Bill S-2 (Historical)

Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the National Defence Act to enhance police investigation of crimes of a sexual nature and allow police services to use the national database proactively to prevent crimes of a sexual nature.
It also amends the Criminal Code and the International Transfer of Offenders Act to require sex offenders arriving in Canada to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act.
It also amends the Criminal Code to provide that sex offenders who are subject to a mandatory requirement to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act are also subject to a mandatory requirement to provide a sample for forensic DNA analysis.
It also amends the National Defence Act to reflect the amendments to the Criminal Code relating to the registration of sex offenders.

Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

moved that Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to join in the debate on Bill S-2 put forward by the Minister of Public Safety.

These proposals speak to the issues of public safety and the basic rights of individual Canadians, subjects of some familiarity in this place. As hon. members will know, this legislation was debated in this place on an earlier occasion as Bill C-34.

In the current session, I am sure that the progress of these proposals has been monitored carefully as they have made their way through debate in the other place and have enjoyed the scrutiny of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Having carefully reviewed the debate thus far, I detect no great controversy. Nonetheless, I see no reason to refrain from a spirited discussion regarding the merits of the proposals before us, and I expect no less from the hon. members opposite.

The government has identified areas in which an existing mechanism within our criminal justice system may be improved. Since their introduction, these proposals have been given additional weight through the vehicle of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which reviewed the existing legislation and made suggestions for its improvement.

Since these areas inviting positive change coincide with those highlighted over the years by various groups with an interest in criminal justice and by Canadians across the country, the government is quite rightly acting to update the legislation to reflect the constructive input of many knowledgeable citizens.

Over the last 20 years, there have been numerous legislative initiatives undertaken by a series of ministers responsible for facets of the criminal justice system, including some specifically directed at increasing penalties and delaying release for those convicted of serious crimes, particularly crimes of violence or sexual exploitation.

Historically among the more constructive of these parliamentary initiatives was the passage of a massive bill in 1992 that was brought forward by the Solicitor General of the day to replace the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I mention this as an example of legislation that achieved enlightened and enduring results based on research, consultation, and co-operation.

I might also add that on several occasions since, even this well-thought-out legislation underwent additional constructive change. Even the most carefully crafted legislation can benefit from experience and hindsight.

All Canadians are aware of examples of senseless crimes and the plight of the victims of these crimes. We are all aware, through our constituency offices, our correspondence, and media accounts that some of our citizens live in fear of crime and are of the belief that Parliament has not always risen to the challenge of protecting society.

Those of us who have followed criminal justice issues recall that for a time in the 1980s and early 1990s, the incidence of crime was of some concern to all of us. We saw both more and different sorts of crime being reported as victims of crimes involving family violence and sexual assault came to be less stigmatized and could come forward more readily to assist in the prosecution of their assailants.

The public has become more aware of our criminal justice system. It is obvious that an informed public is more likely to perceive flaws in the system with which it has more than a passing knowledge.

Those directly responsible for the safety of Canadian communities, from the police to prosecutors, judges, and ultimately our penal systems, both provincial and federal, are responding to the criticism and constructive suggestions that this increased awareness and oversight bring. As legislators, we should do no less.

There are many factors that affect an individual's exposure to crime. Geography, for example, plays a big part as an urban area witnesses more violent crime than does the countryside. While I grant that many Canadians do not have ready options as to where they live and who they may encounter in their daily lives, there are also many Canadians who might reasonably expect that their only encounters with crime would be on the six o'clock news.

It is when this reasonable expectation of safety is shattered by direct, involuntary involvement with senseless crime that public reaction surfaces in our mail and in the media.

We must respond to these concerns, and we must do so in an effective manner. I submit that the government is doing just that by putting forward Bill S-2 to respond to identified issues within the justice system.

The government and the parliamentary committee that reviewed the legislation governing the National Sex Offender Registry determined that the status quo was just not good enough. Needs arising from systemic faults within the system must be changed through policy and regulatory changes or, if necessary, be altered through the legislative process.

We must do everything in our power to reduce the number of these faults, but a partial or ineffective response can be worse than no response at all. The government has acted by producing a comprehensive body of reforms that have been studied by parliamentarians of both Houses. As mentioned, those issues that cannot be fully resolved under the current legislative boundaries will be dealt with effectively by the legislation before us today.

Just as no two victims require exactly the same response from the criminal justice system, the law must be fashioned to accommodate a range of offenders in any given category. Offenders who respond favourably to treatment, training and educational opportunities available in our system can rejoin the community as upright taxpayers. These individuals will be back among us eventually whatever we do to them. Every reasonable opportunity must be provided for those who no longer threaten us to return as expeditiously as safety dictates.

However, as part of the balance of the system, there are offences of such a serious and sexual nature that the possibility of their recurrence means that the offenders responsible must be restricted in their interactions with fellow citizens. The bill before us would limit the opportunities for a significant but necessary number of offenders.

Bill S-2 is a coherent package of reforms and is worthy of our serious consideration and swift passage. As I have mentioned, I see nothing controversial in these proposals. It is to be hoped, however, that through a frank discussion of the issues addressed, that the public may gain a greater knowledge about this portion of our criminal justice system.

I certainly favour keeping criminal justice issues in the public eye so Canadians may be better informed. It is my further hope they would also be reassured that the system is under scrutiny and that the government will make changes as necessary to ensure the system works.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, this bill is maybe No. 10 or No. 12 of a whole panoply of crime and justice bills, which the government loves to introduce to fix apparent problems in our justice system. We have quite readily supported those which have merit.

A while back, Bill C-9 was before the House and it contained a whole variety of issues related and unrelated to the budget. Why has the government not taken the opportunity to bundle all these justice bills into one crime and justice initiative? That way we could have a fulsome debate on each and every section rather than having a separate bill, a separate debate, a separate vote, a separate meeting at committee, witnesses at committee and the bill coming back to the House, et cetera, which stretches the whole process over literally months and sometimes with prorogation and things of that nature years of dealing with what are essentially small amendments to the Criminal Code.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague across the floor is in strong favour of many of the initiatives that the government brings forward.

Bill S-2 is one bill that did receive fulsome scrutiny at committee, as I have already indicated. We look forward to members opposite giving swift passage to Bill S-2 in its current form. We hope the bill will get through the House very quickly.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendments to the Sex Offender Registry. It is not an easy issue to talk about. Any time we talk about sex offences, it is one of those issues that really causes us great personal pain. Whether as parents or as members of the community, when we hear about these offences, we recognize they are some of the most despicable and horrible acts that can happen in our communities. I do not think any member of the House would say that we should not put at the disposal of police officers every tool they possibly can have to stop one of those crimes from happening, to stop there being a victim in the first place.

I am pleased to be generally very supportive of these changes, but I will do something to start that I do not typically do, and that is to quote myself. The reason I will do this will become clear in just a moment:

We the know of the Stephensons, who lost their son, and all the work they did in developing Christopher's law. It has led in Ontario to some very effective legislation, legislation that is used many hundreds of times a day and searched far more than the national registry. The success of that registry underscores the failure of the national registry. When we look at the statistics, and it is hard to believe, the Ontario registry is used four times more in a day than the national registry is used in a year.

I do not think there is any disagreement from anyone in the House that the sex offender registry is in need of modernization and amendment, and I welcome that debate.

The reason I quote myself is because that was almost exactly a year ago in June 2009 when the House had this debate. At that point in time, I made a speech on the necessity of moving forward with then Bill C-34. Everyone was participating in that debate agreed there was a need to move forward expeditiously.

However, we are here after prorogation, after the government killed that bill, to debate it yet again. What is so frustrating about the bill is the government not only short-circuited, through prorogation, the efforts of the House to deal with modernizing the National Sex Offender Registry, but in committee when we had undertaken a mandatory legislative review, as dictated by the government. We cleared our committee calendar. We pushed away all other business. We said that this was important, that we ought to sit down and work on this in a bipartisan way, We did exactly that.

We went over the National Sex Offender Registry. We had witnesses come from across the country and heard their testimony. As we were developing our report for the government, the government short-circuited all of it and tabled its bill without having even the courtesy of listening to the conclusions of the committee before ignoring them. Our committees are used to being ignored, but usually the government has the courtesy of letting the committee table the report before it ignores it. In this case, it did not even wait for that report. The Conservatives stated that the reason they needed to short-circuit our process was the legislation was so urgently needed, it was so desperate to push this forward and have it done, that they could not even wait to hear from the committee.

Then the summer passed, then prorogation and now we have the bill again. They would not wait for the opinion of committee, yet it was okay to prorogue and cancel the bill and now bring it back and talk about it with great urgency yet again, a year later. It shows of pattern behaviour. The government holds a reservoir of crime bills that it puts forward, retracts, puts forward, retracts, prorogues, kills, moves to the House and there is a curious timing with these bills. They seem to coincide with big Conservative problems.

Right now the government is embroiled in a rather large scandal, involving more than $1 billion that is being wasted on G8 and G20 summits. If Conservatives do not want to talk about fake lakes, gazebos, sidewalks to nowhere and some of this colossal waste they have undertaken, they switch to a crime bill and say that we have to deal with it, that it is urgent. They expect everyone is going to forget that they killed their own bill, are reintroducing it, short-circuited committee's process a year ago because they said that it was so urgent.

Canadians are a little smarter than that. They see the game and it is unfortunate because, as I said, these changes should have been made a year ago.

My colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood asked an excellent question to which he did not get an answer just a few moments ago. Why on earth, if all of these bills are so urgent, did the Conservatives not reintroduce them in an omnibus fashion? They did it with the budget, Bill C-9. They put everything but the kitchen sink into the budget bill. Yet when it comes to a crime bill, they have to reintroduce them one at a time, month over month and there is suddenly time to match whatever controversy they happen to be embroiled in at the time. It certainly makes one ask the question of why the Conservatives are introducing these bills when they are. It would seem that they are channel-changers more than genuine attempts to change legislation.

It is important the committee identified a number of items within the sex offender registry that needed change. The bill has now incorporated many of those amendments, now that the government has waited a year and actually listened to what the committee had to say.

One of the provisions in the bill, which is clearly very important, is automatic inclusion, the idea that people who commit offences of a sexual nature be automatically included in the sex offender registry. When we were hearing from those who were involved in creating Christopher's law in Ontario, they told us how important this provision was. We heard that there were roughly 12,000 people, as of last April, on the Ontario sex offender registry. On our entire national registry, there are only 19,000, to give an example. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, it was being used more times in a single day in Ontario than it was being used in a year. Clearly police did not find this registry reliable and automatic inclusion was an important provision with which to move forward.

The second element we heard again and again in the committee testimony was the importance of the ability for the police to use this tool proactively. As an example, if people call in suspicious activity around a school or somebody acting in an odd way that is causing them concern, if police officers are called, they are able to reference that person against the sex offender registry to find out if that person has a history of sexual-based offences. This is something police officers could not do before and it something they said they needed to do. The bill before us today can do that.

The next point is it allows accredited law enforcement agencies to share information. What we do not want to have is silos, where the RCMP is guarding its information, a municipal police force is guarding its information and there is no exchange of data. In that situation, with those silos, there is opportunity for information to be missed, for somebody who should have been recognized or noticed before a crime occurred not to be noticed. That inclusion is important.

Another provision that one would have thought was in there but was clearly a mistake and an oversight was the fact that if somebody committed an offence overseas in another country, he or she would not be included on the National Sex Offender Registry. Clearly this is a huge loophole. We are aware, unfortunately, that sex crimes are very prevalent in certain parts of the world, where people will actually travel to commit sex crimes. It is essential that this information be captured in our national database and that when police search records, it is not just domestic instances that are picked up, but also anything that happened internationally.

Something left out of the bill, which we recommended as a committee a year ago, was vehicle registration and ensuring the licence plate and vehicle were also registered. This was a big omission. Clearly when police officers are trying to ascertain whether there is something amiss, a vehicle with the plates registered to somebody who is a sex offender is very useful information.

None of these items unto themselves necessarily will stop every crime, but we are trying to empower our police officers to the best of our ability, to give them the tools they need to get the job done.

There were a couple of areas throughout the committee hearings that were concerns and to some extent remain concerns. Christopher's law in Ontario includes a very focused list of sex offences that have been very effective when used by police.

We heard from some witnesses that they were concerned with some of the additional lists of sex offences that were included in the sex offender registry, as they could weaken the registry, for example, if someone were charged with an office indiscretion. None of us want to see that sort of behaviour go on. Clearly it needs to be addressed and needs to have justice be served. However, does it make sense for an office indiscretion or for a mistake of a minor nature to land somebody on the sex offender registry? What the police said was this would weaken the sex offender registry by including too many people who were not an imminent threat to their community and therefore lengthening the amount of time police officers had to search through data and information to get at what was relevant.

For expressing and voicing the concern that police had about weakening this registry, one of the hon. members with the Conservative Party labelled me as trying to weaken the sex offender registry on a panel on national television by saying that I was against the sex offender registry. Again, this leads to yet another tool that the Conservatives often use with their crime bills.

If members ask any questions or raise legitimate concerns, concerns that police themselves are asking, the Conservatives try to make it sound as if we are somehow for sex offenders. Nothing, however, could be more patently absurd or intellectually dishonest.

Another issue for which there was concern had to do with judicial discretion, which is tied to the first point that I made. The committee and the Senate made recommendations, which failed, that said that only in the most extraordinary of circumstances, where judges recognized that inclusion in the sex offender registry would be a gross miscarriage of justice, should there be the opportunity for a judge to say no, that it does not make sense to put that person on the list. So, in the rarest of rare circumstances, would a judge be given a modicum of discretion to ensure that only the right people get on that registry.

Again we were attacked for making that point but it is an important one. Policemen say that they would be put into a situation where the discretion would be forced on them to decide whether putting somebody on the sex offender registry would serve society well or be fair to that individual. Suddenly, the discretion is being put on police to make the decision to not to charge that person. Now, somebody who has committed a more minor offence might be in a situation where he or she is not charged at all after having committed the offence. That remains a concern.

In a broader context, there are a couple of other concerns that raise the question of how we deal with victimization before it happens. I was deeply disturbed when I had the opportunity as public safety critic to tour this country and meet with groups, including the Salvation Army, Boys and Girls Clubs and church organizations, that have seen their funding slashed for crime prevention, for the work they do on the front lines to try to stop crime before it happens. This is stuff that often does not get big headlines because, if it is successful, it never turns into a story.

If one has worked really hard at crime prevention, one can wake up one morning in a safer community. There are no headlines and nothing is trumpeted. There are just less victims and less crime. If we strip away all the rhetoric, should not one of the most major goals of government be to ensure communities are more safe, that crime never happens in the first place and that there are no victims to write about?

This slashing of that base infrastructure that communities have to stop crimes before they happen and to break the cycles of violence is deeply distressing because violence does not come out of the ether. It is not something that appears magically. More often than not, people who commit acts of violence have themselves been victims. They are caught in a cycle of victimization where they are playing out the same tragedy over and over again over successive generations.

What is desperately needed is intervention, to provide people with the opportunity to turn their life toward a bright path, particularly when they start to walk down that dark road. Again and again, when we talk to communities about the most important thing we can do to improve community safety, it is that, and yet, by more than half, spending on crime prevention in this country has been slashed and cut while prison spending has skyrocketed, an issue that, if I have time, I will come back to.

The second area of broader concern is the 41% cut to the victims of crime initiative, which is front line work with victims. The Conservatives often try to haul out the most tragic, terrible, awful examples that make all of our stomachs turn, but the reality is that victims cover a whole range. More often than not, very tragically, victims are aboriginal mothers stuck in a violent situation and needing help to get out of it. The victims of crime initiative worked with those victims to empower them and help them.

The victims ombudsman, the person the Conservatives put in place to be on the front lines of helping victims and recognizing their needs, said that the government's plan was unbalanced and would not work. When he decries the cuts to the victims of crime initiative, there is a pretty big gulf between the rhetoric of the government on victims and the reality. It is a gulf that is unfortunate because, more often than not, it seems that crime is a political tool. Instead of first asking how we can develop good policy, how we can work with stakeholders, how we can develop good legislation and then develop talking points and communiqués around that, the government seems to first want to create communiqués and talking points and then find legislation to make it match.

Another area of concern deals with lawful access. An hon. member of our caucus put forward a private member's bill several times through successive parliaments that would have given police the ability to go after crimes of the digital age. Police have been asking for many years to implement updated powers and abilities to track criminals online, to deal with new technologies and new ways in which criminals are communicating, planning and conducting crimes. When we are dealing with sex offences, particularly sex offences against children, this is an area that is particularly relevant.

In 2005, the then Liberal government introduced a bill to modernize our lawful access rules and to empower police to use the most modern investigative techniques to go after these types of crimes. Unfortunately, that legislation has languished. It was first killed by an election. It was then introduced by a Conservative government but it killed it by calling an election. It was introduced again and cancelled again by it calling an election. It was introduced again and then killed when the Conservatives prorogued. They have introduced it yet again and we still do not have it. It follows a pattern of a lot of talk but very little action on something that is very relevant to both sex offenders and to fighting crime in general, something that police have been demanding.

The last point I will make is with respect to broad concerns as they affect the sex offender registry, and they have to do with the DNA data bank. There is a provision in the bill that ensures that somebody who is on the sex offender registry is automatically included in the DNA data bank. That is something that is laudable and supportable. However, the problem is that the DNA data bank is desperately underfunded. We know that the RCMP is taking seven to eight months to turn around requests and that its office simply cannot handle what is given to it. This automatic inclusion of all of this additional data will mean that the backup will be even bigger.

Again, we have a government passing something but not following it up with the resources to really make it work. If we are to have automatic inclusion in the DNA data bank, it is rather meaningless if the police do not have the resources to actually process and use that information.

We want to see the bill move forward. We are deeply disappointed that we are dealing with it yet again. It should have been dealt with more than a year ago. However, we look forward to its speedy passage through this place and the opportunity in committee to ask some of these important questions.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague referenced the cuts to organizations aimed at prevention but to other organizations that do great work to advocate and support victims or people in vulnerable situations when it comes to sexual offences.

I would like to hear from him on the government's approach. We are seeing a commitment to dealing with sexual offences but when it comes to dealing with the population that is most at risk of being victims of sexual offences, who, in our country in many cases are aboriginal women, the government has refused to renew funding to the Sisters in Spirit Campaign that is solely aimed at supporting aboriginal women who are vulnerable, who are on the margins of society and who often are the victims of these kinds of sexual offences that the government is supposedly trying to get tough on.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member makes an important point. While the government is always stressing enforcement, we are watching it cut from the things that stop people from being victims in the first place. For some of the most vulnerable groups, the ones who comprise the largest number of victims, their funding is being cut or they are forgotten by the government.

The G8 and G20 has a legacy fund that is building everything, as I mentioned earlier, from sidewalks to nowhere at over $1 million, a fake lighthouse and a $23 million media centre that will not be used, but for the first nations people of Ontario they are seeing nothing. Their G8 legacy is to be forgotten. For a government that talks so much about caring about victims, it is simply tragic that it is turning its back on first nations people and that its G8 legacy is to basically ignore them.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, the member gave what I consider to be a very accurate and historical context to the situation.

The bill has been before Parliament a number of times but on each occasion the government prorogues Parliament it suspends the bill. We now have the Prime Minister's Office saying that it will prorogue Parliament every year.

Could the member explain for the people who are watching this at home just what prorogation does to these bills once they are introduced, debated, sent to committee and then the House prorogues?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is deeply frustrating to be standing and speaking again to this bill, but it is not the only bill I have been doing this with. I have been giving many speeches many times over because, as the member rightly points out and there is confusion on, when the government prorogues it kills all the business that was on the table.

Traditionally, prorogation would be used after the government has exhausted its legislative agenda and wants to begin a new agenda. Therefore, we would not lose any legislation. It is time not to purge a political issue but to renew a legislative agenda.

However, the last prorogation was used as a tool to get out of a sticky spot. The government was in trouble over the issue of Afghan detainees, an issue that we are still debating in the House even this week as we try to get those documents. When it is used as a tool to get out of a political hot spot, it kills all the legislation that is on the table. Therefore, instead of renewing a legislative agenda, it short-circuits legislation, which means the House must do all that work all over again.

It is a colossal amount of waste, not only of the time of the House and of the witnesses who fly from all over the country to committee to be heard, but, quite frankly, it delays a lot of legislation that the country needs and should have been adopted some time ago.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say how much I appreciated the member’s speech. He is very eloquent—he has quite a talent—and he bases all his arguments on facts that he has verified. He clearly demonstrated that in his speech.

I worked with him in the study of this bill a year ago when it was Bill C-34. Since that time, I have moved to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but he will certainly remember some relevant facts he did not have time to mention, in particular regarding the DNA data bank that they want to use here once again. In fact, in the course of our study, we learned that the time for getting a DNA result is now more than a year, I believe. Certainly if there is a very urgent case, at a crime scene, they can be had faster, but the number of times the DNA data bank is used means that it takes an extremely long time. With this bill and the amendments being proposed, an even heavier load will be put on the DNA data bank.

We also learned, if I recall correctly, that training a DNA technician to be able to testify in court is something that takes years. Perhaps the member still recalls the exact time. I would not want to give inaccurate figures. I do not like to give figures when I have not verified them.

However, it strikes me again how the Conservatives have this habit of always making a show of how they are really doing something to tackle crime. Are they not going to extremes that will mean that at some point we are going to be unable to administer these laws, and so they will not be very useful to victims?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member was on the committee and was very constructive in asking questions and trying to get at evidence and basing our decisions on evidence, which is where we should start in any process.

He is also right to call the fact that when the government talks about the use of the DNA data bank as if just mentioning it in legislation will somehow empower law enforcement agencies to act upon it is disingenuous. The reality is that it takes years, as he mentioned, to train individuals to properly use that data bank which already has an enormous backlog. The reality of adding all this new information on top of a system that already has a huge backlog will cause huge problems.

I think the point the member makes is a critical one, which is that we should be having a debate on honest evidence and we should have an opportunity in a bipartisan way to look at these issues in committees, working collaboratively, making recommendations and then making legislation through that process, rather than striking it on the back of a napkin to make political points.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wanted originally to talk about the process because, as the member will know, the public safety committee had been working on this issue for a long time. Before the report that it was able to issue was out the door, the government jumped ahead and introduced legislation of its own, which made a mockery of all of the witnesses who, in good faith, appeared before the committee, who contributed, who like all of us in this House wanted to ensure that the registry becomes more effective.

As I do not have very much time, let me just confine my question more specifically, because it seems to me that the two most contentious issues of the bill that is before us now centre on both automatic registration and access to the registry for prevention purposes. For the former, much depends on the list of offences; and for the latter, what the details of access consist of. So, in the final analysis, we have to be cautious of appearing to be protecting the interests of convicted sexual offenders while balancing privacy rights.

I wonder whether the member could just address whether he thinks this bill strikes the right balance, with respect to those two issues, in particular.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the reality is that this bill does, by and large, strike a fairly good balance. I think there are a couple of areas that we are concerned about. However, when we were researching it through committee and we heard from witnesses, I think the areas that needed change were very important. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not listen to them the first time. Now that, after prorogation, they killed their own bill and brought it back, some of the House recommendations are being adopted, now, in this bill.

One of the things we have to get to the point of is that we are returning to a day when crime was not something that was a political football. This is too important an issue with which to play political games. I think we have seen crime politicized more than at any other time, as the government uses crime, and the issue of crime, as a political weapon on something that is very emotional and difficult for people to deal with.

We need to be focused on evidence, what works, and not sensationalism.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour for me to speak today on Bill S-2, which is an exact copy of Bill C-34 as amended by the Standing Committee on Public Safety during the last Parliament.

We were in favour of Bill C-34 in principle and the witnesses we heard—I was also on the committee at the time—reinforced us in our position. We proposed some amendments that were adopted. By the way, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, with whom I worked on this file.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill on the sex offender registry. It is further proof that when we work on bills, we work on them one at a time in a constructive spirit, without engaging in the demagoguery and Conservative grandstanding to which we have become accustomed.

First, I would like to remind the House that the current Sex Offender Information Registration Act came into force on December 15, 2004.

Bill S-2 is intended to make the sex offender registry more effective and helpful to police forces in their preventive efforts as well as during investigations of sex crimes.

It aims, therefore, to register more people convicted of sex crimes and to include more information about them, especially their DNA.

Bill S-2 also imposes further obligations on the individuals listed in the registry if they move or expect to be absent from their homes for an extended period.

Some changes were made. Specifically, in addition to adding more offences that result in inclusion on the registry, clause 5 of the bill changes the procedure through which the courts order inclusion on it.

In the case of what are called direct sexual offences, the current system gives the crown attorney a choice of whether or not to ask for the person to be included on the registry after being convicted of the offence.

With the new registry in Bill S-2, this is no longer in the hands of the Crown. As soon as someone is convicted and sentenced for a sex crime, he or she must automatically comply and be included on the registry. I want to make it clear that this applies to sex crimes.

Furthermore, the new clause eliminates the exemption that applied when the offender established that the impact of his or her inclusion on the registry, including on personal privacy or liberty, would be grossly disproportionate to the protection of society.

In other words, when a direct sexual offence is committed, registration is automatic. Individuals convicted can no longer justify that their inclusion on the registry would be disproportionate to the penalties they would suffer in their private lives or regarding their liberty.

For other designated crimes, those known as serious crimes or conspiracy to commit a sex offence, thus more indirect crimes, at that point it is up to the Crown prosecutor to determine whether to ask the court to include the individual on the sex offender registry.

Clause 40 of Bill S-2 also makes an important change regarding how the registry can be used. Under current legislation, the registry can only be used when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a sex offence has been committed. Bill S-2 allows police to consult the registry for prevention purposes.

In addition, if this bill passes, there will be a correlation among offences that lead to inclusion on the sex offender registry and the sex offender's obligation to provide a sample of bodily fluids in order to add his or her DNA to the national DNA data bank.

Now I would like to talk a little about money. As my Liberal colleague and my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin mentioned, this will call for a lot more analyses, whether for investigations or for prevention.

In its last budget, the government announced $14 million over two years for DNA testing. In fact, in April 2009, in committee, we met with the directors of two major laboratories, one in Quebec and the other in Ontario. The third laboratory in Canada is the RCMP laboratory. Mr. Prime, from the Centre of Forensic Sciences, and Mr. Dufour, from the Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale, told us in April 2009 not only that was there no agreement with the federal government, but that they also had to do a huge number of tests with very little money. Unfortunately, it might take over a year to get results.

On March 18, the minister met with us at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We asked him questions about this, but we did not get many answers. I have also spoken with a few officials, who have confirmed that there was still no agreement with Quebec and Ontario. They were not even able to tell us how much of the $7 million would be going to the laboratories in Quebec and Ontario.

If we look to previous funding, it was approximately $2 million per laboratory. We might imagine that there is really no increase. With this bill, whether or not it is intended, there is going to be a major problem if we do not invest more money in forensic laboratories. We are certainly going to see increases.

I will be told that this is nothing new. We see all the bills they are introducing. We see people being increasingly treated like criminals. They want to have longer sentences, but they are investing billions of dollars in just anything, be it for a G8 or for a G20. Obviously we will have to invest billions of dollars in correctional services and for public safety. When a decision is made to incarcerate people, they have to be sent somewhere. I hope it will not happen as it usually does, that they will invest in bricks and mortar, but nothing will be put into programs. In correctional services, at present, 2% or 2.5% of the total budget is allocated to programs.

I will continue on the subject of Bill S-2. The present legislation provides that the database may not be used where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime of a sexual nature has been committed. With Bill S-2, the database can be searched. But it will cost, and it will cost a lot.

The Bloc Québécois believes that police forces must be given tools that, on the one hand, effectively prevent and fight crime and, on the other, do not trample the fundamental rights of Quebec and Canadian citizens.

The proper protection of our children requires a number of tools. One of them, which is important and seems fundamental to me, is the Internet. Unfortunately, it is also the tool of choice for the child pornography industry. I will provide some statistics in support of my comments.

It is estimated that more than 65,000 people—I find this to be a conservative figure as I believe the number to be much higher—exchange child pornography, both photos and videos, on the Internet. In February 2009, the Ontario Provincial Police dismantled a child pornography ring involving 31 people in different Ontario communities.

Mr. Stewart, of the OPP child sexual exploitation section, stated: “Unfortunately, I believe there's thousands of children we're not getting to, and that's particularly difficult.”

In 2004, 480,000 child pornography sites were identified in the world, compared to 4,300 in 1996. In addition to movies, more than five million images of sexually abused children are circulating on the Internet. The pictures are becoming increasingly explicit and feature younger children and the use of violence. Many movies are shot live for the entertainment of pedophile clients and they show abominable sexual abuse of children under the age of seven.

In addition, it is estimated that there are between 50,000 and 100,000 organized child pornography rings, with a third operating in the United States and a portion in Russia. Are we immune to it? No, and I will cover that. We also have a large number of these types of sites. I am not talking about individual sites or images put on the Internet by a “family man” who abuses his child. I am not talking about amateurs, but about organized professionals.

According to research conducted by Cybertip.ca from 2002 to 2009, 57.4% of images on Internet sites containing child pornography depicted children under 8 years of age; 24.7% showed children aged 8 to 12; and 83% were of girls. More than 35% of the images analyzed showed serious sexual assaults. Children under 8 were most often depicted being abused through sexual assault (37.2%), and 68.5% of extreme sexual assaults occurred against children under 8. Canada is in the top three. That is amazing. According to Statistics Canada figures, we rank third in the world among countries that host child pornography sites. The United States ranks first with 49.2% and Russia, second with 20.4%. Who is in third place? We are, with 9%.

We also have people who produce child pornography in Canada. A police officer told me he had even seen images of assaults on newborns. We have to wonder.

I mention this because Bill S-2, which is a rehash of a previous bill, is not the only bill that targets this sort of crime. There are also Bills C-46 and C-47, which still have not been reintroduced here in the House.

Since 1999, police forces across Canada have been calling for a law that would respect human rights, of course, but would force Internet service providers to reveal the IP addresses of their pedophile clients and to have the technology to keep that information.

On April 22, during his testimony before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Mr. Sullivan, who was then the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and who had been appointed by this government, answered my question. I asked him what he thought about the fact that these bills still had not been reintroduced. He answered, “...if I were the Prime Minister today the Internet bill would be my absolute priority; it would be number one in the justice reform areas.”

Mr. Sullivan perfectly described the problem resulting from the fact that this legislation is not on the books. I will read what he said. It is horrible.

Right now, depending on where you are in the country and what ISP company you're working with.... Some ISPs will actually cooperate with law enforcement, and some won't.

We've heard about cases from law enforcement. They have an IP address. They actually are able to trace the guy to where he lives, and they go, because he's trading in child pornography.

They actually found and arrested the person. He had with him his 11-month-old son, who he was sexually abusing. Now, law enforcement had no information that this was taking place. They had no idea that this child was in that situation. Had they not tracked him down, that child today, four years later, would still be undergoing sexual abuse. The longer we delay these initiatives to give law enforcement the tools, the more kids are going to be abused. I think that makes everybody angry.

I find that disappointing, especially since we know how many years it can take to develop a bill. It is high time that this be passed.

The former victims' ombudsman lamented the fact that in 2007 the former public safety minister and member for Okanagan—Coquihalla did not want to follow up on repeated requests from the police to adapt investigative tools to the current Internet reality. However, in fall of 2009, the Conservative government finally introduced Bills C-46 and C-47 to respond to this Internet loophole. And what did the Prime Minister do? He prorogued the House and these bills died on the order paper. How convenient. It was put off until fall and then they prorogued a few months later, as if by chance. And they did not reintroduce them.

The Conservatives say that pedophiles are a priority and that this is a serious issue. As usual, they are serving up the same old announcements, about victims and children. They are grandstanding for everyone, trying to score political points. They are not really fighting crime. Have they reintroduced the bills? No. Why? That is the million-dollar question given that this government says that it wants to protect children and fight against crime and criminals.

Here is the question we must ask ourselves: what interests are preventing this government, which claims to be a champion when it comes to cracking down on pedophiles, from bringing back the old bills C-46 and C-47 so that we can study them in committee and improve them? Police forces have been waiting for 10 years now, and this government, despite advice from the former victims' ombudsman, has still not dealt with an issue that the ombudsman and I both believe could save children's lives. Ask any police officer; they will all say the same thing.

There is something else that just does not make sense. In my riding, and probably in other ridings in Quebec and Canada, the government is letting pedophiles live in halfway houses and community correctional centres near elementary schools and daycares. That makes no sense. I have asked three different public safety ministers about this. Three public safety ministers later, nothing has happened. That is absurd. Can a government that makes a huge show of introducing big, important bills not send a simple directive to community correctional centres through Correctional Service Canada? These centres are not even private; they belong to the CSC. The government cannot even send out a simple directive to ensure that there will no longer be pedophiles near elementary schools.

The government is waiting for another scandal to break out. Then they will react, just as they did with Olson and Karla Homolka. They will react by saying that the matter is very serious and that they want to introduce a bill.

That is shameful. According to the former ombudsman, every month that goes by, children could have been saved, as I said before.

As we speak, children are being attacked on the Internet, and pedophiles are living near schools. I would like to know when the government will take real action to properly protect our children.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from the Bloc Québécois on her speech. Bill S-2 was formerly Bill C-34, if I am not mistaken. The government is reintroducing it as Senate Bill S-2. If Parliament had not prorogued, Bill C-34 could have become law. Now we are back at square one.

Can the hon. member explain to me why the government has chosen to introduce this bill as a Senate bill and not a government bill?

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not want to try to get into the Prime Minister's head here. It could be for a number of reasons. By deciding to prorogue Parliament, the Conservatives killed all the bills on the order paper. Introducing this bill through the Senate could be the Prime Minister's way of telling us that he does not trust the House to pass bills.

At the same time, he is trying to make a show out of it. They are taking things we have already seen and are putting on a show. They made a show out of Bill S-2 and Bill C-23. Today, they put on another show with the RCMP. It will never end. We must remember: the government does not fight crime and does not look out for public safety. It only tries to score election points by putting on shows.

I spoke about pedophiles near schools, and Bill C-46 and Bill C-47, which died on the order paper. There is also the firearms registry. I have a never-ending list of very concrete and specific tools that could truly help fight crime.

But the Conservatives would rather introduce bills that have to do with international transfers, which would help them avoid having to enforce the fundamental rights of Canadians who commit crimes and are arrested abroad. The Minister of Public Safety can decide to transfer them, instead of having to consider human rights. They are not interested in public safety. All they care about is putting on a show.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very good answer. She used the word “show”, which I find intriguing. I would like her to comment on this. My colleague from Welland moved a motion today that would have prevented Karla Homolka from receiving a pardon, but the Conservatives voted against it. Did they vote against this motion because they want to use pardons for criminals like Karla Homolka as an opportunity for grandstanding?

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In my opinion, the Conservatives make a show of introducing every bill, so we can be sure they will make a show at some point. My colleague is asking me questions as though I were privy to all the Prime Minister's secrets. Unfortunately—or rather, fortunately—I am not, but yes, I think this government is doing this just for show. Moreover, we can look at what they have done in the past, since history tends to repeat itself.

Today, the Conservatives did not want to vote for the NDP motion. Maybe they are going to make a show of trotting out something else about Karla Homolka and give people the impression they are doing something about public safety. Look at all the grandstanding they did about prisoners who were receiving old age security. They made quite a show of this issue. It is disinformation and demagoguery.

Unfortunately, when they do that, they send the public a false message. The worst thing is not the message, but the fact that they make people believe they are doing something about public safety. People are going to think they are safer because the government is going to put all the criminals in prison, increase sentences, stop making transfers, stop respecting human rights, and so on. What people do not realize is that the Conservatives are actually doing nothing about public safety. They are just making a show of doing something and giving people the impression that they are working on public safety to increase their sense of security, or rather their sense of insecurity.

We need to distinguish between fighting crime and working on people's sense of insecurity. Just because I feel safer, that does not mean society is safer. Instead of playing on people's emotions, what the government really needs to do is work in an intelligent way on important tools for the police. We need to invest in prevention.

I will give another example. Thus far, the NCPC has not received any budget increases. These people work in the community sector, specifically to help young people reintegrate into society and to help victims of crime. Yet they have almost no resources to work with. Public safety involves a number of aspects. Yes, it is being tough on crime, but it is also prevention. It is rehabilitation. It is even research in the field to understand how crime is evolving. It is not about making a show of all this, but the Conservatives do not understand this.

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

Madam Speaker, we spoke today about Steve Sullivan, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. The government hired him with great fanfare and three years later it would not renew his contract because he began to criticize the government as not being supportive of victims of crime.

For example, earlier this year, when Steve Sullivan testified at the public safety committee, he spoke about the need for the government to fund child advocacy centres in major cities across the country. These centres were to provide counselling, support, referrals and other resources for child victims of crime, particularly victims of sexual abuse. These centres would have been a concrete and meaningful way to improve the lives of victims. We know that many sex offenders were themselves sexually abused, so child advocacy centres would be an important part of preventing future sex offences. The victims' ombudsman asked for $5 million to fund these centres, but the government refused.

The government has $1 billion for security at the G8 and is closing prison farms, but it cannot afford $5 million for these very important centres.

Would the member like to make some comments about the government's lack of direction?

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with what my colleague said. I would add that Mr. Sullivan pointed out something that was extremely insightful. He said that this government was investing in criminals and not in victims. Indeed, all the bills they bring forward target criminals, but no bills have been introduced for victims or the families of victims of crime.

We in the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill that would amend the Canada Labour Code and very generously grant the families of victims of crime a period of two years to get back on their feet, as well as a year of compensation. Although this is still not enough, at least it is two years, when nothing is being offered at present. The Conservatives voted against it; they voted against victims. I asked Mr. Sullivan what he thought of the bill and he said it must be passed. He supported it, and victims supported it.

The Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, the AFPAD and several victims' advocacy groups supported this bill, but the Conservatives voted against it. So we can see that they do not really care about victims.

Mr. Sullivan said it best: their actions and their bills target criminals. The billions of dollars that will be allocated to correctional services will be for criminals; that money will not help victims.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House and speak to Bill S-2, a bill that has been raised in the House before. It is a bill which the government feels so strongly about that prorogation did not stop the Conservatives from going through with their agenda. They did not feel democracy needed to have respect but certainly when it comes to their priorities, they brought back these kinds of bills, mostly focused on the crime and punishment agenda as many of us see it.

This bill was originally Bill C-34, a bill on which my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway had done a great deal of work, along with the public safety committee, to make sure the bill was at its best. Many hours were spent bringing in witnesses for debate and discussion and I understand it was a very healthy debate and discussion. Amendments were made, amendments that we put forward and supported. The discussion was a very vigorous one, but unfortunately as I noted, political games prevailed and the government's disrespect for our democratic institution came first and the result was prorogation. Yet, here we are discussing the bill in a new incarnation today.

We do support the bill at second reading, but we support a very important productive review of the bill at committee as is what happened with Bill C-34 in the last session. I spoke of the important discussion that took place.

There are a number of important pieces that were part of Bill C-34 and continue to be part of Bill S-2. For example, the bill loosens the definition of when the sex offender registry can be accessed. It widens some of the information included, such as vehicle registration and information that is important to police officers who would be conducting the investigations. It also allows police officers to notify authorities in other jurisdictions, both foreign and Canadian, when an offender travels to their area. Those are laudable goals that we support.

Mention has been made of the particular tragedy of Canadians going abroad and taking advantage of victims in other countries that perhaps do not have the same regulatory or investigative powers. The offenders feel they can get away with it. The bill aims at putting a stop to that. We hope it is a great deterrent to those kinds of offenders.

There are some good amendments, as I mentioned, such as vehicle information, not just licence plates but also descriptions. These kinds of details are important. The bill closes some serious loopholes that existed in the registry. As the registry currently stands, there is no way to track whether a sex offender is presently incarcerated or perhaps deceased. The criteria is so strict about what information can be tracked that police are legally prohibited from recording that kind of information. We find the stipulations in the bill that serve to close that loophole to be very useful.

We also know that every minute in an investigation counts. Investigations of sex offences which are particularly serious impact individuals, their families and communities in such a tragic way. Sometimes they result in cases of missing children, young people and women. Closing that loophole and having a better tracking system will mean that police will not be wasting their time verifying the whereabouts of offenders who perhaps have died or are incarcerated. It is very important to close that loophole.

However, despite the positives and some of the amendments that have been made, we feel that it is important to send this bill to committee in order to improve on its faults, to seek the provision of deterrents to sexual crime offences, and to support victims and prevention undertakings.

We do find a number of issues with this legislation. First, this legislation proposes automatic registration of every offender who commits one of the enumerated offences. This takes away prosecutorial and judicial discretion. Most of the offences under the Criminal Code of Canada, that are captured by this legislation, would have no difficulty with automatic registration. However, in the cases of a couple of hybrid offences, such as sexual assault, we believe that these are important pieces where prosecutorial and judicial discretion and decisions must definitely be applied. There ought to be room for that.

There may be an occasion where it is not appropriate to make an order against someone convicted of an offence. It should be up to a prosecutor and judge to determine when that exception may apply. That is very much in line with a pattern we are seeing from the government, which is an overriding of that judicial and prosecutorial discretion.

This is surprising, considering that the House is made up of people who come from the legal profession. We know that the judicial body is considered an independent body from government, yet we do not see that kind of respect from the government. Rather, we have a top down directive often fueled by the desire to make a spectacle, to pick on some sensational issues, and to come to quick conclusions on bills.

For that reason, we feel it is important that this be carefully discussed at committee and that we ensure there is room for that prosecutorial and judicial discretion that we in Canada pride ourselves on. It is something that we would like to see made applicable, not just to elements of this bill but to the overall agenda when we are dealing with judicial decisions and crime in our country.

We see other gaps in this bill. For example, in the area of funds, the Conservatives like to introduce crime bills such as this one to suit political purposes, but they are not so supportive or keen when it comes to putting money up to pay for these necessary kinds of changes. The public safety committee, in discussing Bill C-34, heard much testimony in its study about the Ontario sex offender registry. Police and victims groups talked about that registry as a model.

The national registry has an operating budget of $400,000 to $600,000 per year. By comparison, the budget for the operation and centralized management of the Ontario registry is close to $4 million per year, not including the expenses incurred by local police departments. Somebody who is not as gifted at math might be saying that one of 10 provinces and three territories is spending $4 million on this kind of an operation while we have a national government that is proposing to do the work of an entire country on far less, between $400,000 and $600,000.

That is clearly inadequate. We support strengthening the registry and closing the loopholes, but let us do it in a way that matters. Let us not do a job half well done, or in this case, one-tenth of the way well done. Let us truly look at making it meaningful. We owe this to the victims of sexual offences. We owe this to Canadians who are concerned about these kinds of crimes.

Let us not shove that issue of appropriate funding aside. We all know that the job will not get done right without that proper funding. The bill contains nothing to increase resources for the sex offender registry and instead downloads the burden on to already over stretched police forces.

If I can just point out the irony that the government often claims to stand by our police officers and people in uniform, but the downloading of such an onerous responsibility on police officers, detachments and organizations that are already under incredible strain, that as we know are lacking personnel, would be a true shame. We should not go forward without appropriate funding.

There are other issues in the way in which this bill is inadequate. I feel that it is important to perhaps focus on the one area that we have raised with respect to other issues under the government's crime agenda. It is around the area of prevention but also support for victims or for potential victims, young people, people who are often in vulnerable positions and on the margins of society.

Earlier this year, Steve Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, testified at the public safety committee. He spoke about the need for the government to fund child advocacy centres in major cities across the country. These centres would provide counselling, support, and referrals to other resources for child victims of crime, particularly victims of sexual abuse.

These centres would be a concrete and meaningful way to improve the lives of victims. We know that many sex offenders were themselves sexually abused. Therefore, child advocacy centres would be an important part of preventing future sexual offences.

The victims ombudsman asked for $5 million to fund these centres but the government refused. That refusal I believe is something that we need to see the government quite frankly change its line on. Here we have somebody that the government hired and his work seemed to be quite useful up to now and now we hear that he has come under a great deal of distress. The man who is a specialist in this area came forward with a proposal that was done in consultation with victims themselves, with specialists in this area, counsellors and medical professionals. He said that this would go a long way into cutting down on those offences and into supporting victims. To hear that the government refused that kind of action to me flies in the face of the government's commitment to supposedly cut down on these kinds of offences, and is something that I find to be quite disconcerting. I am not sure how it can respond to that with Canadians.

We all want to see any crime, but certainly sexual crimes, to be dealt with in the right way. We can all see the value of prevention so that we do not need to deal with a crime after the damage has been done, after the victim has been abused, after the tragedy has occurred.

Prevention is very critical. If I can perhaps share the experience of my constituency on that important piece. I have the honour of representing the riding of Churchill in northern Manitoba which is a very diverse riding. In it there are many first nations and Métis communities. They are very diverse communities, but they are communities that have also dealt with extreme tragedy.

Last week we commemorated the second year of the residential schools apology that the government made. As we all know, the residential schools were a place of great horror for aboriginal people. Many aboriginal young people were victims of sexual abuse at these schools. I have consulted with many elders and community members who have told me that cycle of violence, not just physical but sexual violence, is a difficult cycle to break from.

We are talking about children who were ripped away from their parents, ripped away from their identities, and subjected to the kind of abuse that many of us would have difficulty wrapping our heads around. Many survivors were not able to deal with this abuse and were so traumatized that they took their own lives, a tragedy that many of us have acknowledged. All of us here were honoured and proud to hear the government's apology.

There has been little done to deal with the needs of aboriginal people. I would like to point to the failure of the government to provide funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, an organization that provided counselling for survivors of this abuse, for their children and their grandchildren. I had the honour of working hard with my colleagues in this House to save this organization. In some cases, survivors were incarcerated. They did their time and sought out rehabilitation. The community programs supported by the Aboriginal Healing Foundation were critical to breaking the cycle of sexual violence.

This government claims to be on the side of victims. It claims to be the government that will cut down on crime and here we are today talking about sexual offences. It was the present government that did away with a very successful program that helped to do the very same thing.

Prevention is not only specific to preventing a particular crime. It is also about ensuring that young people, women, are strong, and that they have support in their communities to achieve their potential.

I represent isolated first nations such as Shamattawa, Oxford House, God's River, God's Lake Narrows, Island Lake, Red Sucker Lake, Wasagamack, St. Theresa Point, Garden Hill, Bloodvein, Berens River, Little Grand and Pauingassi. I think of the many young people who have spoken to me of the lack of recreational programs and the fact that government programs are inadequate. These young people know that their generation is falling into the trap of criminal behaviour and gangs. They want to fight back. They want to ensure they have positive and healthy activities, a space for them to pursue healthy alternatives in their own communities. They want education and proper health care and also proper infrastructure. All of these pieces are integral to that prevention agenda.

We feel that Bill S-2 is lacking in that approach to prevention, something that would go a long way in deterring and cutting down on sex crimes. The government needs to answer the call. It needs to support people on the margin. It needs to support people who are seeking to break the cycle of violence, who are seeking to ensure that their families, their children and their communities are safe. Only then will we see true leadership when it comes to cutting down on crime and supporting Canadians throughout our country.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year Steve Sullivan, the federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, spoke about the need for the government to fund children's advocacy centres in major cities across the country. These centres would provide counselling, support and referral to other resources for child victims of crime, particularly victims of sexual abuse. The victims ombudsman asked for $5 million to fund the centres but the government refused.

The government has billions for fake lakes at the G8 and billions more to lock up more Canadians with longer sentences, which by the way, the victims' ombudsman testified “does very little for the victims of crime because sentencing does not address the real needs of victims”. The government has billions of dollars for these things but refuses $5 million to set up a child advocacy centre for victims of sex offences.

Does the member for Churchill think $5 million is too much to ask for with respect to victims of sexual abuse?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. Many of us in the NDP feel that it is critical to bring forward the well-researched and well-founded proposal of the ombudsman for centres and the need to apply $5 million. That money is a drop in the bucket compared to the $1 billion being spent on security and the millions of dollars being spent on fake lakes, fake canoes, and fake decks.

It is truly an investment in making our communities safer, in prevention, and most importantly, in supporting victims, which is something we hear time and time again, almost like a broken record, from the government. Yet when we look at the plans it is rejecting or the course of action it is taking, we do not see the support as it should be, with an emphasis on prevention and the opinions of experts in the field.

I would note that as one of the youngest members in the House, I find it disheartening to hear my generation's lack of hope when it comes to our political system. This is the kind of investment the government is refusing to make, let us be honest, in the next generation. That kind of cynicism from young people across our country is perhaps well founded when we hear of the rejection of positive plans that would support young people.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one key aspect of this legislation is mandatory DNA sampling from those convicted of a designated sexual offence. Currently, sampling must be applied for by the prosecutor and granted by the judge.

Is the current legislation not a little backward? Should it not be the criminal who applies to be exempt under special circumstances instead of it being the prosecutors and judges who ask for this ruling?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this bill has a number of positive measures to close loopholes around the need for more and accurate information. While we find that some of these measures are positive, we also feel that it is important to bring the bill back to committee to discuss some of the inadequacies and failures, quite frankly, as I pointed out earlier, in terms of prevention.

One of the points that came up about Bill C-34, which I am sure will be raised again in committee, if it goes there, as we hope, is the need to still have prosecutorial and judicial discretion applied and available. Let us not override the work of the judicial branch of our country. Let us recognize that it does critical work in ensuring that justice is fair and that everybody is judged fairly on these grounds.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-2 was originally Bill C-34 before prorogation. It is one of the law and justice bills the government is famous for introducing. It is just one of the bills that fell by the wayside because of prorogation.

For reasons known only to the government, it brought the bill back through the Senate. If prorogation had not occurred, would this bill be law by now? Why would the government bring it back through the Senate instead of the democratic way, which is to bring it through the House of Commons?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, many of us see the irony of these bills. The government was committed to passing them and to ensuring a quick process, because apparently these were a priority. Maybe they were not such a priority, and neither was democracy. That is why the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament again.

Here we are. It is a bit of déjà vu, in some sense, the difference being that the bill has come from the Senate. It looks as though there are some changes. What we hope to see and engage in is an accurate and full discussion in committee. Witnesses can be brought in, including stakeholders in the work to fight sexual offences, people who use registries across this country, and people who are quite frankly interested in making this registry the best and most appropriate it can be, with particular pieces on rehabilitation and prevention.

The NDP, and we hope the opposition parties, sees the value in making sure that every piece of legislation is paid attention to properly and makes a real difference. The difference here is to support victims, to support Canadians, and to truly set deterrents and cut down on sexual offences in our country.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the speech by the member for Churchill. Like my colleague from Sudbury, I too would like to make a more general observation.

It seems to me that we have a government that is constantly talking about it being a government that is tough on crime. For a government that is tough on crime, it sure talks the talk, but it does not walk the talk.

First, I would argue that it is much, much more important to be smart on crime. If we are smart on crime, we do not just talk about law and order issues, we also talk about crime prevention. We talk about support for the victims of crime, and we talk about adequately resourcing those who are engaged in law enforcement on a day-to-day basis to make sure that they are well resourced and safe.

My sense here is that we have yet another opportunity to talk about being tough on crime and on improving our justice system. However, if the government were serious about it, maybe it would have done the same thing with respect to the budget bill. It would have introduced one omnibus bill and we could have dealt with all of the changes. Instead, we get them in dribs and drabs. Then we prorogue the House and we start all over again. To anybody watching, it seems as if all we are talking about are crime bills, when in reality, we have not accomplished very much.

To the best of my knowledge, the only bill that has made any progress in the House in this entire session is Bill C-23, which passed second reading this afternoon.

I wonder if the member has her own observations. Perhaps I missed one other crime bill that may have passed this session. I do not think so.

I wonder if the member would like to comment.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very important question posed by my colleague from Hamilton Mountain. I certainly could not agree with her more. This constant dealing with the Conservative crime agenda, which as we know has great inadequacies and real gaps in actually dealing with crime, is quite unfortunate.

People in my riding are concerned about the jobs they are losing. They are concerned about climate change. They are concerned about how they will afford their education. They are concerned about the lack of housing and the third-world conditions in their communities. They do talk about crime, but they talk about the need to support communities all across the board.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is really a pleasure for me to rise to speak to the merits of Bill S-2, Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act.

This legislation proposes to enhance the current provisions respecting the registration of information related to sex offenders. As hon. members will know, and we have heard some debate here this afternoon, this is an extremely important bill. It is a bill that deserves our utmost attention, as it deals with ensuring the safety of our children and other vulnerable Canadians from sexual predators.

As hon. members know, public safety is an objective shared by all parliamentarians, both here and in the other place, where this bill originated. Moreover, Bill S-2 carries on initiatives undertaken by all premiers and all territorial leaders, in concert with the federal government, calling for a national sex offender registration system.

Let me give the House a little bit of history. As early as 1997, the principle features of a registry were thoroughly discussed by all of the ministers responsible for criminal justice in their own provinces, the federal government, and all territorial jurisdictions. Their endorsement led to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act of 2004. Indeed, Bill S-2 reflects and continues a national consensus that responds to a concern shared by all Canadians.

Since forming government in 2006, we have taken a series of actions to better protect Canadians from sexual abusers, and we will continue to do so. I would like to reiterate that the legislative foundations for this bill we are considering here today stand out as a wonderful example of what can be accomplished when federal, provincial, and territorial interests are accommodated through consultation and co-operation. I should also mention that this bill has the support of law enforcement, prosecutors, and victim advocacy groups.

Bill S-2 has been reported by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and was previously examined, as Bill C-34, by the parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, of which I am a member, in the last session of this Parliament.

This legislation reflects input from a number of sectors, including corrections, law enforcement, child protection agencies, and victims groups. The Senate committee provided a forum for a thorough discussion of a range of views and positions regarding the efficacy of a national sex offender registry.

I would submit that this is a strong indication that the government's proposals were a fitting response to urgent suggestions that the sex offender database be more inclusive.

These multi-sectoral consultations I referred to led to the significant amendments that have been before the legislative drafters for some years. Discussions have covered the viability of the registry and have monitored the implementation of the act.

Perhaps the most pressing question in this debate has been about arriving at a balance between limiting or increasing the scope of the registry. The question becomes this: What parameters should govern the number of offences, and which offenders ought to be included in a registry?

The following questions also need to be resolved and have been resolved by these amendments: How long should a registration order remain in force? Who should determine whether an offender should be registered? In other words, once a list is begun, where should it end?

These questions were pivotal to the establishment of the national sex offender registry. Experience gained by criminal justice practitioners can now be applied to better balance public safety and human rights in this legislation.

At the time of its inception, the only sex offender registry in Canada was maintained by the Province of Ontario. Aspects of that registry were then being contested in the courts, and we now have the benefit of a number of judicial decisions.

Accordingly, our government has drafted legislation that is responsive to public safety concerns across the country, while it achieves a balance with concerns about fairness and human rights.

Although, Mr. Speaker, you need no education in the area of criminal justice, please allow me to refresh the memories of those who were present when the national registry was created and to provide background for more recent arrivals.

The initial legislation, which I referred to, the starting point for the legislative changes we are considering today, proposed a registry that was to have included only those convicted of designated offences after the legislation came into force. However, during review by Parliament, the registry was amended to include offenders previously convicted of scheduled offences who were, as of the date of coming into force, incarcerated in a provincial or federal institution, under conditional or intermittent sentence, or on probation or parole.

Also included are those offenders under a detention order or who had not been absolutely discharged subsequent to a finding of being “not criminally responsible” for that offence. This latter inclusion stems from the fact that while a disposition by a court that an offender is not criminally responsible means there has been no finding of guilt, it is still a finding that the offender committed the offence.

For reasons that are apparent, it was deemed desirable to keep this class of offenders within the registration scope of the act.

Parliamentarians heard from a number of sectors regarding registration and made appropriate amendments. The registry's effectiveness has been monitored through the implementation period. With the benefit of this experience, the government believes the time has come to ensure a more rigorous approach. The final outcome of our efforts here today ultimately focus on the central concern of all involved, the safety of Canadians from exploitation and crime. Protection from sexual predators is the raison d'être of this legislation.

Briefly, I will touch on the main features of Bill S-2. To reinforce what others have mentioned, the key provision is that registration under both the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the DNA Identification Act would become automatic upon conviction, making it mandatory for the sentencing judge to impose an order to register and provide a DNA sample whenever a conviction for a scheduled sexual offence had been entered against the offender.

The crown prosecutor will no longer be required to bring an application for an order. This legislation would empower police officers to take action if they detected suspicious activity on the part of a registrant, even if no overt criminal activity was under way. Prevention becomes possible that previously was beyond the scope of the law.

Certainly in committee, upon examination of the former Bill C-34, we heard anecdotally and otherwise of many instances when crown prosecutors would not ask the court for an order of inclusion on the registry. Some of this was a matter of a plea bargain. Occasionally, it was a mere oversight. However, in any event, under the proposed legislation before the House, the crown will no longer be required to bring an application. Such inclusion will be automatic. I think all members will agree that change is worthy of their support.

Furthermore, police will be able to identify registered sex offenders who are travelling to other jurisdictions, both domestically and internationally. Again, a level of prevention is made possible by these amendments. In addition, corrections officials will be able to notify police forces of both the release and the re-admission of registrants.

Finally, and just as important, the registry will be enhanced by the inclusion of vehicle data to assist authorities in monitoring, investigating and, if necessary, prosecuting registrants where necessary.

To sum up for all members of the House, the development of Bill S-2 sets out a framework for continuity in a co-operative effort among federal, provincial and territorial governments. Significantly this is a national system, unlike the efforts elsewhere, where duplication and confusion may reign. We have the advantage of a single common approach that combines the efforts of various criminal justice sectors but, at the same time, respects the provincial role in the administration of the system.

The additional measures we will be passing in the House after due consideration will further simplify, unify and strengthen efforts to protect the vulnerable among us. It must be emphasized that these goals will be achieved while respecting both the needs of law enforcement and the courts and the civil liberties of all Canadians.

Bill S-2 is an undertaking to improve earlier legislative efforts that, although well-intentioned, have proven to be less than comprehensive. In this we have benefited from the experience, the expertise and the goodwill of many sectors within the Canadian criminal justice system.

I believe we can move this matter to a timely conclusion. I understand there is support among all members of the House, or the majority of the members of the House, to pass the bill at second reading and to send it to the public safety committee in which I and all its members will give it a thorough examination.

Accordingly I urge all hon. members to speed the passage of this important bill. Canadians have asked for it. Victims of crime deserve no less.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in this session we were often told by the Conservatives that they were looking after the victims and that the opposition was only thinking of the rights of criminals. That is obviously the height of partisan propaganda. Asking for fair and balanced laws does not mean that we are somehow in favour of crime.

I would like to ask the member if he could identify one bill, introduced in this session, that will help victims. They reason that by increasing sentences they are helping the victims. However, it is of little comfort to victims to know that sentences will be harsher. Can he indicate another bill that helps victims?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes it too easy for me to limit my response to only one bill, but I will talk about Sebastian's law, the amendments to the Young Offenders Act, which are currently before the justice committee.

As the hon. member knows from his participation at committee, young offender crime, although statistically on the decline, with respect to crimes of violence has stabilized and in fact has slightly increased over the last decade. What we have experienced in the area of youth crime is a shift from non-violent youth crime to serious youth crime.

The bill is not only named after a victim of a brutal murder, but it calls for denunciation and deterrence as prospects of sentencing. Victims' groups support it. Police support it. It is one of many bills this government has introduced and is in the process of passing that have been called for by Canadians, by victims, and certainly support victims.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the member and his party believe that increasing sentences—threatening people with longer sentences—is the only way to help victims.

Does my colleague believe that, with our help, he could identify other ways?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it will only be the member and I who will participate in this debate, so I will ask him a question. Which government established the office of the victims' ombudsman?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member who spoke before indicated off the top that this is an old, non-partisan bill that not only received the approval of all parties in the House but was also tested in various provinces and supported by the attorneys general. I do not believe that this is true. The current bill does not establish a system; instead it improves on the system established in 2004.

If there is unanimous support for improving this system, why have they waited so long to pass the bill? If a minority government wishes to adopt bills, it should start with matters supported by the other parties. In this case, not only has it taken a long time for the government to present amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act but, in addition, after it was adopted in committee, the government decided to prorogue and thus kill the bill. Now, it has waited for the end of the session to present it again to the House of Commons, after a major detour through the Senate.

This shows, once again, that when this government introduces crime bills, it does not care what effect they have on crime. All the government cares about, as the member for Ahuntsic explained very well, is scoring any election points it can. By introducing a bill several times, the government has the opportunity to make speeches to show the public that it is fighting crime. But the previous speaker made it quite clear that the government has only one idea: increasing penalties.

It is funny to hear the Conservatives talk about Sébastien's Law. Normally, when we name a bill after someone, after a victim, it is because we are providing a solution for the crime in question. I am very familiar with the case of Sébastien Lacasse, who lived in my riding. This case is a perfect example of how the current Young Offenders Act works very well, and the member knows it. Youth crime has decreased. So what needs to change?

Violent crime has increased in some parts of the country, but overall, it has gone down. If Canada were the country I dreamed of before I became a sovereignist, the majority would, from time to time, get its inspiration from what the minority was doing right in solving its problems. The fact that we are so divided is yet another example. The Conservatives do not know that the model for treating young offenders in Quebec has had spectacular results. There is approximately 50% less youth crime, not just in terms of charges against young offenders, but also in terms of overall crime. Crime is measured the same way across the country, with uniform crime reports, which are filled out whether or not charges are filed.

The Conservatives are ignoring the success in Quebec. They do not want to do the same thing as that province. Another great example of failure. There are problems in the west, and they could be looking to Quebec to help solve them.

The Conservatives would rather turn to the southern United States to see who has won elections handily. They see the Republicans in the south who are tough on crime. That is their solution instead of being smart on crime.

This time around the Conservatives have our support for this bill because it is truly smart on crime. It is only smart if the registry is used as a way to track certain criminals and provide protective measures, but not if it is used as additional punishment for those already convicted of sexual offences. When I listen to the Conservatives, I realize that is the part they are latching onto again. To them, criminals do not receive harsh enough punishment from judges. It is not enough to have harsh sentences; there needs to be something more. Sex offenders need to be registered somewhere so that the police force is aware of them, with the hope perhaps that the police will go and bother them once in a while.

However, I know that measures will be taken. They are even in the legislation that was passed, not by the Conservatives, thank heavens, but by the Liberals. They thought about it and they stipulated in the legislation that only police forces need to know who is registered.

When this was passed the first time, we told them this would increase the burden on the DNA registry. DNA is not like fingerprints. It is much more complicated. It requires trained technicians. I believe it even requires a university science education or certainly advanced college training. Not just anyone can enter the registration and do the scientific processing correctly so that a proper analysis can be made the next time they see the same DNA. It is quite complicated. I am not talking about DNA samples because anyone can collect DNA samples.

It is too bad I do not have the information in front of me, but I think it requires at least 18 months of training to collect samples, and it takes years to develop the necessary skills to testify in court.

Someone before me already mentioned how insignificant these budget increases have been. They are just pretending. It is another example of the Conservative attitude: they claim to be doing something but the money does not follow. They introduced this bill at the end of the session; it will most likely disappear. Perhaps there will be another prorogation in the fall, or perhaps an election will be called. And finally, this bill, which would have had everyone's support, will once again die on the order paper. And if ever the Conservatives are in power again, they will have a fourth opportunity to introduce it again and give the impression that they are doing something to fight crime.

They also want to increase the number of offences. That can be done, but I told them when we discussed it that instead of increasing the scope of the registry, perhaps we should provide the resources to deal with the registry's backlog because it is enormous already.

However, I recognize that there are some good things that show, once again, that this bill is smart on crime. It will make some improvements. For example, there has been no information about the offender's vehicle in the registry. It is good that the police can track the vehicle when an offender is on the move.

The legislation also provides for sharing this type of police information across the country, which is also useful. And that was the key, by the way, to the success of operation Carcajou.

Those were measures that made a difference in the fight against crime. They are not the same as simply giving longer sentences all the time. That was another good thing about it.

One improvement has to do with removing the restriction on using it only during sexual crime investigations. The best example of when that can be critical is when a child is kidnapped.

Police officers might find it useful to be able to look up whether a person on the sex offender registry lives near where a child was kidnapped. The police could then quickly check with those people to make sure they were not involved. We were given a remarkable demonstration of the software that supports that kind of lightning-fast search in Ontario. It is good to know these things right away. In the vast majority of cases, I believe in 90% of cases, when kidnappings are not solved within 48 hours, they will never be solved.

In most of the Conservatives' bills—this one is a big exception, and that is why we will vote in favour of it—they ignore the issues that need to be dealt with. Everyone in the House agrees, and the general public is nearly unanimous that Parliament made a mistake—I was not here, so it is easier for me to talk about it—when it decided to amend the law to allow those convicted of non-violent crimes to get out on parole after serving one-sixth of their sentence.

We are totally opposed to this. I even introduced a bill on it myself. It does not need to be very complicated for the simple reason that the legal provisions allowing for release after one-sixth of the sentence has been served apply to only two sections in the Criminal Code. These sections were added at the last minute in one of those marathon sessions on omnibus bills. I do not think the government realized, in its haste, what it was doing.

We are often against minimum sentences and undue increases in sentences. When it comes to incarceration rates, Canada ranks in the middle of the list of 175 countries. That is the reality and we do not see the need for increases, except in individual cases. In the matter before us today, we would like to see more incarceration.

We think, though, that sentences must be individualized and pronounced in full knowledge of the law by an impartial person who has had an opportunity to hear both parties before making a decision and who must, we should note, also apply around 20 criteria already provided in the legislation. We think it is rather insulting to say an individual can be released after serving one-sixth of his sentence after an impartial judge has taken all these precautions and rendered a decision. When this is done, it does not reflect the work the judge did and the decision that has been made.

I would like to ask them again what they have done to help victims other than providing for heavier sentences.

In the Bloc Québécois, we are concerned with fighting crime. It is not about the political shows that the hon. member for Ahuntsic described so well, but about really helping victims. That is why one of our colleagues, the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead, tabled a bill that would give crime victims and their relatives about the same benefits they get under the Quebec legislation.

In Quebec we give two years to people who have been affected by a crime, either as the victim or because a relative of theirs was victimized and they have to care for that person. Her bill would therefore provide the same benefits for things that fall under federal jurisdiction. The federal government also has one very full treasure chest that is still running surpluses, from which it pinches a bit occasionally and from which it took an awful lot during its first attempt to reach a zero deficit, that is to say the employment insurance fund. A measure like this would not greatly increase the employment insurance payouts.

What is the government waiting for to enact this bill, which would genuinely help victims? Compare the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, the material and psychological assistance that victims are offered, to the satisfaction they might get from seeing the person who committed the crime serving an additional few months or years in prison. I think a majority of victims would much prefer to get the help we could provide for them, as in fact is done in Quebec.

And then my colleague from Ahuntsic has done a remarkable job of advocating for bills C-46 and C-47, other measures that create an obligation for Internet service providers to report pornography on the Internet.

Everyone supports that, except perhaps Conservative campaign contributors who own Internet service companies. Everyone supports it, including the police across the country. In fact, coincidentally, a counsellor with a Quebec police force was just talking to me this morning and asking me what had become of Bills C-46 and C-47. But they are not doing it.

In this case, the Conservatives are showing us that they can sometimes propose laws that do more to combat crime. In such cases, they can count on the Bloc Québécois to support them. We may have a few comments to make in committee about things that are extreme, but I have not found a lot. We will be able to discuss it in committee. They can be assured that when we do that, it is not because we are eager to stand up for criminals; it is because we want the laws to be written properly so they will be just.

In this case, this bill is smart on crime, and so we will support it. That shows that the Conservatives can count on the Bloc Québécois when they introduce something that truly and effectively combats crime and is not just intended to show that they are tough on crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to this bill. I have to say at the outset that I was very impressed with the approach of my friend, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, to the bill. If the Conservatives put him in charge of the justice agenda, we might see better results than we are seeing right now. I do not know how much better, I do not want to go too far, but from what I have seen so far, he would be a big improvement on the front bench on that side. I would change some of the management if I were at the top over there, but I am not, of course.

This bill is one which we will support going to committee at second reading. We will examine it further and look at potential amendments. There is not a lot that I personally see wrong with the bill. The statutory review of the sex offender information registry by the public safety committee was under way with a confidential draft report having been circulated to the committee members on May 29. Despite this, typical of the government, in the same vein that it proceeded with the pardon issue, it chose to table the changes to the registry on June 1 in the form of Bill C-34.

In terms of the key aspects of this legislation, one of the major provisions is the mandatory registration of those convicted of a designated sexual offence. Currently, registration must be applied for by the prosecutor and granted by the judge. If an application is made, an order shall be issued, unless the offender can show that the impact on his liberty is grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society.

The second aspect to the legislation provides for mandatory DNA sampling of those convicted of a designated sexual offence. Currently, the sampling must be applied for by the prosecutor and granted by the judge.

Another aspect of the legislation is the expanding of the police's ability to access the registry for crime prevention purposes. Currently, police can only access the registry to investigate a crime that has occurred with reasonable belief that it is sexual in nature. In terms of crime prevention, this is a matter that was mentioned by several other members this afternoon. I believe this is part of the Ontario legislation. I am looking to the member for Edmonton—St. Albert for confirmation on that. I believe that the ability to look at crime prevention is in the Ontario legislation and that has provided the impetus for us to look at that as an improvement to the federal act.

All we have to do is look at the statistics between the two pieces of legislation to see that the Ontario legislation has a much higher number of people on the registry than the federal registry does. Police evidently have a much greater appreciation and respect for the Ontario registry than they do for the federal registry.

The federal registry has been around for a number of years. Once again, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert pointed out that in 1997 the premiers and attorneys general of the day got together with the federal government and there was a lot of early co-operation which started this process moving. We owe it to our predecessors for having the foresight to move, but it was the province of Ontario that was the first to proceed. It appears to be the template for the federal legislation.

It is important to note that once the federal legislation was in force, there was to be a review process. That is what Parliament was engaged in when the government decided to bring in its own legislation. Once again, the government is short-circuiting the process, much as it did with the pardon legislation.

Many members have spoken about the process of the Prime Minister proroguing the House and having us start over again. I believe that the member for Churchill spoke at length about the potential for having omnibus legislation, as much as we do not like it. When it comes to Criminal Code changes, our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh has spoken several times about the need to revise the entire Criminal Code of Canada. It is long overdue and it is a huge act.

We should take an omnibus approach to the bill. This would be an argument for that approach. We would include all of the amendments to the Criminal Code in one omnibus bill and bring the Criminal Code up to date, rather than what the Conservatives are doing. They are bringing the Criminal Code amendments in one at a time in a boutique approach so that they can get a press release and a bump in the polls for each and every initiative. In fact, they should just include them in one big omnibus bill and be done with it.

The difference between that approach and the idea of using omnibus bills in terms of budget implementation is that the Conservatives use the omnibus approach and go way beyond budget implementation. They throw in the post office remailers, the sale of AECL, and on and on. We are talking about an omnibus bill that would deal with Criminal Code changes and all of these particular issues. Then we would not have this constant problem of being stuck with prorogation and election calls.

If things go well at the summits and the numbers start to improve in the next few weeks, knowing that their long-term future is not so rosy, the Conservatives may decide to cut their losses and call an election in September. We would be at it again and all of these bills would be back at square one and after the election we would have to go through this whole process again.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

We will have a majority government

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

Mr. Speaker, a Conservative member said that they are going to have a majority government. I say dream on. That is never going to happen with that government. The reality is that things are getting a little bit desperate over there because they know that time is not on their side. The Conservatives are finishing their fifth year in government now. While things may look reasonably rosy relatively speaking, when one starts adding months and years to their longevity in government, there is a certain time when things are going to start to fall and they will not be able to regain.

My point is that that is the agenda they are following and it causes problems for the legislative agenda. The political agenda rules over the legislative agenda. The Conservatives could care less about the legislative agenda. They are really looking at it in terms of the day-to-day politics, how well they can do in the polls and what they can gain out of it. That is not how they should be governing in terms of the legislative agenda with respect to crime. The police forces need action now. The public deserves better from the government. It deserves an intelligent, smart on crime approach, which it is not getting from the government.

In terms of the other provisions of this bill, it also expands the registry to include those convicted of sexual offences outside Canada. That is very important given the identification of sex tourism. It probably existed for many years, but it has only come to public attention over the last decade or so. I think we could all agree that is an excellent improvement to the registry.

Another excellent improvement is the expansion of the type of information included in the registry, including necessary administrative fields that are currently absent.

Another positive aspect would be allowing the police to notify authorities in other foreign and Canadian jurisdictions when a registered sex offender will be travelling to their area.

There are also various administrative changes to improve coordination and communication between different agencies.

There was some mention in terms of information such as the identification of the type of car that was being driven and a certain expansion of information regarding the offenders that is not currently allowed in the registry. There is no point in having information in a registry that does not allow the police to get proper information. It is very important to have information such as phone numbers and car identification.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Elmwood--Transcona will have nine minutes when the House returns to this matter.