Yes, prevention. I wanted to be sure my understanding was correct.
We will also be supporting this amendment, for the simple reason that we will be introducing a new way of doing this that is far less restrictive, but at the same time essential and important, because the previous process allowed some offenders to avoid inclusion.
In a way, we will be closing the loop. This tightly closes the loop, and since we did not pass the first amendment, which would have given judges greater discretion over the least problematic cases, it seems to me it is even more critical that there be a report.
Furthermore, taking two years to assess new legislation is a good thing. At the same time, I am concerned about how effective this registry will actually be, since everyone will be included. Will the data be accurate? Will there be enough money to manage the data base? That's fundamental.
The best example is the current no-fly list. It includes minors, and gives rise to false positives and false negatives. It includes anyone and everyone, which means that people don't have the right to fly. Let's compare that to the situation of accused persons who automatically appear in the registry, even though the judge and even the prosecutor do not want them to be included. We will end up with a very long list.
First of all, that means there will need to be money to pay for this. I hope the government won't do what it generally does, which is to pass laws without investing any money. I hope there will be money there.
I also hope there will be quality control of the registry. We wouldn't like to see people being deprived of the right to work in a daycare centre because they have a name similar to that of someone who appears on the list. I hope all of that will be considered under this legislation.
So, it is important for there to be a report setting out all of the potential shortcomings of the list, and how much it's costing, so that we know whether the government has invested the necessary funding to ensure that the list is effective and enforceable
We will also need an evaluation report setting out whether the registry is effective and has actually made it possible to prevent sexual offences. All of that is absolutely critical, because it can only help us to be better and have better legislation.
It's possible that the current legislation is flawed in terms of its enforcement. There is no way of knowing whether a law is defective or inappropriate if it's not being enforced.
That's why, two years from now, this report should be able to tell us whether the legislation is appropriate and effective and whether the funds necessary to enforce it are available. That is fundamental.
I am surprised to see that government members, as well as Liberal members, do not seem to be reacting. I am very surprised by that. I expect Liberal colleagues to support a review of the legislation two years from now, and I expect the same from the government.
You have to be sure that this is right. You should be happy that someone is proposing a review of the legislation two years from now. I don't understand why there is no reaction. I hope I am wrong, because I have serious concerns about passing legislation without wanting to know more about how it works or whether or not it is effective.
We will pass legislation, and people on the ground will not have an opportunity to tell us whether it is good or not, and we just won't pay any more attention to it. It makes no sense.
We have to do what is necessary; we have to ensure that this legislation operates effectively on the ground. We also have to ensure that it is enforced; we're not just passing legislation for the sake of it. The best example would be the law we passed in 1995 on human trafficking. Fifteen years later, we have nothing. As I recall, there have been three, four, five or possibly six convictions for trafficking in Canada. Laws that we pass have to be effective, because otherwise, there is no point; we are wasting our time and taxpayers' money.
The best way to assess the effectiveness of a law is to test it. So, we are going to test it. However, if we test it and we have no report subsequently, we are not doing anything. We will simply be producing another law without knowing whether or not it works.
That is fundamental, Mr. Chairman. We should at least consider this amendment and reflect on the fact, as a group working together, that we need to take the time, two years from now, to assess the relevance of that legislation. I therefore invite all my colleagues, in good faith, to support this amendment, which I know is both worthwhile and important.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.