Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to such an important topic, all the more so with you in the Chair.
Such a bill, with the particular objectives it has, exemplifies how all members of this House can work together constructively. In fact, a comparison of Bill C-284 and Bill C-69 will be edifying.
Bill C-69 provides a mechanism for disclosing the contents of an individual's criminal record to the appropriate authorities in cases of sex offences. As my colleagues pointed out earlier, the purpose of this bill is to prevent serious repeat sex offences against children or other vulnerable members of our society.
What would this bill actually do? It would introduce a system to flag sex offences so as to limit the number of situations in which a person found guilty of a sexual offence, indecent assault or whatever, could again come into contact with or take up a position of authority over children or other vulnerable individuals.
Specifically, the purpose of this bill is to prevent a pardoned sex offender from becoming a care provider, a supervisor at a park or a children's recreational facility, or a day care worker, or being in any position where he could take advantage of the innocence of a child.
Bill C-69 could apply to special care facilities for the mentally handicapped or to support services to help them prepare for living on their own.
As a society, we have too often heard of cases of sexual abuse committed by repeat offenders who had officially been pardoned.
The purpose of the bill is to respond to requests by associations promoting the rights of victims of criminal acts and, more importantly, to ensure a safe environment, something we all want as a community, in which our children, our most valuable asset, may grow and develop.
The mechanism I spoke of at the start of my remarks is an indicator, a sort of warning light, that follows the pardoned record of a sexual offender and is activated when a security check is made on the reliability of the individual, who is seeking work that would put him or her in contact with children.
I can already hear the hardline libertarians railing against such a practice, given that a pardoned sexual offender is officially rehabilitated as an individual who respects the law and the ethics guiding our society.
To them, I would say, there are never enough ways to ensure the security and development of our children.
Naturally, Bill C-69 takes account of the guarantee of confidentiality inherent in rehabilitation and for this reason security checks must be done with the approval of the applicant. This check will be done in the national screening system under the Canadian police information centre by individuals duly authorized to consult the register.
Should the famous warning light come on, under the law the record and its contents would be sent to the solicitor general, who would ultimately decide on the relevance of removing the seal from the record.
Here the big question arises. It represents a major concern for the Bloc Quebecois. Should the solicitor general not be obliged to reveal the contents of the record that are of a sexual nature simply as a precautionary measure for children and society?
We think the minister's discretion could apply to the contents of the record where they apply to other issues, except those of a sexual nature. In simpler words, the minister, in the case of sexual offences, must reveal the content of the criminal record; he may do so for all other cases. He would continue to enjoy discretionary powers in all other cases.
If this means we might save a child, who would otherwise be a victim of sexual aggression, I think the bill would have served its purpose.
The wording of the bill indicates that the minister may inform the appropriate authorities of the contents of the record in question. We are, however, of the opinion that there is a moral obligation for the Solicitor General to disclose its contents when it includes a listed offence. As I have said, this moral obligation ought to be translated into a legal one.
Of course, this security check poses a threat to children or other vulnerable individuals. With this adjustment, the government might better attain the objective of its bill. It might even, I believe, benefit from the unanimous support of this House, even that of my colleagues in the Reform Party, who are somewhat unenthusiastic about Bill C-69.
The government would also have to continue to heed our recommendations and proposals, including those the Bloc Quebecois will bring to the committee.
I would like to return briefly to the verification system itself. As I said, these checks would be done via the national screening system administered by the Canadian Police Information Centre.
In an article in this morning's Ottawa Citizen , journalist Jim Bronskill describes the technological obsolescence of the CPIC's data bank computers.
This is, in my opinion, an unacceptable situation, and it is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure proper funding for this body, which provides frontline information to some 13,400 police forces all across Canada.
Early this year, in March, we MPs had the opportunity to learn more about this matter from the Canadian Police Association at its annual legislative conference, held right here in Ottawa. I had an opportunity, as did several of my colleagues in the House, to discuss the issue with Yves Prud'homme, the president of the Fédération québécoise des policiers et policières du Québec, and to actually meet in my office with police officers from all over Quebec and Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois sees Bill C-69 as one more step along the road to ensuring our children's safety, but we must make sure that we have reliable records in the national screening system so that we can implement this political and collective wish.
This brings me to another point. Do we have real and effective guarantees regarding the turnaround for analysing files submitted to the CPIC that could eventually end up in the solicitor general's office?
There is the matter of the time it takes for a file to make it all the way up to the solicitor general's office and back down again. Bloc Quebecois members have some questions and concerns about the speed with which files could be processed.
There is nothing in the bill right now to allay our concerns. However, I hope that the government will take note and introduce specific provisions so as to prevent any loopholes that would threaten the safety of our children.
After this brief overview of the bill, I urge Liberal backbenchers as well to pressure the solicitor general to put more teeth into Bill C-69 and make it more consistent with the problems we are actually facing.
The Bloc Quebecois therefore supports this bill so that it can be referred quickly to committee for consideration. As I said at the very beginning of my speech, a comparison with Bill C-284 will be edifying. Finally, a positive response to our concerns would help to ensure speedy passage of this bill to ensure the well-being and safety of our children and vulnerable members of our society.