I want to add that I'm very disappointed to hear some of the commentary from opposition members. I worked for four and a half years with victims of sex crimes, and I can assure you that there have been a number of cases in which I would have loved to have access to a bigger pool that might have left me with an investigation that was successful and might have prevented the occurrence of further sex offences against young children or upon women and men. We're talking about Canadians' safety here, and it's very disappointing to hear the political jargon being used.
This bill is going to address the fact that police officers need tools to prevent these crimes from happening. Providing more discussion in court, more loopholes in court, is not what this bill was about. What the introduction of these two amendments is going to do is lengthen the court proceedings; it's going to bog down the court process even more.
Mr. Holland, with all due respect, I don't know of a single police officer who would ask that you reduce the amount of information he or she has to do their jobs effectively. Not only that, I don't know of a single defence lawyer who would argue that less information should be included. Most often, they want to see a fair and transparent process by which their client has not been focused on. We do not want to see tunnel vision in our investigative process. I would argue that in making this amendment, you're actually negatively impacting the clients who are charged with these crimes.
I also want to address what Mr. Ménard had to say. Nowhere does this sex offender registry, sir, use the word “dangerous”.
I'm not sure why Mr. Ménard keeps going back to “only dangerous”. This is a sex offender registry. It has nothing to do with what kind of crime. These are convicted criminals who have completed illegal sexual acts upon victims. They've been heard, and a judge has made a ruling. I want that information when I investigate as a police officer. I want to be able to protect potential victims, and the only way I can do that is to ensure that people do not allow even those who are convicted of what some of you call “less severe” crimes.... I need them on that registry. They start with being peeping Toms; they start with masturbating in parks; they progress up to a level where they are committing absolutely heinous crimes against our Canadian people. I want this information absolutely in this registry.
I'm actually begging you to consider our victims here, because we are going to lose some of our ability to successfully complete these investigations if we as a committee do not ensure that every single person who might potentially be responsible for these crimes.... If they are not on that list, you are going to damage the investigation process of all of the police officers involved in these cases.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.