Debates of May 15th, 1998

Canada Labour Code

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 25, 1998, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there is unanimous consent that we see the clock as being 1.30 p.m.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from April 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-284, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act (offences against children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Records Act

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Souris—Moose Mountain still has approximately four minutes left to speak on this bill today as he was unable to finish his comments during the last hour of debate. The member would like to use this available time but has agreed to allow me to give my comments before him as I have to leave the Chamber shortly for an airplane trip and if I do not leave shortly I will not make it.

I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to be allowed to speak first during this hour on this private members' bill but still allow the member for Souris—Moose Mountain to finish his few minutes of comments later in this hour.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I understand that at the conclusion of the hon. whip's speech the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain will resume the floor for four minutes and then we will continue with the normal rotation.

Does the House understand the situation and is it agreed that we proceed in this manner?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all members present for allowing me to get this speech on the record.

It is a very important private members' bill. A tremendous amount of work has been done by my colleague in Calgary Centre on behalf of families, and on behalf of children. He tries to seek legislative and other ways to protect that valued institution in our country. I commend him for his efforts and I look forward to more in the years to come.

What does Bill C-284 do that is so important? In general Bill C-284 would enable those responsible for children, in other words institutions like daycare centres, elementary schools and any institution or group that works with children to be more fully informed about decisions on whom they are hiring and to be able to do a criminal records check on them that has not been covered up by a ministerial pardon. Specifically it allows for the limited disclosure of an individual's criminal record if the individual had been convicted of a sexual offence against a child and later applies for one of these positions of trust with children.

In a nutshell, Bill C-284 would ensure that we can always do a criminal records check on a sexual offender. We can ensure thereby that anyone holding a position of authority or trust for a child has had that record run against him.

Before I get into why this is so necessary I would like to reaffirm again the importance of the family in Canadian society. The protection of vulnerable people in our society is a job that this parliament has an obligation to fulfill. We have not done a glorious job of protecting families or protecting children. In the ongoing debate on the Young Offenders Act and the future of the tax system to help people raise children, and on all those other issues, the government has not done a great job in fulfilling the requirements of families.

Bill C-284 tries to plug one of the loopholes that has allowed a negative impact upon families and specifically upon children.

Let me talk about the genesis of this. It is not a nice story. It is a very tragic one. It has to do with a story about Bobby Oatway.

Oatway's real name is Stevens and he has a criminal sexual record against children which spans back as far as 1965 and includes all kinds of things, buggery, bestiality, gross indecency and sexual assault. He beat and raped his wife for eight years before she left him in 1973.

In 1996 he completed two-thirds of his latest 10 year sentence for sex crimes. He was serving three 10-year sentences concurrently in Mountain prison which was in my riding prior to the last election. He was granted statutory release in 1996 and his conditions last until 1999 which are monitoring conditions for this man.

He chose to move to Prince George and then Toronto. Everywhere he went neighbourhood protests in those cities caused him to move back to Mountain prison where he voluntarily reincarcerated himself because of those problems. Because he was in Mountain prison voluntarily he could ask prison officials to release him to a halfway house at any time. In other words, this could be done at any time without notice within three working days.

If that happened then he would automatically be sent to the Sumas correctional facility which is also in my riding. That means he would be released back into the community and no one would know. If Sumas centre did not want him or refused to take him, then there was nowhere else to let him loose and they would just open the doors and let him walk free.

CSC says they cannot notify the public if Oatway is released. They just do not have that authority.

As a result of Bobby Oatway's presence in my community in this way and the circumstances surrounding his potential release, his former victims co-ordinated the gathering of a 26,000 name petition from across Canada. It asks the government to focus more on the rights of the victims in legislation rather than on the convicted sex criminals or dangerous offenders who are at high risk to reoffend.

On October 8, 1996 as part of National Family Week, I tabled that 26,000 name petition in the House. It is one of the victim focused approaches to crime prevention that the Reform Party has suggested.

The petition specifically asked that the government amend the Criminal Code to prohibit for life all those convicted of sex offences against children from holding positions of trust or responsibility regarding children. That is an easy thing to support on all sides of the House.

During this current parliament, my colleague from Calgary Centre tabled a very similar bill with some improvements I might add.

That is the background of where my involvement in this bill came from.

Once criminals complete their sentence, any criminal can apply for a pardon. A pardon allows people convicted of a criminal offence to have their criminal record sealed and effectively erased from public scrutiny and the public record. Therefore once a pardon is granted to a person, that person even though convicted of a criminal offence will not have that record disclosed or made accessible to anyone without prior approval of the Solicitor General of Canada which practically speaking is nearly an impossible process.

It is possible that individuals convicted of sexual crimes can be released from prison, granted a pardon and obtain a job or a position of authority regarding children. No one will know about it and there is no way to even check the records to see if that person has had a prior offence involving sexual crimes against children. It is this kind of possibility that this bill would stop.

Third party childcare givers would be given greater certainty over who they are hiring and who they are welcoming into everything from a boy scout group to a childcare facility. They would have the possibility of checking on that person's criminal records.

Are our children at risk? Is this kind of protection really needed?

CSC's own studies show that about one-third of all sex offenders are convicted of a new criminal offence after release. About one in ten are convicted of a new sex offence during the follow-up period, which is the probationary period that follows.

British studies indicate that both homosexual pedophiles and heterosexual pedophiles recommit crimes at an alarming rate. So do our children need all the protection we can give them? The answer of course is yes.

Bill C-284 would reduce at least the risk of sexual offenders applying to agencies where they frequently use those facilities and opportunities as predators against children. Those people who are hiring people to work in positions of authority deserve the right to do a criminal records check on anyone applying for a job. That is what Bill C-284 would do.

What do the critics say to this proposal? They say that perhaps it violates a criminal's rights, that he should have the right to absolute privacy.

Bill C-284 does not propose that child sex offenders can never be pardoned. It does not say that. It does not propose that if one does commit a crime it should forever be on the public record and broadcast on television. It does however propose the following.

There should be a limited disclosure of an individual's criminal record if the individual being already convicted of a sexual offence against a child later applies for a position of trust of working with children. When he applies for that position whoever is doing the hiring should say “I will take your application. Be aware that I am going to do a criminal records check on you”—as they should anyway—“and if you are pardoned it will not wipe that record clean”.

Right now you do not know. Once a pardon has taken place the records are sealed and even though you ask for that records check you cannot get that information.

It could be argued that Bill C-284 limits a criminal's rights ever so slightly. However in light of the high recidivism rate among sexual offenders, I would argue that it is a warranted and justified limited restriction on a criminal's rights because we must put the rights of children and the rights of law-abiding citizens ahead of the rights of the criminal in this kind of a situation.

The right to protect innocent, vulnerable children is a stronger and more prominent right than the right of a criminal to have his records forever sealed and never available to be checked in any way whatsoever. It is a stronger argument to protect children. It is a nobler argument to protect children and that is what this bill intends to do.

Obviously whenever children are at risk we must do everything we can to protect them. If we pass Bill C-284 and we do risk stubbing the rights of the Bobby Oatways of this world and forcing them to have their records available in a limited way to all those who might want to hire such a person unknowingly to work with children, then we may have to offend some of those rights in a small way.

In conclusion I would like to emphasize the importance of families and children to Canadian society. The House has the responsibility to protect the children who are most vulnerable, to build up the family and to look after the rights of those people to make sure they are not compromised.

Presently our legal system places children at an unreasonable physical risk because a sexual offender who has received a pardon could be hired unknowingly by a childcare agency without having his past criminal records scrutinized. This bill would eliminate that risk or at least drastically reduce it. It would fulfil our obligation to put the rights of innocent people and innocent children ahead of the rights of the criminal.

Budget Implementation Act, 1998

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the third reading of Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24,1998.

Consequently I regret to inform the House that under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I must give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-284, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act (offences against children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Records Act

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the remaining four minutes of my previous address, I will raise four very serious questions.

If the House adopts my hon. colleague's bill these questions will not have to be answered again or at least not as frequently.

The government has a fundamental role to ensure the protection of its citizens. This is particularly true for those who are innocent and most vulnerable, our children. Protecting children is the ultimate responsibility. They must be allowed to grow up free from abuse and free from molestation.

First, what does one say to console parents who have had a child molested? There is no answer that can be provided unless we take steps at this time to pass the bill.

Thirty-one per cent of sex offenders released from federal correctional institutions commit another violation of some sort within three years. Pedophiles are at greater risk than rapists. It is likely that pedophiles, especially those men who offend young boys, are at greater risk to reoffend sexually than are rapists. As a matter of fact statistics show it is 19% to 8%.

Second, what does one say to parents after a child has been molested by someone who has already served time for a similar offence? Bill C-184 introduced by my colleague would provide measures so that employers and parents would know the past of the people they are hiring and thus provide protection to the most precious possessions they have, their children.

Currently when someone receives a pardon for summary or indictable offences there is no record accessible to the public that there was ever a criminal conviction or that pardon was ever granted.

Third, how would a parent or an employer feel knowing that the information was withheld from them when they hired someone who they did not know was a convicted pedophile?

Bill C-284 is specific in its intent. In order to protect our children from this type of element in society it is incumbent upon all members who sit in the House to make the right move to do that.

Fourth, why is Bill C-284 so important not just to my party, not just to the parties opposite, but to every member of the House? The responsibility now falls upon them. Essentially it sends a message. If the House wants that message to go out all across Canada to our constituencies in every province, we are saying by passing the bill that the protection of our children is important and is the most paramount thing we could do at the present time.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today on Bill C-284 introduced by the member for Calgary Centre.

As we look at the bill we believe the purpose of its enactment is to provide for a specific instance where the public interest in a limited disclosure of the record of a conviction that has been pardoned supersedes the right to privacy of the pardoned person. The instance referred to is where the conviction was for a sexual offence against a child and the person convicted applied for a position of trust with respect to a child or children.

The disclosure would be made only to those with responsibility for the child or children who are considering the application. Unauthorized disclosure by them would be an offence as we understand the motion before us.

The bill also amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to provide that job requirement and hiring practice for child trust positions that discriminate against a person on the ground of a pardoned sexual offence against a child are not discriminatory practices giving rise to an offence under the act.

The bill addresses serious safety concerns for children in our communities. The bill strikes a sufficient balance between the rights of the individual and the safety concerns of society. We are in support of it.

The bill provides safeguards and limitations for the release of personal information regarding a person who has been pardoned. The bill ensures that information can only be requested by a prospective employer in relation to an employment application. In other words, it cannot be indiscriminately given out or requested from anyone. There is a clear protocol for the release of information about the individual concerned and serious penalties for wrongful disclosure of the information.

These measures adequately protect individuals from the misuse of personal information of the limited group of individuals we are talking about this afternoon. It is important, however, to recognize that when a pardon is granted it is recognition the offender has demonstrated real progress, restitution and rehabilitation and the powers the bill would bring into play are not exercised lightly.

The release of any information about an individual by the state must be undertaken with the greatest of discretion and caution, and all appropriate safeguards must be respected.

One improvement to the bill with regard to privacy concerns would be a provision for the notification of the individual that a request has been made for the disclosure of the individual's criminal record and pardon. This would give the individual the opportunity to withdraw an application for employment prior to the disclosure of the individual's personal information as opposed to being notified upon disclosure.

Overall the bill addresses a very serious concern for the safety of our children, communities and society as a whole. The bill could prevent future tragedies in our communities. If even one child can be spared it is worth pursuing.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-284, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act (offences against children).

This bill deals with a very important topic, the need to protect our children against sexual abuse.

The government has already taken the necessary actions to allow organizations and individuals occupying positions of trust and authority with respect to children to work with community police forces to investigate known sexual offenders.

How have we done this? During the summer of 1994 officials from the ministries of the solicitor general, justice and health conducted national consultations on the issue of whether Canada should establish a registry of child sex offenders. Officials consulted with provincial and territorial officials, police agencies, volunteer agencies and non-governmental organizations.

While participants in these consultations did not support the establishment of such a registry, they did support the enhancement of the existing Canadian Police Information Centre database to provide more and better information to police and organizations working with their local police agencies to help screen out sex offenders from positions of trust or authority over children.

Participants supported other federal measures that would directly assist child service organizations in developing policies to screen out sex offenders. Accordingly in November 1994 the Solicitor General of Canada announced enhancements to the CPIC. These databanks now include data on all convicted sex offenders, prohibition orders and peace bonds relating to sex offenders, the age and the sex of the child victims of sexual abuse and fingerprint information on persons charged with high grade offences. There is a system in place at the moment.

Joint funding by the ministries of the solicitor general, justice and health was announced for a national education campaign to screen out sexual abusers. An integral part of the campaign was the development of the screening manual by the Canadian Association of Volunteer Bureaux and Centres, now known as Volunteer Canada. This manual includes a comprehensive national and provincial-territorial analysis of the social, legislative and policy context for the screening.

The education campaign has resulted in the development of a series of fact sheets and a video entitled “Duty of Care”, which were used to inform and educate the public, and made available in over 200 Canadian communities. I am proud of this campaign's huge success, and we recently learned that it would be extended for another two years.

Employers and community organizations should have a formal screening policy covering interviews, reference checks, individual risk evaluations, training and supervision.

The purpose of Bill C-284 is commendable. However, the bill adds to the confusion in providing for the screening of sexual offenders by checking criminal records even after a pardon has been granted. There is also the issue of records being destroyed. In fact, they are sealed and kept separate at the Canadian Police Information Centre. If a pardoned offender is subsequently convicted of a summary offence, pardon is automatically revoked.

In addition, for investigation purposes, identifying information on pardoned criminals is made available as soon as fingerprints are submitted, and this without reopening the entire criminal record.

The government has taken significant and important measures to better protect children from sexual offenders. Being a mother, I certainly want to make sure that is the case for my children and all Canadian children.

Senior criminal justice officials are currently reviewing these measures to determine if more can be done. It is very clear, however, that Bill C-284 does not do more to protect children. It sends the wrong message to parents and volunteer organizations that a criminal record check alone, including a check of pardoned records, will protect their children. That is not the case.

For that reason this government does not support this bill.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak about Bill C-284 regarding amending the Criminal Records Act. Before I get into the nuts and bolts of the act I will give a little background information to the whole system of pardoning in not the entire history of civilization but since ancient times, which perhaps only the member from Surrey North might remember considering the colour of his hair. I think he is much more antiquated than I.

In ancient times apparently it was a monarch's privilege to distribute these pardons to anyone who had committed an atrocious act. I am thinking of King Zeus. He was a very compassionate person, much like Mr. Speaker sitting on the throne dispensing justice wisely and profoundly to all of us mere peons.

Then I rush ahead to merry old England, which was not merry old England to tell the truth, when King Henry VIII was the monarch. He was not so compassionate in his distribution of justice to those who disagreed with him or who had the misfortune of marrying him; almost as unfortunate as some person having the misfortune of marrying the member for Calgary Southeast. However that is food for thought for another time.

I go on to think about what kings we have in Canada who perhaps could distribute this justice. The only king I can think of in Canada is the King of Kensington. If anyone has been to Toronto's Kensington market on a Friday afternoon, I would think that the King of Kensington would most certainly be distributing justice and fairness and pardoning my sins if he could somehow prevent me from being at that market.

I would much sooner appear at the Calabogie market as you perhaps, Mr. Speaker, might indulge in doing on Saturday, knowing full well that you happen to be travelling up to the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. The Calabogie flea market as you may or may not know, Mr. Speaker, as you very infrequently leave your humble abode on the beautiful shores of the Madawaska River, dispenses all sorts of goodies, the most common and famous of which would be the maple syrup. If you desire to go to that market, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that somehow we could arrange that for you, not by a chauffeured limousine but by a horse and buggy.

Let us rush on to the system of pardoning. When I speak about pardoning I am talking—

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I may be mistaken but I was under the impression that we were debating Bill C-284. I have heard absolutely no reference to the bill in the last three and a half minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke was tying in pardons with the market in Calabogie. I think we are about to hear now how that relates.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rushing on. There was a lead up to Bill C-284.

We are talking about pardoning. I have to bring a subject up because we have had some people—and I hate to say this being their federal member of parliament—of disrepute who on occasion have gone through the pardoning system, or have attempted to go through the pardoning system, or on occasion perhaps should have used or taken advantage of the system of pardoning as distributed by the solicitor general.

One person was a man in Stonecliffe, Ontario by the name of Wild Willie Buckshot. It is too bad that the hon. member from Souris is not here because as the story goes with this pardoning, he actually rode with the notorious outlaw Jesse James. This is a true story. He said that Jesse James fell off his horse while robbing a bank and he went back and picked up Jesse James and rescued him. For this very humane act he was charged under the Criminal Code with aiding and abetting a robbery. He believed that he should have received a pardon.

I am not sure whether or not he did get a pardon but the gist of the story is that Wild Willie Buckshot turned out to be a very respectable member of that community. As a matter of fact he became known as one of the premier lumbermen in that area. He happened to also have a chicken farm. I do not know how they both relate but it is just to show the system of pardoning.

We then had a former mayor of the city of Pembroke by the name of Angus A. Campbell who believed that he was wrongly done by because they put a bypass around the community of Petawawa. It went through his farm.

If the hon. member listens and pays strict attention he will see the end of where I am coming to in this pardoning system. I understand this is a private members' bill and that I am at a luxury here to go about this in a roundabout way. On occasion many of the members speaking have been rather abrupt with it, giving all the nuances of this bill. I am just taking a different cut on it.

When I speak about the former mayor of the city of Pembroke, what he did was very appropriate. He stood in the middle of Highway 17 with a shotgun and stopped all traffic on both sides of the king's highway. As a result of that there was a possibility that he would be charged. He wanted an outlet into his property because it was hurting his place of business.

Would that person be an offensive person to the community? I do not think he would be. I do not believe that he would. Perhaps the members opposite would think so. He became the vice-president of the Canadian Association of Mayors.

Then we had a lawyer called Maloney. Members may be interested in this. He was a criminal lawyer of note. He went into the court system. He had a person who had been charged. In his presentation before the judge he clearly indicated to the judge that the person had not lied since he was rocked in a cradle. As a result of that the judge dispensed justice in the appropriate manner. He pardoned his sins, if we want to look at it in that regard. How this lawyer pulled this grandiose feat off was he rocked the person in a cradle in his chambers before he went into the court system.

I realize that my time is running out and I want to get to the real point. Apparently one in ten Canadians have a criminal record. That would lead me to believe that, and perhaps I should not extrapolate from this, but the loyal opposition has 60 members and perhaps six of them have a criminal record. If they have done something of disrepute and want to be pardoned for that, they can appeal to the solicitor general. I cannot see any problem in that if there is some justification to the pardoning process.

When we come to sexual offences concerning young children, the basis of my talk has been that we cannot take a broad brush and paint the entire society in a negative fashion because of things done in a repugnant manner by a small minority. I believe Bill C-284 is going to address the concerns of the people who can take advantage of the pardoning system in a fair and equitable manner.

Rest assured, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members opposite, that it will be the Liberal Party of Canada that will continue to look after and care for the benefits of all people irrespective of age, gender and nationality. Goodness gracious, we will even look after members of the Conservative Party if they so desire.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on Bill C-284 and speak in support of my colleague.

My opening remarks were not going to concern what I have just heard across the floor of this House. I would be remiss if I did not comment on the speeches which were just related to us.

I look out as I have never done before in this House. I am looking right at the camera asking Canadians who are watching today to put down the iron for a few minutes, put down those books, put down whatever it is they are doing for a minute and listen to what is going on in this House.

We have had two speeches with a certain amount of humour in them on an issue which does not have any humour in it. This bill is about protecting our children and our future, the future of Canada.

To the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I would say that this great Liberal compassion, this great idea that the Liberals are going to stand up for everyone has turned out in my experience since coming to this House in September, to be in essence a falsehood.

There are two examples. We have been dealing with hepatitis C for some time. Where is the compassion? Where is the understanding? Where is the government taking care of our people, the people in need? I look at our military people, the junior ranks, not the senior ranks. Where oh where is the compassion and understanding for them? I will speak to the cameras again. It is a sad commentary.

All we are asking with this bill is for support from all members of the House for one more tool to protect our children. We are not asking for the abuse of the rights of Canadian citizens. When criminals commit acts of violence, sexual abuse against children and so on, whether anybody likes it or not, the system is set up so that they do lose some of their rights.

The parliamentary secretary to the justice minister was going on about the fact that some organization did not want a registry. They felt that the screening manual that was developed would be sufficient or a step in the right direction and I have to agree very much.

Organizations have to use due diligence in determining who their employees are, whether or not they are capable of the job and whether or not they are a danger to the recipients of their service. In this case it is children and their mothers and fathers.

I say yes, I agree with that screening manual. I agree with all the education. But why would anyone be opposed to having one more tool, a vital tool? That tool would be the right to find out if someone has had a previous conviction record of sexual abuse against children. If in fact they had been pardoned, that record could be opened up as it pertains to their record of sexual abuse against children.

This bill is that simple. There should be no reason why members on all sides, the Liberals, the NDP, the Conservatives, the Bloc, cannot support this bill. It is a small step but it is a very important one.

We are not saying, as the parliamentary secretary tried to indicate, that we only believe this one item is what the whole world will rest on, that a check of the criminal record is sufficient to protect our children. It is not. However it definitely is one step in the right direction.

I would like to talk for just a minute about who commits these offences. Certainly the term pedophiles has been mentioned. Obviously that term is used for a reason because it has to do with sexual offences against children. I have heard different members, including members of my own party, talk about 31% of sex offenders released from prisons reviolate within three years and this kind of thing.

I spent 30 years in the police force and I certainly did not spend all my time working on child abuse cases. However for every time a criminal is caught for doing an act he or she has done—and let us not misunderstand the idea in that there are also female sex abusers of children—the fact is that an offender will normally commit many offences before he actually gets caught. A lot of offenders go through a good part of their lifetime never getting caught for the offences they commit.

In the case of using 31% of sex offenders released from federal correctional institutions reviolating, that is understated. When that person reviolates, he will only be charged for that one reviolation. He will not be charged with all the ones for which there is no evidence or insufficient evidence.

The problem we are looking at here is being understated by people who use statistics to try to say there are only a few cases and it is not so bad. We only have to look at the milk cartons and all the police files that show missing child after missing child. We know from the convictions of people who were caught for this that they commit multiple offences. It is not the kind of crime where they do it once. That is what is so serious about this.

I believe that whatever we can do as a government and as parliamentarians we should take that step. We can all support Bill C-284. It is right and there is no reason why we should not give our full support to it.

I plead today for the government which has a majority in the House and can control what goes on to at least have a free vote on this and let backbenchers say what they would like to see happen to this bill. I am sure a lot would support the bill.

I have come out strongly in favour of this bill. It is definitely right for my grandchild's protection. I ask everyone to support it.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the member turned this into partisan politics when this is private members' hour because Bill C-284 is very important. If he is seeking the support on this side of the House he should have spared us the shots against the government and the shots against the Liberals in suggesting that we have no compassion.

Indeed this is an important bill. On this side of the House we do have free votes in Private Members' Business. This is why we are here. This is why we hear different points of view.

I have to say to the member for Calgary Centre that I think it is a very good bill. He has introduced something that a chord that is of great concern to all of us. What is interesting to me is he actually touches on a much broader issue, privacy and criminality.

We have a situation now where we can make the parallel between what is proposed by Bill C-284, the release of certain criminal record information in relation to people who have received pardons, and the Young Offenders Act. Young offenders after being convicted have certain protections, certainly in family court.

This whole issue of whether when a person is convicted of a serious criminal offence they should be entitled under any circumstances to privacy I think is a broader issue that deserves a lot of future debate.

Normally I am uncomfortable with some of the anti-crime stances the Reform Party takes. Often they seem to be very extreme. In this instance the member for Calgary Centre is proposing something the government should pay very careful attention to.

In the last parliament the government proposed Bill C-55. That bill was related to the one we are talking about and the parliamentary secretary to solicitor general made reference to it in his speech. That bill addressed the problem of what to do about convicted and released sexual offenders to avoid them coming back to the environment in which they are tempted to act out another crime. That bill proposed electronic monitoring. It was to give judges the discretion to put electronic shackles on individuals without warrants, without charges even, so that when they came into the area of a playground or something like that a bell would go off via satellite and the police would come and pick them up.

If there is ever any question in this House that the debates we have on legislation can have an impact, the debates that Bill C-55 sparked and the criticism that came in this House as a result of the concept of putting electronic shackles on people before there had been any arrest or charge resulted in that bill being thrown out. In other words, in the last parliament a bill came forward from the justice department which in comparison to what has been proposed by the member for Calgary Centre was draconian. What the member for Calgary Centre proposes does have merit.

What the member is simply saying is that when a pardon is granted it should be a discretionary pardon in the sense that the solicitor general through the Criminal Records Act reserves the right to release the information of that record to certain groups and individuals who seek to know whether a person soliciting employment that involves responsibility with children has a previous conviction.

This is not unreasonable. This is actually much more reasonable than having some sort of device attached permanently to someone to prevent them from coming anywhere near children.

My problem is simply that I am not sure we need the legislation of Bill C-284 to accomplish the mission the member for Calgary Centre is setting out to do. I cannot pretend to be an expert on the Criminal Records Act but I have read all the previous speeches, including his, and it does seem the solicitor general already has latitude. I agree with this legislation in principle, but rather than using legislation to accomplish what he is trying to do we could probably do it by regulation.

Partisan politics aside, this is where private members' hour becomes very important. The member for Calgary Centre has raised an issue that does concern us. He suggests the direction the government may take and if we set aside partisan politics, if hon. members listened carefully to the speech of the parliamentary secretary for the justice department, they would have heard her say the government is interested in this. The government is listening. The government does care about it.

I think the member for Calgary Centre has accomplished something very important. He is touching on an issue that is much broader, privacy and criminality.

I congratulate him on bringing this before the House and I think at the very least he has brought his message forward to all Liberals on this side and to the government. This is an area where a fix can and should be made.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the opinions of all members in the House but it bothers me greatly when I see a member make a mockery almost of a serious and important piece of legislation. I say that for the record.

I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-284. I commend the work of the member for Calgary Centre in tabling such an important piece of legislation.

Bill C-284 is important in that its focus is one of the highest priority, the protection of our children from abuse.

Conservative estimates are that 1 in 3 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18 while 1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 16. Even more frightening is that most abused and neglected children reportedly never come to the attention of authorities. This is especially true in cases of sexually abused children since there may be no outward sign of physical, psychological or emotional harm. Furthermore, sexually abused children are reluctant to report these crimes. They feel intense shame, and secrecy is often the result.

For these and other reasons we must focus our attention to combat child abuse at the preventive level. It is a serious matter of public interest which Bill C-284, if passed, would help address.

As outlined by previous speakers, this bill amends two existing statutes, the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The amendments to the Criminal Records Act would allow for limited disclosure of the criminal record of a person pardoned of a conviction for sexual offence against a child. This disclosure would occur when the pardoned person applies for a position of trust over children. The information would be provided to only those individuals with responsibility for children who are considering such an application. Any inappropriate disclosure of information by these individuals would be subject to criminal sanctions.

Put simply, these changes would give organizations that deal with children an additional tool to scrutinize potential employees and volunteers before they are placed in positions of trust. Groups such as Scouts Canada, the Girl Guides and minor sports teams would have access to information that is extremely relevant to the selection process.

For those who would object on the grounds of privacy rights for pardoned offenders, I suggest they examine the reality of sexual offenders. Among criminal offenders, those convicted of sexual offences have one of the highest rates of recidivism.

Our children are far too important to risk having repeat offenders enter into positions of authority and trust. We must give child centred and youth centred organizations the tools to prevent future tragedies of child sexual abuse.

It is a sad irony that we presently have a government that cracks down on law-abiding gun owners and leaves tens of thousands of hepatitis victims twisting in the wind yet nonetheless feels the rights of convicted child sex offenders should take precedence over child safety.

The second component of Bill C-284 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act that permits organizations to refuse to employ individuals in so-called child trust positions on the basis of persons having a pardoned sexual offence against a child.

This amendment is the next logical step in Bill C-284. Once an organizations has access to relevant information it should be free to act on it without fear of reprisal.

I share the view of those who believe that rehabilitation is a laudable goal. I also believe that securing employment for offenders re-entering society is often critical to ensuring that they do not become repeat offenders. This in turn helps protect public safety.

We need to draw the line at allowing convicted sexual offenders, irrespective of whether they were pardoned, to secretly enter into positions of trust over children. Canadians need peace of mind that organizations to which they entrust their children have taken all the precautions necessary to protect their safety.

Bill C-284 gives these organizations another weapon to fight child abuse. This bill is a reasonable compromise between the rights of offenders and the rights of society, in particular our most important members of society.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I urge all members to vote in favour of this legislation. Let us support our many volunteer driven organizations that deal with children. Let us support our families. Let us support the safety of our children.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to support my colleague for Calgary Centre on Bill C-284.

This bill is based on an earlier bill, Bill C-382, produced by my colleague from Fraser Valley. It died on the order paper at the close of the 35th parliament.

In October 1996 the member tabled a 26,000 name petition which called for the changes similar to those this bill proposes. I am very pleased to see it here again.

This bill would amend the Criminal Code to prohibit for life all those convicted of sex offences against children from holding positions of trust and responsibility regarding children. Surely we can all support that. Thus far I have heard some positive comments from Liberals. I am trusting they will support the bill to see it through to the end and actually become law.

The bill would enable those responsible for children to make fully informed decisions about who they hire. Bill C-284 will give parents with children in third party care the assurance that those responsible for looking after their children have not abused this position of authority in the past.

The bill proposes to allow for the limited disclosure of an individual's criminal record if the individual has been convicted of a sexual offence against a child and later applies for a position of trust with respect to children. Such a disclosure will include an individual's criminal record for a previous sexual offence against a child or children even if they had served their sentence and had later received a pardon which had been removed on notice of conviction from the individual's criminal record.

That is a very important aspect of the bill given that pardons have been fairly easy to obtain. Often those in the area of pedophilia are very difficult to cure and would not be subject to as much protection as those who have committed other kinds of offences under the Criminal Code. I emphasize this limited disclosure will only take effect when an individual applies for a position of trust with respect to a child or children.

Bill C-284 does not propose that sex offences against children can never be pardoned. The bill does not propose that if one makes a mistake such as this that it should be forever on one's record. Rather, it proposes that if someone does sexually abuse children, that person could effectively be prevented from holding a position of authority with children again, as those responsible for children will be able to see that a job applicant has abused such a position in the past and thus they will be more judicious in their hiring practice.

Is this bill necessary? It sends a message that the protection of our children is paramount. We can look at some very high profile cases in this province in and around the London area. Others are ongoing as we speak like in Cornwall and places like that where tragic events have taken place. Crimes against children have impacted the lives of hundreds of people in the community. That is the focus of the bill. It would ensure those involved in this kind of activity will be censured in their activities when it comes to looking after children.

Bill C-284 is necessary to address the procedural deficiencies in the way pardons are treated. Currently when someone receives a pardon for a summary or indictable offence, no record is accessible by the public that there ever was a criminal conviction or that the pardon was ever granted. A pardon for a summary offence is issued three years after one completes one's sentence. One can apply to receive a pardon for an indictable offence five years after completing one's sentence.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time for the consideration of Private Members' Business has expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. I am happy to advise the hon. member that when the debate on this bill is resumed, he will have five minutes in which to complete his remarks.

It being 2.30 p.m., for all intents and purposes, this House stands adjourned until Monday, May 25, 1998 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.17 p.m.)