Bill C-23 (Historical)

Sex Offender Information Registration Act

An Act respecting the registration of information relating to sex offenders, to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Sex Offender Information Registration Act

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I must express my profound disappointment on how Bill C-23 has been handled in the House of Commons.

Having written the original bill on the national sex offender registry, I have followed the issue for a long time past, even when the government did not understand what we were trying to do with a national sex offender registry. Now it has come out and suggested that it has a great idea about a national sex offender registry and how to handle it.

One of the profound disappointments is the retroactive issue. Today we voted on an amendment to Bill C-23 that would have made sure this particular issue would be retroactive. I will go into that in detail in a moment.

However, the problem I am having is that the government does not want to make the bill retroactive. In other words, it wants to implement a national sex offender registry but it does not want to include all those who are currently incarcerated in this country, either provincially or federally, for sex offences. That includes approximately 10,000 sex offenders who will not be registered in the registry on opening day.

I read into the House yesterday the names of some of the people who will not be registered. I asked my staff to provide me with an arbitrary list of sex offenders who were written about in the last three months. I read out the names of some of these individuals who will not be on this registry on opening day. I do not understand why the government, which has the ability to register these people, will not do it.

I do not know what to say or what to do any longer in this country where we get lip service about implementing a national sex offender registry. The government accommodates everything that I wrote in the original private member's bill, but in the last two pages it ruined the whole damn thing. It ruined it all.

How? First, after Royal Assent there will not be one soul on that registry. How they get on the registry, if we are lucky enough to get them there, is they have to get out of prison, commit another a sex offence crime, go back to prison, serve their time and then they will be put on the registry.

Has anyone ever heard anything so stupid? For the people listening to what I am saying, I do not understand at all why they would vote for those people. It is a disgrace how they are handling this situation.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, there having been lengthy discussion and consideration of Bill C-23, I think it is an appropriate time for the following motion. I move:

That the question be now put.

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-23.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am addressing Bill C-23, just like my colleague, the hon. member for Jonquière, and our critic on issues relating to the Solicitor General, the hon. member for Châteauguay.

I am well aware that this is no ordinary bill. When it comes to sex offenders, there is a mix of caution, rejection, biases and, of course, anger. Indeed, it is not easy, from a human point of view, to explain behaviours that we find reprehensible from early age and from the moment we begin to socialize.

Having said that, the Bloc Quebecois wants to be cautious. Our critic on issues relating to the Solicitor General, the hon. member for Châteauguay, pointed out that we support the principle of establishing a sex offenders' registry. Of course, we would like to see a number of benchmarks that Bill C-23 currently does not meet.

I should point out that, as Quebeckers, 1993 was a great and memorable year for us. As we all remember, this is the year the Bloc Quebecois became the official opposition. It is also the year an interdepartmental committee was established with the Deputy Minister of the Solicitor General, the Deputy Minister of Health and the Deputy Minister of Justice. We began working on a framework that was to lead to the creation of the registry that is now the object of this bill.

It is interesting to remember that the 1993 report included a number of findings. The first one was that a separate registry, that is a specific registry for sex offenders, would duplicate part of the information that is already collected by the Canadian Police Information Centre.

As a member of Parliament, I had the pleasure, in the nineties, to sit on the subcommittee on organized crime, when the situation was particularly disturbing. That committee travelled all across Canada. I was able to see that the Canadian Police Information Centre has very sophisticated files, as it should. We already have databases that allow us to track down individuals who have been convicted of a punishable offence, whether by summary conviction or criminal indictment.

The working group's second conclusion was that it would be desirable to have access to the full criminal history, rather than narrowing it down to sex offences. That is debatable. Should we have a specific registry for sex offenders or should we know all about the criminal background of an individual who has been convicted of any criminal offence?

We were told that a separate system would be expensive, that there would certainly be privacy issues—I will come back to that because it is extremely important. And of course, a comprehensive screening system is necessary.

We are in favour of establishing a sex offenders registry. We would hope there would be a number of safeguards along the way. There is, of course, the issue of protecting personal information and also that of proportionality in sentencing. That is very important.

I cannot agree with the previous speaker who seemed to be saying that compatibility with the charter is not important. As you know, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has great strengths and great flaws. It invalidated important provisions of Quebec's Bill 101. So for us it is negative. The late René Lévesque opposed the charter because the section on multiculturalism was incompatible with the social choices made by Quebec. But in terms of main protections in criminal law, such as the doctrine of audi alteram partem , the right to be heard and to have a fair defence, and the other main protections found in section 7 of the charter, we are in favour.

These provisions are also found in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Quebec was one of the first legislatures, the first nation within Canada, to adopt a Quebec charter, in 1975. In 1977, the Parti Quebecois government made significant changes to it, even adding social condition to article 10, which is still not part of the Canadian Human Rights Act, despite the many bills tabled by this member of the Bloc Quebecois.

Our colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, has taken up the cause since this matter relates to human rights.

The intent of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code. This is interesting because criminal law constantly seeks to maintain balance.

I can say that there was a former Minister of Justice who, in the early 1970s, published a white paper. The Criminal Code, obviously, is used to sanction, to coerce and to invite us to maintain a balance between the great values of integrity of person and peace among communities. Which Minister of Justice published this white paper on criminal law reform? The one who is now Prime Minister.

It is interesting to note that the then member for Saint-Maurice was the Minister of Justice. Unfortunately, these years bring back bad memories because that Minister of Justice unilaterally patriated the Constitution, which Quebec's own National Assembly has never accepted. The National Assembly is not likely to ratify this document from 1982 any too soon. It is a document which eroded the authority of the National Assembly, and we will never accept this. The Bloc Quebecois is the direct outcome of this rejection of the Constitution Act, 1982.

That said, Bill C-23 adds an extremely important provision to the Criminal Code. This provision amends sections 490.02 to 490.09. It would, therefore, establish a certain number of offences. For persons found guilty of this series of offences, the courts can determine, at the Crown's request—this must be kept in mind; it is not automatic—the list of offences, which I will share with you and which lead to the offender being listed on the registry.

These are pretty serious offences, as hon. members will see. We are talking about sexual offences involving children, and this is covered, of course, by section 490.02, under invitation to sexual touching and sexual exploitation for instance.

You may remember, Mr. Speaker—I think you were a member of this place at the time—that in 1995 the Criminal Code was amended to include sexual exploitation taking place not only in Canada but also abroad.

We were witnessing the emergence of the whole sex tourism industry. Unfortunately, there were fellow citizens of ours who travelled abroad, often to such sun destinations as Cuba, Mexico or Thailand, to have a good time without always bothering to respect the dignity of those whose country they were visiting and, sadly, engaged in activities related to sexual exploitation, against which there was no legal recourse.

Back in 1995 and 1996, the hon. member for Québec had put a bill forward. The debate that took place in this House was most worthwhile. Once again, we can clearly see how vigilant the members of the Bloc Quebecois are.

That having been said, offences requiring registration include sexual offences against children, invitation to sexual touching and, of course, sexual exploitation.

Another extremely reprehensible activity, which people do not want to be negotiable for those engaging in it, is incest. There is also child pornography, which the Fraser commission dealt with in the days of the Conservative government. There is luring by means of a computer system.

Mr. Speaker, without imposing, would you be kind enough to ask if I could have another five minutes to finish my speech?

Business of the House

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I believe that answers the question of the hon. member from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who now has the floor to speak to Bill C-23.

Sex Offender Information Registration Act

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-23, an act respecting the registration of information relating to sex offenders, to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I must state right at the beginning that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the principle of protecting society from dangerous sex offenders.

It must be kept in mind that I introduced Bill C-208 back in January of 2001, with a view to increasing the penalties for sexual offences involving minors. This bill also required any person who is convicted of such an offence to undergo treatment as the court directs. The governor in council would have had to make regulations setting out the situations in which the convicted person should undergo treatment. It is important to note that this type of treatment should in no case interfere with the bodily integrity of the convicted person. It should be psychological treatment only, because physicians agree that the predisposition to pedophilia, which is a sexual attraction to children under 10, is first and foremost a psychiatric problem.

As is evident, my bill really addressed sexual predators who prey on children and engage in pedophilia.

Why must we require psychological treatment for the perpetrators? According to André McKibben, a criminologist and therapist at Montreal's Pinel Institute, a criminal who has been cured of sexual deviancy will not reoffend. The results obtained at Pinel seem conclusive on this point and show a 50% reduction in repeat offences by repeat offenders.

Unfortunately, there is no legal obligation for a sex offender to go into therapy. Bill C-23, which we are debating today, does not raise this point either. I find this most unfortunate. I am, however, still in agreement with its principle and objectives, even though it could go further than it does.

I would like to tell our audience what this bill is all about. It is called Bill C-23, and its full name is “an Act respecting the registration of information relating to sex offenders, to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”.

It comprises 26 clauses. Its main purpose is set out in clause 2 as being to help police services investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring the registration of certain information relating to sex offenders.

This bill creates obligations. Clauses 4 to 7 deal with the obligations of sex offenders. A sex offender shall report in person to the registration centre within 15 days after: first, the order is made but he is not given a custodial sentence; second, he receives an absolute unconditional discharge if he is found not criminally responsible for the offence on account of mental disorder; third, he is released from custody pending the determination of an appeal; or he is simply released from custody.

Subclause 4(2) provides he must register again after a change of address, a change of name or surname, and every year as an update. It is important to emphasize this.

Clause 5 outlines the information the sex offender must provide. It is important to note that currently this clause lists the type of information the sex offender must communicate, namely his given name and surname, his date of birth, his gender, his home address and work address if applicable, his phone number, and the number of any mobile phone or pager in his possession. Also, the sex offender will have to provide the person who collects information with a description of any physical distinguishing mark such as tattoos.

Clause 6 sets out how the sex offender must provide notification of any absence or stay abroad.

As you can see all these clauses, namely 4(2), 5 and 6, are a very important part of the registration process.

Then come the responsibilities of persons who collect and register information. They have responsibilities. Such a person will register without delay in the database the information on the sex offender in a manner that ensure its confidentiality.

The sex offender will be entitled to receive a copy of the information, free of charge, either at the time of registration or promptly by mail. The sex offender may, at any time, ask that the information contained in the database be corrected if it contains an error or omission. Therefore, the person who collects information will have, without delay, to make the appropriate corrections as soon as requested by the sex offender.

The bill also provides for prohibitions and the protection of data.

Clauses 14 and 15 deal with the retention of information in the database, which will be part of the automatedrecords retrieval systemthat is maintained by the Royal CanadianMounted Police. The RCMP maintains an automatedcriminal conviction records retrieval system. The information will be kept in the database indefinitely except when there is an acquittal or pardon under the Criminal Code provisions on clemency.

Clause 16, which is very important, deals with the prohibited uses of the databank. The basic principle is a total prohibition except for people who are authorized in order to perform the duties provided for in Bill C-23.

The bill mentions specifically that authorization to consult the database is given to all police services for investigations on sexual crimes. The bill provides that the police service must have reasonablegrounds to believe the crime is of a sexual nature.

As mentioned in clause 16(2)(b), a person who collects information is authorized to consult the database to record or correct data.

Under clause 16(2)(c), a person who does research or statistical analyses can consult the database if he or she has been authorized by the RCMP under clause13. Before accessing the database, one must have authorization from the RCMP commissioner. It is very important to emphasize that this database will not be accessible just anybody.

Any employee of, or person retained by, the RCMP is also authorized to consult the database in order to maintain it, as is any person authorized by the Commissioner.

The third paragraph of clause 16 sets out that the data may only be matched for the purpose of an investigation of a crime where there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is of a sexual nature. The resulting matched data may only be used for the purpose of that investigation or a resulting prosecution.

The bill also contains offences resulting from failing to comply with the registry. The punishments contained in the bill apply to offenders who provide false information and anyone who contravenes the offences specified in section 16, which I just read.

The punishment for offenders varies from a $10,000 fine or imprisonment for six months, or both for a first offence of providing false or misleading information. For a second offence, the punishment can include a $10,000 fine or imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or both.

This bill makes amendments to the Criminal Code. Clauses 20 and 21 of the bill would add sections 490.02 through 490.09 to the Criminal Code. Clause 20 of the bill designates the offences that require that information be provided.

They include: sexual offences involving children; invitation to sexual touching; sexual exploitation, incest, child pornography; luring a child by means of a computer system; stupefying or overpowering for the purpose of sexual intercourse; living on the avails of prostitution of a person under age of eighteen; sexual assault; sexual assault with a weapon; aggravated sexual assault; removal of a child from Canada; indecent acts; murder or manslaughter in commission of offences.

This bill also contains consequential amendments. The Access to Information Act, the Criminal Records Act, and the Youth Criminal Justice Act will be amended accordingly.

Clauses 22 to 25 of Bill C-23 will make the manager of a federal institution—this is important to highlight—responsible for any sharing of documents that contain information. The Access to Information Act is amended to prohibit any disclosure of information. This is in clause 22.

Clause 23 of the bill amends the Criminal Records Act to include orders relating to the mandatory registration of sex offenders and adds the list of restrictions.

Finally, the purpose of clause 24 is to coordinate this bill with the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I agree completely that sex offenders should be centrally registered. Every year, I meet people from the Canadian Police Association who believe that such a system will help them better monitor sex offenders who move from one neighbourhood to another.

In my region, a woman by the name of Anne-Claude Girard has been a great success in recent years. She has been raising the public's awareness of sex offenders involved in pedophilia.

All the police officers I have met have said, “It is very worthwhile for someone to do that, but we do not have a registry to identify sex offenders, so they can just go somewhere else”. Someone could come into my region and I would have no way of knowing if he is a pedophile and no way of ensuring that he will not harm young people.

Therefore, it is important to have such a registry. The protection of our children is at stake. Unfortunately, I think that the government should have included in the bill measures that would ensure a psychological follow-up of sex offenders. Because, it must be said, sex offenders have mental problems which must be addressed so that they do not reoffend.

We must also offer support to victims and their families. Never think that convicting an offender will be enough for them. The victims will feel distress and despair for years, possibly for all their lives, because of what happened to them.

In recent years, I have met young people who are still going through a terrible time after having been abused by a pedophile. It hurts to hear young people come to our office and tell us, “It was not my body that was violated. It was my soul, the only thing that belonged to me”.

This bill should provide for assistance to help these young people cope. Many victims are even under the impression that they ran after trouble. That is wrong, they did not bring any of this upon themselves.

Why did the Minister of Justice not see fit to support these people through Bill C-23? It is all fine and well to have a registry, but there are still criminals and victims. I would have liked this bill to address the victims' perspective as well.

I suggest that the Minister of Justice ponder on this and amend his bill accordingly. I find it irresponsible to leave victims of sexual abuse without any government support.

This bill ought to have gone further. Like the Bloc Quebecois, I agree with the principle of protecting society against dangerous sexual predators. I would also have agreed with the minister if he had taken gone all the way by providing assistance to the victims as well as treatment for those who abused them.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is that old saying that if something is worth doing it is worth doing well. I think Bill C-23 is probably a very good example of how that particular saying does not apply at all.

For all of the reasons that have just been discussed by my colleagues here, the government has decided that it is not going to do this well. It has decided that for reasons of legality it is not going to attempt to make a meaningful sex registry. It is going to capitulate before it even begins. It will capitulate and say, “We can never make this effective, so we won't even try”.

It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell you why: because we have a state of desperation among our police forces out there as they try to enforce the laws that are ineffective. They are trying to put these offenders behind bars and they cannot achieve it.

I will give members an example from just this week in Vancouver. A repeat sex offender was released back onto the street by a judge when he was in the process of being charged and appearing before the court for charges to be laid. The judge released him back onto the street again, even though the police pleaded with the judge to put him in custody. He was a repeat offender; he had gone back to exactly the same place he had been arrested at before. The police said to the judge, “He is going to go back there. He has done it before. Please keep him in custody”.

The judge released him. The police were so frustrated they went on television on the six o'clock news on BCTV in Vancouver and publicized the guy's name. They said they had no other option but to warn the public that this man was out there, and they gave the name of the park he frequented. He had done it at least twice before. The police had arrested this man and even had him in jail for a short time. He had been released and went right back to the same place.

There is one of two things happening here. Either the man is very ill and he needs a lot of treatment, and for goodness' sake we need to recognize that and do something about it, or else there is no penalty for what he is doing. In this case, that appears to be what is happening. The man receives a slap on the wrist and a few days in jail and out he goes again. This occurs even when the police in their frustration beg with a judge to keep him behind bars. The judge simply releases him back onto the street.

Frankly, there is far too much of that now. We see case after case day after day in the media. These criminals are being released back onto the street even when the police request that they not be released.

Last week I received an e-mail from a lawyer in my riding who is a very good Liberal supporter. In fact, that lawyer ran for the candidacy in the Liberal Party in my riding. He wanted to run against me in the election when Warren Kinsella actually was parachuted in by the Prime Minister to run against me. That was a wonderful achievement: getting rid of Warren Kinsella in that election.

This lawyer is actually a very nice guy. We get along really well. Obviously we have differences in our opinions on politics, but on a lot of things we agree. In fact, he has been shown in the North Shore News in the last few days agreeing with our party's position on the war with Iraq, indicating that he is embarrassed by the Prime Minister and that we really need to side with our traditional allies, but I digress.

The lawyer sent me an e-mail last Wednesday or Thursday saying that he would be in court today. He is probably there right now as I am standing in the House to speak. He is in court today on a case to do with an Iranian refugee claimant who is drug trafficking in North Vancouver. He was arrested and charged. He told the prosecutor that his refugee claim was a scam, that it was only a way of getting into Canada to deal drugs and that he had been schooled and told how to do this.

Of course my first question to this lawyer was whether he advised the immigration department about this. He has, so now the guy is targeted, but it is expected that he will be sentenced to a one year term in prison for trafficking in narcotics in North Vancouver. We all know that means he will be out in just a matter of weeks or months and will be back on the street. The problem is, says this lawyer in North Vancouver who is a Liberal supporter, that he would like to see this guy's feet not even touch the ground on his way to the airport to be deported.

It is not going to happen because the guy will be out on early release or parole. That is considered to be part of the sentence so of course the immigration department cannot deport the guy. There is nothing to stop the guy going back on the street to traffic drugs again, which then creates a new charge, which puts him back into the system again, which further prevents the immigration department from deporting him. That is how stupid these laws are.

The sex registry is much the same thing. It has been done so poorly that the information in it would be relatively useless right at the beginning. It will take an enormous number of years for it to become of any use whatsoever.

I will go back to the case I just used as an example, the failure to properly deal with criminals by the government, the immigration law business. I used to use the example of my 87-year-old mother who lives in New Zealand. If she jumped on an airplane from New Zealand, landed at Vancouver International Airport and said she was a refugee, under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms because of the Singh case way back in the 1970s, I think it was, the case that the government will not do anything about, my 87-year-old mother from New Zealand could claim to be a refugee and we would have to accept her claim.

She would be released on her own recognizance after about a one hour interview. She would be given welfare, a place to live, furnished at taxpayers' expense, medical care and dental care. On average it would take her about a year with legal aid, which of course she would get, before her case came before the Immigration and Refugee Board. The chances are that the Immigration and Refugee Board would say that she was from New Zealand and was not a refugee.

If my mother refused to identify herself, the New Zealand government would not give permission to issue travel papers and we would not be able to deport her. My 87-year-old mother could live forever in Canada on welfare as a refugee claimant. That is what is happening every day under the government's immigration laws.

My riding has the largest Iranian population in the country. At least 40% of all the Iranians living there are refugee claimants. Most of them are bogus. I just mentioned the lawyer who sent me an e-mail last Wednesday or Thursday. He actually put in his email that people in the Iranian community had told him the guy was a criminal in Iran and he is a criminal in Canada and they wanted to know why we had let him in.

I cannot say how many times that comment has been made to me by the decent Iranian immigrants in my riding who came in using the proper system. They see all these, and I am sorry to use the word, scumbags who come in using our refugee laws and claiming refugee status just so they can be criminals here.

There are so many examples of the laws that the government passes, as my colleague said, where the victims are treated with disdain and the criminals get everything they want.

In terms of the retroactivity of the bill, why not use some creativity? Instead of capitulating and giving up and saying it cannot do anything because the Supreme Court will say it is wrong to make it retroactive, for the safety of the kids of our country, let us be creative.

We have a notwithstanding clause in our charter. The government is afraid to use it, but maybe if the government were a little creative, it could use it in this case. What would be wrong, for example, if we decided to use the notwithstanding clause to make the registry retroactive? We could put it to the people of Canada in a referendum and ask them whether they approved of using the notwithstanding clause that way.

What better reason could there be to have a referendum in the country than on such an important issue? Instead of capitulating to a group of politically appointed judges, why do we not ask the people of Canada whether they would agree that this issue is worth using the notwithstanding clause and to make the registry retroactive?

There is always a way. Why would that not work? Even if the government is too afraid to use the notwithstanding clause, why does it not try a little harder?

I do not think the lawyers in the justice department are trying very hard. At the very least they could have written something into the bill and tried their darndest to make it retroactive. If eventually it was struck down, at least we could have said that we tried. We have not even tried.

If we look at some other western civilizations such as Britain or the United States, they use retroactivity. For example, in Florida the DNA bank was established a few years ago. I remember standing in the House speaking about this when we were debating the DNA bill. When the DNA bank was introduced in Florida, it was made retroactive. Criminals were forced to give blood samples, something the Liberal government would not do as it would be infringing on criminals' rights if we forced them to give a sample when they were arrested. In Florida that is what was done.

The ability to solve crimes in Florida has increased dramatically because now there is such a valuable database of genetic material from those criminals. Meanwhile we here in Canada are struggling along, trying to gradually build a DNA database one person at a time and getting people's permission instead of going into the prisons and retroactively taking blood samples from all prisoners so we can identify them. That is what we should be doing, just as we do for fingerprints. If it can be done in the U.K. and the United States, we should find a way to do it here instead of constantly sitting on the fence.

It is the same situation with the Iraq war. Everything the government does is a half measure. It sits on the fence. It will not make a decision. Instead of joining with our traditional allies to make some things retroactive, to force criminals to provide DNA samples, it capitulates to a nothingness, a failure to make a decision. It upsets people.

The intent of the bill, according to the government, is to establish a national database of sex offenders so that the police will be able to use the database to track the activities of sex offenders, their whereabouts and to be able to provide the public with the information or just to solve crimes. It is a noble intention. As I said at the beginning of my speech, if it is worth doing, it is worth doing well. We should be doing our darndest to make this bill effective and to make it work well.

Instead of that, the government has dragged its feet all the way, kicking and screaming until we have this half measure before us today. If we think about it, the government was really reluctant to even bring in this bill. Let me provide some history.

As mentioned earlier by my colleague from Red Deer, it started with the member for Langley—Abbotsford almost 10 years ago in this place. For 10 years he has been urging the government to establish a sex offender registry. Why did it take so long? If the government had brought it in the very first year that my colleague demanded it, we would already have 10 years of information, even if we had not made it retroactive at that point. We are already 10 years behind where we could have been. It should have responded on day one, instead of being more worried, as the government always is, about the rights of criminals instead of the rights of the victims. Just think how valuable that sex offender registry would be today if we had established it in 1994 instead of still talking about it in 2003.

On March 13, 2001, two years ago, the House voted in favour of a Canadian Alliance motion which read:

That the government establish a national sex offender registry by January 1, 2002.

We are 15 months further downstream from the day by which the House agreed that registry was to be established and we are still talking about it. We have not established the registry.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with the last point first. What I said, if my hon. colleague had not been running in and out of the chamber and would have actually been sitting in his seat paying attention to my remarks, was that my constituents are conveying to me repeatedly that when it comes to protecting children they do not give a damn about the charter. If the charter is the impediment to protecting children or the rights of the criminal, I can tell the hon. member which side my constituents come down on. I do not know what side he comes down on.

It seems to me, in the nine and a half years that I have been here, that the Liberals are more concerned about the rights of the criminals than they are about the rights of the victims. If that is not the case, then why in heaven's name does Bill C-23 even say that there is concern about the privacy of the sex offenders?

One of my colleagues, the member for Langley—Abbotsford, has been trying for nine and a half years, ever since he came to this place after the 1993 election, to have a victim's bill of rights passed by the chamber, but to no avail. If the member for Mississauga South cares so much about the rights of victims, children, women, and the most vulnerable members of our society, why has his party been holding up any drafting, and certainly any passage, of a victim's bill of rights? That is the first point that he made. So that it is clear where I stand on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, certainly I support it.

The other thing is that I have often heard it remarked that it was too bad that when Mr. Trudeau was designing his Charter of Rights and Freedoms he did not also design a charter of rights and responsibilities to go along with it. I hear that from people out in the real world all the time. Perhaps something the hon. member for Mississauga South would like to consider as well is that in addition to a victim's bill of rights, maybe we should start working on a charter of responsibilities to accompany the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The member said a number of times today that he was concerned that we could not include retroactivity without running afoul of the justice practices or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Let us try it. That is my point. Is the chamber not in the process of drafting law? Are we the lawmakers or have we, through the Liberal government, handed off that job to the courts? Increasingly, that is what my constituents are saying.

Why is it that we are so afraid of being overruled by the Supreme Court of Canada that we will not draft and introduce legislation that people are calling upon us to draft, introduce and pass? We seem to be afraid that the Supreme of Court will overrule it or interpret it some other way than what we intended. Why is that? I do not understand it and people in my riding do not understand it. We should be the lawmakers. We should not be saying that we would like to include retroactivity, but perhaps it would run afoul of the justice practices or the charter.

First of all, we should decide if it is the right thing to do. Then we should do it and use all the powers of the Parliament of Canada to ensure that if we do believe it is the right thing that it stands up. If it does not stand up, then we should fix the problem. We should be in control, not the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been quite an informative and interesting debate for the last hour or two with members of the Canadian Alliance exchanging views with the member for Mississauga South. Rather than him standing up and trying to blindly defend the indefensible, I wish he would take time to read the bill in its entirety. I see my hon. colleague from Elk Island crossing the Chamber floor to hopefully enlighten the hon. member for Mississauga South. Perhaps in the future his interventions will make a bit more sense.

I would like to start out by addressing some of the comments that the member for Mississauga South raised over the last hour or two, not only during his 20 minute speech but during his interventions when he was commenting on and questioning, not only members of the official opposition but other members of the Chamber. One comment from the member for Mississauga South that I found particularly offensive was his contention that Bill C-23 would somehow be fixed when it went to the Standing Committee on Justice.

I am deeply honoured and pleased to have the privilege of representing the good people of Prince George--Peace River in this Chamber. It is a very unique honour to be given the right to the best of my ability to represent my electoral constituency in this place. It has been my experience though, in the nine years I have been an MP, to see all too often bills not getting fixed at committee. I say that without any particular pride or joy. No one knows this better than the hon. member for Mississauga South. As a Liberal government backbencher, he has endeavoured on countless occasions in the period of time I have been here to bring forward amendments and improve government legislation only to have those amendments duly voted down.

People in the real world outside Ottawa are not aware that the very nature of the committee structure is partisan and that is unfortunate. When we have a majority government with the majority of members elected to the House of Commons, we end up with a situation where it has the majority of members sitting on all standing committees as well. When ministers bring forward legislation, they get the assistance of the government whip to ensure that the legislation goes through virtually unamended. He or she gets all members of the particular standing committee to vote down any amendments brought forward, unless they are amendments brought by the government department and put forward by Liberal members.

We have seen in past that bills were amended quite extensively but very seldom were they what I would call independent amendments, whether those amendments came from a government backbencher or from an opposition member from any one of the four opposition parties. All too often amendments are dismissed out of hand and voted down at committee. We have seen this happen time and time again with important legislation, and I could run down a very long list of legislation that has been treated in that manner.

I cannot believe, as I sat in the Chamber, that I repeatedly heard the member for Mississauga South say that we should get the bill through second reading, get it off to committee and it would fixed. That is complete nonsense.

I think not only parliamentarians or staff persons who have worked on Parliament Hill but also members of the general public, who follow with any degree of interest what goes on in this place, would know that is complete nonsense. All too often when legislation goes off to committee, unless the government, or the minister or the department says that a technical error was made, all other amendments are voted down.

I have seen bills, which were passed, come back to haunt the government down the road because Liberals do not do their homework and they turn a deaf ear to opposition members. For partisan reasons, they say that they will not even consider a particular amendment.

When it comes to Bill C-23, what could be more important than protecting the most vulnerable members of our society, women and children, boys and girls, from sexual predators? In the nine and a half years I have been here, I have heard over and over again the issue of the need to do a better job of protecting the most vulnerable members of our society.

My colleague from Elk Island pointed out, and elicited quite a round of debate from the member for Mississauga South, that under the section entitled “Purpose and Principles”, subclauses 2(2) (a) (b) and (c) did not talk about preventing these types of horrendous crimes. That was the issue he was getting at when the Liberal member for Mississauga South intervened and said that under particular clause “This Act shall be carried out in recognition of, and in accordance with, the following principles: (a) in the interest of protecting society”. He focussed on that and said that the bill really was about protecting society.

However when we read on further, that argument is nonsensical because there is no mention in any of those paragraphs of preventing sexual assault, sexual abuse and the likes of those despicable crimes. It is all about bringing forward a registry in the hopes of helping police solve crimes, which is an admirable goal in and of itself. There is no question of that. We want to assist police and the authorities in any way possible to catch the reprehensible individuals and put them away.

However, as my colleague from Elk Island so eloquently stated, the primary goal has to be to prevent it to begin with. We should try to utilize and put in place all the tools possible to prevent these types of crimes from ever occurring in the first place, especially when dealing with individuals who have shown statistically that the recidivism rate is of the nature of 40%. In other words, on average, four out of 10 sexual offenders that are currently incarcerated in Canada will reoffend again. We can count on it. We know it will happen. Yet the government draws up legislation in Bill C-23 and says that retroactivity is open for debate. It is concerned about it because it might not stand up under the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Well, guess what? My constituents, and I hear this constantly, do not give a damn about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable people of our society. They do not care. They do not want that argument. They are sick and tired of hearing that argument because it focuses more on the rights of the criminal, of the predator, than it does on the rights of the victims.

My constituents want a government that will stand and say that it will go to any length to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. That is what they want from a government. They tell me over and over again. They do not want to hear the legal mumbo-jumbo, that we better make sure this law is right because it might end up before the Supreme Court of Canada and it will get struck down because it is offensive to the predators and goes against their rights.

As I said, my constituents do not care about the rights of the criminals. They want a government that is going to start focusing on the rights of the victims and do everything within its power to ensure that there are no more victims, or certainly that the number of victims is kept to a minimum.

My colleague from Battlefords--Lloydminster brought forward an amendment which states:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word “That” with

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-23, An Act respecting the registration of information relating to sex offenders, to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, since the bill fails to require retroactive registration of sex offenders who have a 40% recidivism rate in order to avoid needing another offence before a repeat sex offender is added to the registry.

Again I do not take any pride or pleasure in this statement, but I think that is a very worthwhile amendment. My colleague from Battlefords--Lloydminster is well aware that if that amendment were accepted and passed, it would kill the bill. The point he is making, the point the Canadian Alliance as the official opposition is making is that this bill might as well be dead as to be the way it is. It is useless.

I said earlier during an intervention that I do not know whether other colleagues, especially government colleagues in the chamber, are getting tired of listening to me make these kinds of statements. I suspect they are. I know that I am getting tired of saying them. I am getting so frustrated with the government bringing forward these half-baked ideas and trying to sell them to the Canadian public as if it actually were addressing a serious issue. I am getting totally frustrated with it.

And it is not just me; it is not just the one member who happens to represent Prince George--Peace River. Members throughout the chamber and across party lines are reaching that same level of frustration. Society is crying out for a government to address these serious issues, especially the ones dealing with protection of children.

Another bill before the House, Bill C-20, deals with pornography and it also does not go far enough to protect children. It redrafts, rejumbles and rejigs the existing laws but we are still stuck with court interpretations that allow for a legal defence of child pornography based upon artistic merit. Whoever heard of such nonsense?

Members should go out into the real world outside the chamber, outside this Ottawa bubble of Parliament Hill and talk to people about protecting children. I can say that for the people of Prince George—Peace River it is not just their member of Parliament who is frustrated. The people from one end of my riding to the other are fed up with this nonsense where the government brings forward this type of legislation and tries to convince Canadians it is doing something to address a serious problem. It boggles my mind.

What will we have if Bill C-23 proceeds? And I suspect it will because the government has a majority. It will vote down the amendment by the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster and it will vote down any other amendments.

The House will ship Bill C-23 off to committee. This is something the Liberal backbencher from Mississauga South says is the answer, to send it off to committee and the bill will be fixed there. I wish I had just a pittance of his confidence that anything would be accomplished at committee, but I do not and I think that will be borne out.

I remember another law that was passed. Maybe my hon. colleague from Mississauga South can remember. It dealt with something called conditional sentencing. I fought against that law back in 1995. The Liberals forced it through and said not to worry about it, that it would be fine.

I think all the opposition parties said they did not have any problem with conditional sentencing if it was used for minor crimes, misdemeanours such as a young person caught for the first time on some minor charge, vandalism, property damage, shoplifting, that type of a crime. The young person would not be thrown in jail with hardened criminals but instead would get conditional sentencing.

Conditional sentencing is where a court will impose conditions rather than jail time. None of us have a problem with that.

The opposition, at that time it was the Reform Party of Canada, pointed out repeatedly during debate and at the justice committee, ironically enough, that the bill could be abused by the court system. We could end up with a situation where violent criminals got off scot-free or they could have some condition imposed. If they had killed someone while driving while drunk perhaps they would not be able to drive for a while, maybe five or ten years, or sex offenders would end up not doing jail time.

There have actually been cases where people have been convicted of sexual crimes and have not served a day in jail because of conditional sentencing. This is something the government brought forward and said it was a good idea.

The government would not listen to the opposition when we said that it was not the right way to proceed, that we should define which crimes it could apply to and for which the judges could use this new form of sentencing. No, the government would not listen. We are still stuck with it however many years later it is now. I lose track after a while.

I certainly support the amendment by my colleague to not give second reading to the bill if we cannot make this retroactive, if we cannot send a signal to the courts, to the justice system and to the people back home in northeastern British Columbia. They always tell me there is no such thing as a justice system in Canada anymore. They say it is a legal system. It is a system designed by lawyers for lawyers. It is not a justice system. They would argue that there is not justice anymore in our legal system. Some days it is pretty hard to not agree with that argument.

There is no question it has to be retroactive. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest bringing forward, as Bill C-23 does, legislation to enact a registry for sexual offenders and only have it from this day forward or from whatever day it is actually enacted into law, without placing on it the individuals who are already incarcerated, especially because of the high incidence of recidivism.

I think every member of the House could speak passionately to this issue for a long period of time, but unfortunately, my time is up. I have appreciated the opportunity to voice my concerns and the concerns of the constituents of Prince George--Peace River on Bill C-23.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of debate in the House is to have an exchange of ideas. I just asked the hon. member a question about what he would like to see in the bill, a new bill coming forward if this one is defeated, and what could be changed to make it acceptable to him. He said that he wanted to see the principles and that it was there to protect Canadians. I am not quoting him directly but I think the intent of his statement was that the registry would be there to protect Canadians from sexual offenders.

Let us look at Bill C-23, clause 2, “Purpose and Principles”. Subclause 2(1) reads:

The purpose of this Act is to help police services investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring the registration of certain information relating to sex offenders.

Subclause 2(2) reads:

This Act shall be carried out in recognition of, and in accordance with, the following principles:

(a) in the interest of protecting society through the effective investigation of crimes of a sexual nature, police services must have rapid access to certain information relating to sex offenders;

I could go on but I think the second clause of the bill addresses precisely what the member said he would like to see in it. It is there to protect the interest of the public.

Canadians can see that in debate the opposition has a role, not only in debate but as an opposition party, the official opposition, and that is to make the government look bad. The opposition tries to pick away and provide information, maybe not all the information, but in a way which will tend to paint a picture. It also does a good job of giving selective information.

Canadians will know that the bill is dedicated to the establishment of a sex offender registry. It is being responsive to the needs of our police enforcement agencies.

I want to go back to the announcement made by the federal Solicitor General and the Attorney General of Canada of December 11 when he introduced the legislation. He announced that the new legislation reflected the consensus reached with provincial and territorial ministers last November.

The first and important point here is that this has been an issue of concern, not only to the federal government but also to provincial and territorial governments. Those jurisdictions have worked carefully and closely to ensure that as the legislation moves forward and goes through all the stages that it actually will deal with the substantive points for which advocates have been calling for some time.

We know there always has been, as long as I can remember, an RCMP registry. Indeed, it includes substantial information on those convicted of crimes, and that has been available for the police to look at for a variety of reasons.

However the issue of a sex offender registry is more focused and more intense so as to reflect the values Canadians have expressed with regard to the whole issue of sexual abuse.

I do not think I have heard any hon. member in this place deny the fact that we abhor sexual abuse, those who would perpetrate crimes or exploit women, children or others in a sexual manner. It is a degrading, offensive act that the House will address, and this bill is one of the tools.

The Solicitor General and Attorney General of Canada, and the Minister of Justice jointly brought this forward to advise Canadians.

We are getting to the point where a lot of posturing or positioning has been made and we are getting a little focused on maybe just throwing the negatives out. We now have an amendment before the House that basically says that we should defeat the bill right now, that we should not pass it at this stage of the legislative process because it does not do what it is supposed to do.

That is a very valid amendment for the opposition to make. It also is important for other members in the House to share their views with regard to whether this is a bill with which we can work. We are at second reading and it means that agreement in principle will be dealt with, but some of the most important work that will be done on the bill will be done at committee.

I believe members will agree that when we can bring a bill before committee, it puts a motion on the floor, as it were. It defines the ballpark in which we are going to discuss things. Rather than the development of the concepts, we will have some things to speak to directly. It also means that we are able then to bring before a committee expert witnesses and testimonies from those who either have been directly affected by the subject matter or who have material and information that they believe is important for members of Parliament to be aware of, particularly those on the committee who are dealing with the bill at committee stage, so that as we move forward in the process and consider amendments, there will be reasoned amendments proposed that will be responsive to the testimony given at committee.

Members will know that with legislation they cannot afford to play the partisan card all the time. They are there to do the best they can to bring forward reasoned amendments that will improve the legislation or correct inconsistencies, errors or matters which do not make the bill as strong as it otherwise could be.

The consensus will be that we need to have a national sex offender registry, but we also need functional and useful legislation so it will do the best possible job with regard to not only the identification of sex offenders but for the purposes of deterrence or identifying where they may be in the event a sexual offence has been committed, that there will be this ready access. I am not familiar enough with the logistics about whether this has preventive measures but I would think that the existence of a sex offender registry will constitute, to some extent, a deterrent situation.

The amendment to which I am speaking was raised specifically because of the whole concept of retroactivity. As I had indicated earlier, it would appear to me that it is in the best interests of all concerned that all information currently known about any persons would be relevant for a sex offender registry. As a principle, I think that makes sense. It is very difficult to say that some information is not as relevant. I know the information but I will not share it because of the timing of legislation or other things.

On its face, one would say that certainly the retroactivity principle seems to be an area where we have to consider whether or not there are ways in which we can effectively get there to make use of important and relevant information. That, from a common sense basis, is useful and important for members to know, but we also have to educate ourselves about some of the practicalities of our laws and whether or not our laws have been written in a way that will withstand a charter challenge or some sort of jurisdictional challenge because they were not written in the right way. It would be disastrous if a piece of legislation were impaired because of a technical problem.

I have looked at the briefing notes. There is a section on retroactivity. I am not a lawyer by profession but I understand some of these principles. Certainly the first point is that with regard to the retroactivity, the fact that it is not there is consistent with the principles of justice. That is a very broad statement, but it is a statement with which the members can make some examination. What principles of justice are there? How can the bill still respect the consistency with established law and precedent, et cetera, and not get into challenges in some jurisdictions?

The second part has to do with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We know that the charter not only brings to us a tremendous protection of the rights and freedoms of Canadians but it also opens us up to defend them in ways which sometimes drag things on. In this regard it is suggested that there are potential or in fact actual charter questions that have been brought to bear. I am told that there is a proceeding in Ontario on its SOR act and it is currently under review by Ontario and federal justice officials with regard to this very issue of retroactivity. As that review and all the activities with regard to the retroactivity provisions within that Ontario legislation are dealt with, they will give members a better sense of the validity of the concerns with regard to either justice practices and principles or potential charter challenges.

The registration system ensures and must ensure the fair treatment of persons subject to the registry through a number of measures. I would suspect that there are some members who will not agree with the premise that those who are convicted of sexual offences are entitled to fair treatment and that they would be entitled to fair treatment under the registry under the bill, because they are convicted criminals. That is not how it works in Canada. All persons in Canada have rights.

I know that there are many cases of habitual criminals or others who have a recidivism rate such that they would be a clear threat to society, and that there are cases in which people may be retained, incarcerated, et cetera, so that the Canadian public can be protected. I am not sure how this works, but there are examples. Although these people have rights, as do others, the Supreme Court of Canada has often made rulings in which it has not rejected the fact that any one party would have rights but has decided in a number of cases that the rights of one person would supersede or override the rights of another person. So there are ways in which even the charter challenges could be dealt with and I am aware of a couple of cases, but I think the members understand my point.

The bill calls for requirements to register and states that can only occur through a judge's order in a hearing where the offender has the right to counsel and the right to be heard. Again, this is to the point: Does a convicted sex offender have the right, that right to be heard and the right to counsel? Under our system, all Canadians do.

It also states that the presiding judge will have the discretion to refuse Crown applications for registration orders based on the “grossly disproportionate” test provided in section 487.05 of the Criminal Code for DNA identification act orders. I am going to have to study that one a little more carefully because it is substantive, but again, it is a specific matter on which the members must take the time to consult with those who are trained and have the expertise to explain the grossly disproportionate test and to determine its applicability here as it relates to the retroactivity concern.

It also states that the Crown must make an application at the time of sentencing and that registered offenders will have the right to apply for a review of their status after 20, 10 or 5 years, and when they receive a pardon. Again, there are prescriptions for the registration. It may not be a forever thing. I think members could make a good argument that the recidivism rate for sexual offenders generally is high and that it would be very easy to apply this to all who are sexual offenders of any type or sort. I am not sure if that is the case. I suspect that some cases are much clearer than others, but this is part of the process and I think that the members at committee will want to satisfy themselves that all either should or should not be painted with the same brush.

The bill prescribes that registered offenders will also have the right to appeal a registration order. Again, right of appeal, in justice practice, is the right of all. I guess it comes down to the point of whether or not Canadians, even those who are convicted of criminal offences, have diminished rights. I know that there are some examples where in fact they do have diminished rights in a number of cases. Members may be able to demonstrate that the diminishment of certain rights is substantively the same and that maybe this would also be applicable to some provision of this bill as it relates to the concern about the retroactivity provisions.

The registered offenders will also have the right to review their data within the sex offender database and to request corrections. That may seem like a pretty nominal request, but I would suspect that any information that is kept on persons and that is not correct, regardless of what it relates to, could be damaging to a person. Again, the person has rights, so it does make some sense.

The bill contains strict controls on who has access to information in the sex offender database and on how authorized persons may use the data. Now we get into the aspects where it is very important to ensure that the integrity of the system and the integrity of the information are not misused or abused in a way that would affect probably all concerned, I would suggest.

Finally, breaches of privacy rights of the registered offenders would be a criminal offence. For some members I suspect that may be on its face somewhat problematic, in that to say that violating the privacy rights of a particular individual would be a criminal offence. I am not sure what the dimensions of that are on other criteria, but I suspect that there are degrees of disclosure of information covered under the Privacy Act, some of which may not be meritorious of a criminal offence. I think this is probably another area at which members may want to look.

I have been trying to make the point that, notwithstanding the fact that we can all make a case on our concerns about issues related to sexual offenders and to the best interests of those who have been abused, or those at risk of being abused or those in the public who may be exposed to persons with a high recidivism rate, we have to be very careful with the bill. But from what I hear in listening to the debate today, I am somewhat encouraged by the tenacity of members to ask tough questions. This is the way that we make legislation better.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, when we start each day here we have a prayer and we pray for the wisdom to make good laws. This is part of that process. Hopefully we are achieving some wisdom and that wisdom will be carried forward into committee stage.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a topic where the rights of Canadians are at stake and until we get it right we need to keep on pushing the government. I will quickly reiterate the main points that some of my colleagues have indicated. One of them is the importance of such legislation and also the tardiness of the government in bringing it forward.

For a long time, our policy has been that there should be such a registry for the protection of society, which is the main goal of our justice system. We would to ensure that the registry is used to prevent the criminal from reoffending which in the case of sexual offences, unfortunately, is one of the higher rates or recidivism. It is important that these people be held to account for the safety of our society.

Our party moved this motion on a supply day a little over two years ago and the House voted in favour of it. The motion said that such a registry be established by January 30, 2002 and it is now March 31, 2003. We really need to wonder when a government is that slow on such a relatively simple bill that it would first of all take so long to do it and then do such a colossally bad job of it.

When I was an instructor, if my students asked for an extension of time it was because they wanted to do a better job on their assignment. The government has taken an extension of over a year and it still fails the assignment because it does not accomplish what it was intended to do.

I will not reiterate all of the points that my colleagues have made. The bill is not that large. Sometimes we get bills which are a couple of inches thick. This one is relatively short.

I would like to make a few comments from the bill as I read it. First of all I am struck by the fact that the principle in the bill is not to protect society, innocent victims, or women and children who are usually victims of sexual offences. It states in clause 2(1):

The purpose of this Act is to help police services investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring the registration of certain information relating to sex offenders.

The purpose is not to protect society; it is to help the police investigate after it has happened. The government has it backwards. We must work to prevent these crimes. We must protect our women, children, and young boys who are sometimes the object of sexual predators. Instead, what the government does is introduce a bill and make it like it is a big deal when its purpose is only to investigate after the crime has occurred. The government has a failing grade on this particular bill.

Just as an aside, and I hate to accuse the Liberals, the justice minister and others of improper motives. I hate to do that, but I see politics written all over the bill. The Liberals have introduced a bill entitled “An act respecting the registration of information relating to sex offenders...” Therefore, it would be a sex offenders registry.

At the next election I can see the Liberal candidate in my riding running around and telling people not to vote for me because I voted against the sex registry. Saying so does not make it so. This legislation has the label, but the contents are devoid of any effectiveness in solving the problem. I would be remiss to vote in favour of the bill because it has serious flaws. Yet, because it has the label this is how the government is going to use it. Can members imagine using an issue like this for political purposes? I object to that very strenuously.

If the next part were not true it would be funny. The bill begins by requiring that there be a registration of accurate information. We know how accurate the government's registration system is with the gun registry. I sure wish the government more success here.

The bill goes on to say that the privacy interests of sex offenders would be protected. I have a small amount of sympathy for that. I do not believe in making a public spectacle of a person who has wronged society, but I sure believe in ensuring that the public is aware of who is in their midst. It is an error in the bill to put the privacy rights of the offender at such a high level without balancing it with the important rights of a community to know who is living there.

There is another serious flaw in this legislation and it reminds me of a story I heard. A man took his young boy to the post office where there were pictures of individuals who were wanted. These posters indicated that if anybody had information on the whereabouts of these individuals the police should be called so they could be arrested. This little boy, who was probably four or five years old, asked his dad why these men were not kept by the police when their picture was taken. That is funny in a way. Obviously, the police had the individuals because they had their pictures.

Bill C-23 would not require police officers to report into the database anything they know. Instead, it would require offenders to report. In other words, the bill says that when offenders are convicted of a crime and when those individuals are released they must show up at a registration centre within 15 days and provide accurate information. That is wonderful. It is in the bill. Hansard does not record cynicism or sarcasm, and I must say here in brackets that the member “was dripping with sarcasm” when he said that offenders had so much regard for the law when they forced other persons into a sexual act against their will at gun point or at knife point.

That is a very serious crime. That is how much respect those individuals have for the law. We now expect them to show up within 15 days to register and tell the registry person everything in order to have accurate information. This begs the question: Will the persons show up at all? Will they give accurate information? We certainly hope so.

I must draw the House's attention to another clause. As a mathematician and one who plays a bit with logic games, clause 3.(2) blows me away. It says:

For the purposes of this Act, a crime is of a sexual nature if it consists of one or more acts that (a) are either sexual in nature...

That is a circular argument; it is a circular definition. It is like saying that a circle is round because a circle is round. One cannot engage in that type of flippant definition in a bill that is so serious and be taken seriously by Canadians.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to listen to my colleague from Saskatchewan lay out a representation of the concerns of his constituents with Bill C-23. I am struck with the fact that it does not seem to matter in what area of criminal law the Liberal government finally is pushed to react, it invariably does a half-assed job of bringing forward the legislation. Bill C-20, which it brought forward to deal with the issue of child pornography, is very similar to Bill C-23. It tries to do half or less of the job.

I cannot imagine the Liberals would bring forward legislation that would not make it retroactive to ensure that existing sex offenders would be included on the registry. Good grief, what good will the registry be if all the hundreds of sex offenders, who are currently incarcerated, will not be on the registry? It just boggles the mind.

I know in conversations that I have had with constituents from one end of Prince George—Peace River to the other, they are appalled that the Liberals take years, not weeks, not months, to react to the pleas of Canadian citizens to protect our children, the most vulnerable people in our society, and then they bring forward legislation that will not do half the job.

I represent a huge rural riding which covers over 200,000 square kilometres with about 10 communities, from Prince George in the south to Fort Nelson in the far north, getting up close to Yukon, and I have heard it in every community big and small. Is my colleague from Saskatchewan hearing similar concern being expressed by constituents in his riding?

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I spoke earlier on Bill C-20, the child protection bill, and I talked about a parallel bill that would come in later today. Bill C-23 is that bill.

Bill C-23 would put in place the national sex offender registry. The national sex offender registry has been called on for a long time in the country. There have been several different stabs at it. However it has never really happened. I guess the genesis of this came out of a Canadian Alliance supply day motion put forward by my good friend, my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford. On March 13, 2001, over two years ago now, the House of Commons voted in favour of that motion. The motion, which was very simple, read:

That the government establish a national sex offender registry by January 1, 2002.

We have missed it by a year and some. It did not happen. The Liberals ignored it. At their own peril, they walked away from it, yet there was a groundswell of petitions and support. People from our ridings across the country questioning what had happened to it. They asked where had it gone because they had not seen it this place. Finally the Liberals were pushed to act, and we have Bill C-23. Unfortunately, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, it is a half measure. There are some terrible flaws in this legislation as well.

A lot of it started back in 1988 when an 11 year old boy was murdered by a convicted pedophile who was out on statutory release, another wonderful thing that needs to be changed. The Liberals at that time started thinking about a national sex offender registry. That was 15 years ago. There have been a lot of problems and a lot of convicted felons since that time. A lot of folks who have been released on statutory release back into the very communities have reoffended and gone back to prison.

It is timely that we are finally getting around to this legislation. However there is a huge flaw. It is not retroactive. As my colleague from Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar pointed out, it starts off just like that, a white, blank sheet of paper. There is nothing on it.

How can that be when our prisons have these types of people incarcerated now? They are being let out. I had one on the streets of my riding a week or two ago. I have talked about this a couple of times in the House but it bears repeating. A fellow who is a multiple convicted felon, been away many times, keeps getting out and doing the same dastardly deeds. His victims are young girls ranging in age from 11 to a one and a half year old. How bad is that? Yet his name will not show up on that registry. He is a multiple convicted child predator.

There is a huge hole in this type of a document. That alone has called for amendments to make it retroactive and the government will not go there. There have been questions in the House to the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice and they say that they cannot make it retroactive because of privacy concerns.

How much privacy do the victims have? They wake up screaming at night. These nightmares will continue on for their life. Yet the legislation, which is supposedly there to protect them and to help them get past this, is not retroactive. It does not take that burden away from them. It keeps them reliving those problems every time this clown is released back into society to reoffend.

Other colleagues have touched on the rate of recidivism. It is huge and unbelievable. These people do not even take any kind of counselling while they are incarcerated. They can say that they do not need it and walk away. They cannot be forced to take counselling. Their constitutional rights supercede the victims and the nightmare they continue to leave. It is absolutely upside down and backwards here.

The government says that it cannot make it retroactive because of privacy concerns and it will be constitutionally challenged. My good colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who used to be a public prosecutor in Nova Scotia said that any new law would be challenged. They always are to test how strong it is.

Our courts need to have the backbone, and maybe we need to put it there from the House of Commons. It is the top court on the law. Maybe we need to inject that backbone into our judges right from here, with the toe of our boot if need be, and say, “ Here is the crime and this is the time that they need to do”. Get on with it.”

We see maximum sentences being extended and enlarged. However maximum does not mean anything. It is the minimum time that they serve that counts. It does not matter that the maximum is doubled, or tripled or maybe it is 16 life sentences. Nobody serves those sentences. They go to the minimum term. They get statutory release. They are up for parole at two-thirds of their time and all sorts of things. There is a huge amount of work that needs to be done on our whole justice department. This retroactivity totally negates the whole purpose of the bill.

The government will not implement retroactivity on the sex offender registry. It will not implement retroactivity on the DNA database. It will not go and get DNA from a lot of these bad guys because of their constitutional rights and the privacy laws. Then it implements something like Bill C-68, a firearms registry, which has forms that really invade my privacy. It set up a database that is a shopping list for every other criminal in the world who wants to find out what I have and where to come and get it, and my constitutional rights are challenged.

A good friend of mine, Dr. Ted Morton, has done an indepth study on the constitutionality of Bill C-68. He said that the government did not have a leg to stand on in regard to that bill, and he has listed it out. This fellow is a constitutional lawyer. He knows about what he is talking. That really starts to ring true when we see the people who have tried to become arrested under Bill C-68 and the government will not charge them because it knows it will get thrown out of court and totally destroy the whole premise of this public safety Bill C-68 hides behind.

We see those type of things implemented in here.

Even if a sex offender is put on the brand new list, there is another loophole. Through the courts, he can apply to not have his name listed if he feels that it would be detrimental to his health and safety. How absolutely ridiculous is that? Nobody in any court of law or at any kitchen table would ever agree with the premise that a criminal, a convicted felon, can apply to not have his name on there because it is injurious to his own privacy and safety. That is a loophole that nobody can believe.

Provinces have started to develop these registries. They have had to do it ad hoc because the federal government will not come forward with the proper legislation and funding to help them out. We can have pedophiles listed in Ontario who move to Saskatchewan and we lose them because there is not that continuity. This would address that if it were done properly, but we do not see that here. The big problem is the funding.

As I mentioned in a question to my colleague, the Canadian Police Association was here on Hill the last week and it probably lobbied him like it did everybody else. Its stand supposedly is pro Bill C-68. Maybe at the top end it. However ordinary folks who came to see me said that it was not a good thing. They want to see a DNA database. They want to see a sex offender registry that is retroactive. The government tends to not mention the CPA stand on those issues but it will give the CPA credit for being in favour of Bill C-68, at the upper end.

There are a lot of things wrong with this. The biggest issue that we take umbrage with is the retroactivity. To that end, I would like to propose a motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word “that” with

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-23, an act respecting the registration of information relating to sex offenders, to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, since the bill fails to require retroactive registration of sex offenders who have a 40% recidivism rate in order to avoid needing another offence before a repeat sex offender is added to the registry”.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to rise in the House and to address this very important matter. For once, this is a very positive bill, one aimed at protecting children. That is a major priority for Canadians.

This legislation, as has been stated several times already, is long overdue. It is one that certainly we in the Progressive Conservative Party support. We have long been calling for a stand-alone sex offender registry that would have a very practical and immediate impact on the ability of the police to protect and enhance existing systems of protection for children and for communities generally.

The implementation of the legislation will be important. It comes from an incredibly sound idea, the concept that has been in public debate for some time. The introduction of the legislation represents a departure from the government's normal routine of doing very little.

Bill C-23 would require sex offenders to be registered in a national database, which would make changes to the Criminal Code and help police investigate crimes of a sexual nature. The registration itself is of certain information relating to sex offenders and would have no doubt a positive impact on the timeliness of investigations and, more important, would add a much to the needed element of public protection.

I am glad to see we are bringing this forward at this time. Our party has long been an advocate of action of this file and on a number of occasions we have called for the immediate implementation of such a registry. It boggles the mind to think that we would be spending so much time and effort on a long gun registry, as was alluded to already, that has cost the country a billion dollars, with more millions being poured into it as recently as last week, when we would have an opportunity to bring forward such a practical response in empowering police to do their investigations to protect children.

While we agree that this is a very important step in the process, having the opportunity to debate the particulars of the legislation, there remains a number of problems that I would like to point out. In particular, clause 20, subsection 490.03(4), provides convicted sex offenders with the opportunity to have their names removed from the registry if they can prove that it would impact on their privacy or liberty.

I am very concerned, and I would not put too fine a point on the analogy, with the loophole that already exists with respect to child pornography, which in essence gives a great deal of discretion in the area of what has been described as artistic merit. This is a similar type of loophole. The clause reads:

--if the order were made, the impact on them, including on their privacy or liberty, would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society...

I find this to be such an anomaly. When it comes to protecting children from sexual offenders, how can there be any disproportionate public interest? What could possibly trump the interests of protecting children?

My fear is that with this loophole, or setting up of a loophole, for sex offenders who do not wish to have their names included, who would define the grossly disproportionate impact? Who would define the public good? Even if there is an acceptable definition that we could all agree with for each of these terms, which I doubt, who then would decide which took precedence? Obviously, it would be the courts which would result in a long antiquated process that ultimately would not protect young people.

Let us hope we get it right in the first instance. Let us hope that judges will make that proper call. Then we would know that there is an appeal process. We know that there is a review process.

I am not suggesting that the balanced approach is not the correct one. My fear is we are deliberately putting in place a loophole which will result in immediate litigation.

Unfortunately, there are other changes which I believe need to take place within the scope and parameters of the bill. The bill, if it is to live up to its intention of public protection, not the least of which will be the need for a separate and stand-alone database, will have to be revised.

Police officers, provincial attorneys general and other people working in the field will verify that the current CPIC system does not allow for a mandatory registry of information pertaining to sex offenders, contrary to what the solicitor general and previous solicitor generals have said for years. This is exactly what is needed.

What is needed and what is imperative to protect children in particular and what would be very useful is to have a stand-alone system. If we could have a stand-alone system to register guns that does not work, surely we could have a stand-alone system to protect children. When one compares the two on balance, there is no comparison. We are pushing for a stand-alone system and continue to do so.

I have talked to members of the victims' services, to police officers, to those involved in child protection, to lawyers, Steve Sullivan and to many others who are concerned about having a system that does not quite fit the bill and really creates a false sense of security.

The information provided is only as good as its accessibility and its accuracy. In fact the Auditor General, on previous occasions, has outlined the inadequacies of the present CPIC system in terms of the data that it already holds.

To make the case, the current system, which was designed in 1966 consisting of one main computer, a communications network and the local hardware and software that provides users with access, has been near collapse at times. Despite efforts to update the system, I would suggest that simply adding or piecing together another element of the system would put further strain in place. What we have seen in the past is times when CPIC has been actually inoperable and police officers have been unable to access that important information.

It was originally designed to handle 11 million transactions annually and to accommodate 1,500 points of access. In 1998 the system handled 114 million transactions, 10 times its original design volume, and it currently handles more than 15,000 points of access, serving a current 1,285 police departments and government agencies.

Just to put that in context, what we are seeing is a system that is so overloaded. What we need, I would suggest and what provincial attorneys general, police and other interested parties are calling for, is a separate stand-alone system. The Canadian Police Association, as I mentioned, the Victims Resource Centre and many other concerned citizens suggest that the system needs to be stand-alone. The government is aware of that. It needs to show some leadership in this regard. If the political will exists, it can happen and happen quickly.

I do not want to mix messages on this point, but I must bring into the debate again the issue with respect to the gun registry on which a billion dollars plus, and counting, has been spent with no correlation to public safety. That is the misnomer the government and members opposite have tried to perpetrate now for years, that there is an actual connection, a nexus, between registering the long guns and public protection This is a complete fallacy and a farce that has been exposed repeatedly.

Liberal members of caucus were told that they had to toe the party line last week and, as a result, voted for supplementary estimates and another $68 million or $69 million into this Liberal sinkhole to really demonstrate again the face saving over lifesaving element behind this.

This is not the first time it was done, of course. We have seen numerous examples, such as the EH-101 helicopter cancellation, hundreds of millions of dollars spent on faulty advertising, HRDC programs and Pearson airport cancellation, all resulting in a lack of common sense and a lack of accountability and practical responsibility when it comes to governance.

What I am getting at is that here is an opportunity to take the existing infrastructure of the gun registry, the computer systems, the personnel, the effort that has been put into this flawed system, and apply it to a sex offender registry for a practical application that would work, that would protect children and that would put it back in line with the priorities of Canadians. I strongly suggest that this would go a long way to restoring some faith.

Currently, convicted offenders may be released into the community and change their residences, or their appearances or their names to avoid discovery. We know that sex offenders prey upon those least able to defend themselves and they do so by deceit, by disguise and by subterfuge. These types of nefarious activities are done intentionally so that they might go undetected.

Clearly there is a need to have accurate information that is current and available. Without an actual sex offender registry that is timely and accurate, we are putting children's lives at risk and I do not believe that the government in any way would want to put a price tag on that.

Coupled with the information that is currently found on the CPIC system, it is impossible to sort out in such a way the police and those in the law enforcement community can access and use this information for prevention. In my view, the addition of a sex offender category on the antiquated, overloaded system is destined to fail. We know that recidivism is extremely high with sex offenders.

In the event of reoccurrence, such heinous acts of abduction and sexual assault, valuable time is lost in trying to identify the suspect who is oftentimes not known to the local police or to the community, or because of the issue of mobility or nefarious means to change an appearance or name. This is a very prevalent occurrence.

A stand alone system would provide police with an enhanced ability to protect society and carry out this critical task of enforcing a safe and orderly society. It would give police better access to information about the specific whereabouts of offenders and all previous convictions of a sexual nature that have been registered through the courts.

Sadly, not all offenders make it onto the CPIC system. When the offence has occurred, for example, in British Columbia there may be a delay in entering that information into the system. If individuals then find themselves before the courts in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, it is difficult to ensure that the information is accurate.

Colleagues from Nova Scotia, South Shore and Cumberland—Colchester and members of the Progressive Conservative Party support this initiative. Let us ensure we get it right and let us ensure, when we bring this to the justice system, there is a common sense approach taken to amend this process to ensure that it works for all Canadians.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member opposite for her thoughtful comments on Bill C-23. I do, however, have an issue that I would like to discuss with the member, that is, her comments about the Manitoba government wishing there were a provision allowing for retroactivity in the application of the sex offender registry.

Is the member not aware that it is a basic tenet in criminal law and also in labour law that when one establishes a sanction for an act there is no retroactivity? We do not reach back in time in order to capture people who committed those acts at a time when it was not illegal or criminal. Having done a bit of labour law, I know that this is a basic tenet in disciplinary administrative law. For instance, let us say that an employer creates a sanction and says that as of such-and-such a date one must call in sick, otherwise one may be found to have violated the employer's rules and regulations or the collective agreement and could be liable for a three day or five day suspension. It is a basic tenet in labour law that we do not reach back into the past. It is also a basic tenet in criminal law.

Given that the member has said the Manitoba government wants retroactivity in this legislation, how does she feel, as a member of the New Democratic Party, which pretends to represent labour, about the fact that the provincial government wants to reach back into the past?