenders over the Internet. At the same time these states have all experienced atrocious acts of vigilantism against these offenders. While some may say “Very good, they deserve it”, I and the government could never condone any such system that invited retaliation.

The question is, why would anyone pass a sex offender registry law that to date seems to have had so little positive effect? All too often these policies are drafted in haste, in a crisis situation born of desperation. All too often we have seen an isolated tragedy involving a sex offender and a child which causes an immediate legislative call to arms. In their haste, as has often been the case in this highly emotional issue, legislators fail to understand all the consequences of their emotionally drafted bills.

In almost every single case where a legislative body has passed a sex offender registry bill, the same scenario was played out: a painful and highly publicized case of kidnapping and murder of a child, followed by community outrage, calls for action and passionate speeches calling for new and better tools to combat this problem. Were the resulting registries always the best tools for the job? Was careful analysis of sex offender traits and trends used to model and shape a policy designed to reduce reoffending? Were legislators solely dedicated to finding the right policies? Or were there other factors at play, factors such as revenge, blame and politics?

How well did the resulting registries work? Did sex offenders all stop offending? The data suggests otherwise. For example, in one of the most comprehensive recidivist studies ever undertaken, a recent study by the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives looked at over 45,000 historical sex offenders in the United States and concluded that 87% of these convicted offenders do not commit another sex offence after release. This rate is substantially better than that observed for other forms of property and violent crimes. Yet sex offender registries typically target 100% of convicted offenders regardless of their determined threat or likelihood of recidivism based on a personal profile. In most cases all of these offenders are required to register for the rest of their lives.

Instead of focusing its efforts on, for example, the 13% who are likely to reoffend, police forces in the states that have sex offender registries must spend their resources on monitoring 100% of all convicted sex offenders, over 200,000 of them to date in the United States, regardless of their likelihood of reoffending. Most criminology experts argue that the registry concept is incredibly inefficient.

Many of the American registries are facing a new threat from their state and federal supreme courts where rights based challenges against lifelong mandatory registration requirements are starting to proceed through the appeals process. The news is not great. Many states, including Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey, have had their respective registries struck down in whole or in part as a result of clashes with state constitutional rights, few of which are as stringent as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Certainly there are lessons to be learned from these experiences.

When the United Kingdom drafted its sex offender registry and forced Ray Whiting to register for his sex offence related murder of Jason Swift, how did it happen that after his statutory release for that crime he managed to rape and murder yet another victim, young Sarah Payne? Why did the local police admit that the U.K. sex offender registry, as it existed, was of little use in monitoring the offender, or in preventing the subsequent crime, or in treating the offender, or in investigating and apprehending that offender?

Why did subsequent inquiries conclude that toughening the existing sex offender registry would have had little impact in preventing cases like the Sarah Payne tragedy? Why was it that most experts concluded that Whiting's failure to receive therapy and assistance in integrating into the community was the chief factor that caused this tragedy? Why did the U.K. government introduce in the following year a new sex offender registry law?

What then do we make of sex offender registries? Are they perfect? Certainly not. Are we intent on repeating these types of mistakes? Hopefully not. Can we learn from the experience of others? I sincerely hope so.

The motion before us today is an example of the desire to sprint ahead without having examined all the pitfalls that may lay ahead. The implication of this motion is that the government is doing nothing while our children remain in danger. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would like to note the solicitor general's efforts to date on this matter. The solicitor general rose in the House last March and stated emphatically that he supported the motion by the member for Langley--Abbotsford, as did all members present, because this nation already possessed one of the most technologically advanced criminal registries in the world, the Canadian Police Information Centre. We know it as CPIC. Further, he told the House that his department would begin evaluating potential improvements to CPIC in the specific areas of sex offences, citing the criticism that CPIC was not address searchable by police officers.

In a very short period of time he fulfilled that commitment when he announced on September 11 last year that a new database within the CPIC system was to be created: the sex offender category. Further, he announced that the database would be address searchable and would be up and running within a year, funded completely by the federal government.

That is not all the government has done in recent years to combat the dangers of sexual predators. In 1997 we proclaimed 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.

As a result of these changes, prosecutors in almost every province are aggressively pursuing dangerous offender and long term offender designations. In fact, since 1997 the number of successful dangerous offender applications has doubled each year.

The 1997 legislative package also created a new category called the long term offender. It targeted individuals who were clearly a threat but who would not meet the threshold as a dangerous offender. This new designation recognized that released sex offenders who received supervision and treatment in the community experienced dramatically lower recidivist rates than offenders who were released at warrant expiry without conditions for supervision or treatment.

In addition to their custodial period, long term offenders can be sentenced to up to 10 years of community supervision and conditions following the termination of their custodial period. This innovative measure has already resulted in over 100 successful long term offender applications.

The government also recognized that there were new emerging areas of sex crimes that needed to be targeted specifically. In 1997 and later in 1999, parliament passed important measures to protect children from being drawn into the sex trade. A 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 in court against pimps.

Bill C-15A, which is now before the House, contains new provisions that would make it an offence to lure minors over the Internet for the purpose of committing a sexual offence. However, none of these initiatives happened overnight.

While I agree with my colleagues that this is an urgent problem, cobbling together a mandatory sex offender registry without looking at all the issues, all the details and all the facts will not result in good legislation.

Instead, the solicitor general has taken a different approach. He has asked his officials to work with all the provinces and territories to fully explore the issue, to determine what is and what is not feasible in the Canadian context, to determine what works and what does not, and to find out where some jurisdictions have succeeded and where others have failed. I fully support this approach and this side of the House fully supports this approach. It is obvious to me that the provinces also support this approach. Why else would they be participating fully in the federal-provincial-territorial working group on high risk offenders currently seized with this matter?

Canadians must abide by many rules, many laws and many conventions that are uniquely Canadian. The division of powers between federal and provincial governments is quite different from that found in, for example, the United States or the conventions and laws of the unitary styled United Kingdom. We have a constitution, including a charter of rights, that is unique and, while similar, is different from the American bill of rights. Any proposed national sex offender registry can only be successful if it is designed and drafted within this unique Canadian context.

It is for those specific reasons that there are high level discussions taking place among the federal, provincial and territorial officials on what kind of registry system would be workable in the very unique Canadian context. From the issue of charter and privacy challenges, to how information could be transferred from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from computer system to computer system, to whether non-compliance should be a criminal code offence, there are many choices and the solicitor general is looking for a consensus among our partners before proceeding further.

That approach makes sense. If we are going to have a registry, we should have one that works, that is efficient and affordable, that will recognize the impact of the charter of rights and freedoms, that is not in breach of federal or provincial privacy laws, that local police agencies will have the ability and resources to administer, one for which all provinces and territories from coast to coast to coast can agree on a consistent approach, and one that will not drive convicted sex offenders underground with changed identities and no hope of rehabilitation.

In closing, I must decline to support the motion, not because I do not wish to protect our children from sex offenders, because I do, but because I insist that my government does more than just pretend to protect our children from sex offenders. I will not support any measure that is not properly understood, not completely explored and does not receive full scrutiny at every level.

No measure within the criminal justice system exists in a vacuum, sex offender registries included. The task of preventing recidivism by sex offenders needs an effective, multi-faceted approach, from investigation to capture, from charge to prosecution, from sentence to release and, finally, from community supervision and treatment to rehabilitation.

A sex offender registry, in whatever form it ultimately may take, is just one piece of this very big puzzle. It will be no panacea, but if we do it right and do it carefully maybe it can work. If we are careful it will not be a strain on police resources, it will not drive violent sexual predators underground and it will not bring a flood of charter challenges.

I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to give our federal-provincial-territorial officials a chance to do their work, to reach a consensus and to evaluate the options. At that time we will be in a much better position to know where we should be headed, what legislation to support and how best to make our children safe.

Let us take the necessary time to study the issue carefully and positively. Let is take the necessary measures to enact effective strategies that will protect our children and indeed to protect all Canadians.