House of Commons Hansard #27 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.
Roy H. Bailey Canadian Alliance Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians no doubt are watching today. Many Canadians across the country have made it very clear that they believe we have given more protection to the criminals than we have to the victims.
Would the member not agree that an all party support of the motion now before the House would not only show confidence in the House but would also gain the support we really need on a national level for the justice system across Canada?
Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I guess we will see tonight whether or not all party support is in place. What I do know is that we on the government side continue to ensure that there are laws in place to ensure effective public policy in areas of the criminal justice system. We also ensure that the values of Canada are taken into consideration when we provide public policy.
What I do not like seeing, and what I believe Canadians do not like seeing, is the opposition, especially the reform alliance people, who seem to always want to fearmonger. They always want to scratch the surface of the scab to try to get to the bleeding of society. I do not understand that kind of negativity. I do not understand the politics of fear, the politics of blame, the politics of trying always to undermine the very values of this decent and just country. Unfortunately, that is who they are. That is the kind of people we have to put up with in the House.
We on this side will continue to work in the best interests of the public. We will work in the best interests of children and we will do the kinds of things necessary to ensure safety and security in this great country of ours. Why do we do this? We do it because it is in the best interests of all Canadians, no matter where they live in Canada.
Darrel Stinson Canadian Alliance Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, I could not help but listen to what the member was saying about fearmongering, picking scabs and taking certain issues out of context. I take exception to that. What we are talking about here is the safety of our children, not partisan politics, and I wish the member would get that straight.
Underneath the registry issue we are talking about, we all know that the average lifespan of a child who has been kidnapped for sexual purposes is seven hours. After seven hours, the chances of that child coming back alive just about disintegrate. My question to the member is, underneath this proposal, would that not speed up the process in helping to find the child?
Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, with the CPIC system of course we continue to work very effectively and in the best interests of Canadians to ensure that timing is of the essence. This has to be something that is understood by everyone in Canada: we, with the police information system, are putting in place the necessary tools.
Do we need to do additional things? Of course we do. That is why, when the justice ministers and the solicitors general from across Canada met in Iqaluit, they put in place a kind of beginning process and mechanism, if you will, ensuring that what we will do as a country is ensure that in regard to those kinds of issues like the member's question in terms of timing, we find the perpetrators, the offenders, as soon as possible so that our children and all Canadians can feel safe and secure, not only in their homes and neighbourhoods but in their communities and in their provinces as well.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the non-partisan parliamentary secretary.
With respect to the child sex offender registry, I am quoting from the auditor general's report of April 2000 in which he essentially refers to the fact that it was out of action for 11% of last year.
It is easy to mouth the words about priorities on the part of the government. It is easy to talk about its top ten number one priorities. However, would the hon. member not agree that a stand alone system or even a sex offender registry specifically designated within the CPIC system and which is fully funded by the government—he can re-announce for the 113th time about the $115 million, knowing that the Canadian Police Association was asking for double that amount—would achieve the objective that—
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)
A quick response from the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General.
Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, the government and certainly the solicitor general as an individual are committed to the support of the police in all kinds of ways. We have committed and re-committed and will continue to provide the tools necessary to fight crime, not only in this area but in all areas that are necessary and important for Canadians wherever they live.
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would point out that the Canadian Alliance will not be able to accuse the Bloc Quebecois of being close-minded, after its most cavalier treatment of me yesterday.
That will not be the case today because, at a first glance, the proposal being debated now is of considerable interest, since it is aimed at introducing a measure that will act as a safety net against a specific type of crime and criminal. It is a sort of constructive control, but it is mainly a means of preventing sex offenders who have served their sentences from reoffending.
This idea of creating a national sex offender registry has been in the air for some time. It is, in fact, the outcome of a recommendation following on the investigative report on the murder of young Christopher Stephenson in 1988. A consensus followed on the critical need for this project in order to preserve the safety of all citizens.
More than a reflection of the public's will, the idea gathered the support of organizations such as the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and political parties such as the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc Quebecois, under certain conditions, however.
They all suggested the Government of Canada act without delay by putting an end to a situation that appeared increasingly symptomatic of a weakness in our justice system.
Experience has shown and research confirms a high risk of recidivism among sex offenders, in most cases. This warning from the experts together with the reactions of a number of police forces in the country have bolstered the convictions of victims and, accordingly, of the people with respect to a problem we can no longer ignore.
In an effort to take an enlightened and, if possible, a dispassionate look, let us examine just what the creation of a sex offender registry might mean.
Keeping such a registry of sex offenders appears at first glance to be based on a legitimate principle, that of protecting the public from the potential recidivism of offenders sentenced for specific sexual offences and now at the end of their sentence.
Often left to themselves and facing serious problems arising from repressed sexual urges, this category of offender is more likely to be a repeat offender. As we know, crimes of a sexual nature are especially heinous because they often involve our society's most vulnerable members. Children are the preferred victims of this sort of predator, who are not always settled down by a period behind bars.
Given this potential risk, prevention remains the best remedy to a problem which unfortunately makes headlines all too often. We do not want our communities to become hostages because of the inadequacies of a system that is powerless to eliminate a type of crime that puts lives in danger. The proposed solution is a concrete measure to correct a situation that could deteriorate if nothing is done to reduce its sad consequences.
The establishment of such a sex offender registry, which would include the offender's name, address and date of birth, and the list of sex crimes committed, would allow a much more thorough follow up on these people. Under such a procedure, offenders would have to inform local police forces of their whereabouts. This would allow society to keep an eye on these offenders who, in the absence of such a monitoring system, always remain a potential threat.
However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the registry must be established under very specific rules. The inclusion of all offences related to a sex crime must be included in the offender's record. The rules must be clear.
Second, the registry must be maintained by responsible authorities and be consulted only by these same authorities. We are talking of course about police forces.
Third, we must ensure a long term follow up which, as suggested in some documents, would require offenders who have received a ten year sentence to report for a ten year period. Those who would have been handed down harsher sentences could be required to report to police forces for a longer period of time.
Finally, these sex offenders should be informed that their names will remain in the registry for a predetermined period. Thus, this close monitoring, which is not a guarantee against sex offences, will at least help lower the risk by reducing the chances of recidivism. It will ensure that police forces have all the information they need to keep tabs on offenders and act quickly when the worst happens. These few points form the basis for an approach that could be a practical way of easing the community's concern. Since every initiative rests on a solid foundation, those who favour such a registry have done their homework.
The American model has produced interesting results, which have been a driving force in this project. A number of states have introduced a sex offender registry, including California in 1947 and, quite recently, Alaska in 1994. Each state has its own registry, and the FBI is thinking of creating a national registry, which is a significant attempt to keep tabs on sex offenders.
Although we feel that such registries do not prevent all crimes, they do help the police to identify suspects and eventually make arrests. Such a program therefore meets a need and fulfils specific expectations.
If we look at the European context, 88% of the 641 respondents in a survey in Great Britain said that they would like to be warned of the presence of pedophiles in their neighbourhood. Once again, this is a trend that reflects the concerns expressed by Canadians.
Our case is therefore not an isolated one and is part of an approach that is increasingly becoming the norm. We cannot avoid it and we certainly cannot remain insensitive to the entirely legitimate demands of the community.
However, despite the enthusiasm of those in favour of creating such a registry, certain precautions must be taken in order to avoid abuses. To that end, the new powers assigned to the police forces must be given a framework, with the limits set right from the start in order to avoid problems later on.
First of all, it needs to be stipulated that the right of access to personal information on offenders must be given only to the solicitor general and the law enforcement agencies. The general public must at no time have access to this bank of information. It must not be in general circulation and it must be intended, not as an alert to the population, but rather as a means to enable the police to monitor the offender, somewhat along the lines of what a parole officer would do. The goal would be the same: rehabilitation.
What needs to be kept in mind is that this registry must not become a means of allowing the public to conduct witch hunts. It must not be a means of stigmatizing all of these offenders, for some of them do manage to get over their obsessions. It is a useful tool, but it must be used only for its intended purposes.
Some people see the creation of an offender registry as a kind of attack on rights and freedoms. Of course, the usual steps need to be taken in order to safeguard the basic principle of rights for all. The interests of the community as a whole must also be considered, however. The Alaska legislative assembly is one example of this. It has adopted the creation of such a register, with the following statement:
—since there is a strong likelihood of repeat offences by sex offenders, and since it is ... vital to protect the public from sex offenders, protection of these offenders' privacy is not as important as the State's interest in protecting the public.
This principle also serves as the basis for an approach that places the community's interests above the individual interests of criminals who continue to present a risk to society.
In this regard, a ready link may be made with the other file being defended by the Bloc Quebecois, which, for the same reasons of protection, is fighting to have membership in a criminal group declared illegal. Others are expressing certain fears about such an initiative, because of the precedent it may establish, for example. People go so far as to think the establishment of this registry of personal information will open the door to other much more disquieting initiatives.
In this spirit, the allusion to the centralized megafile that put the Liberal government on the hot seat not so long ago rises as the ghost of the return of this form of register, the idea being that there would not be a series of this type of files gathering information here and there on the public for purposes other than public security and protection. I point out once again that it is by proceeding clearly from the outset, setting up specific guidelines, that we will prevent excesses.
In conclusion, after reviewing the benefits of the proposal we are debating here, and identifying the pitfalls to be avoided, I believe a national sex offenders registry could function.
Beyond the natural concerns raised by this measure, which is entirely new to us, with its objectives it will have a direct and, we hope, positive effect on the public. This effect will be felt as a preventive measure, an approach that has always had good results, so the public may feel truly safe.
This motion is broad enough to earn the support of the Bloc Quebecois. However, when a bill is formulated in this regard, we will ensure that it contains the conditions we have mentioned.
Roy H. Bailey Canadian Alliance Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's support for the motion. I clearly remember her saying that the general public should never be able to access the information. I do not think anyone would quarrel with that.
Does the member consider it wrong for the police to issue a warning to the community once it knows of the presence of a sex offender in that community? Would that be inappropriate action on the part of the police?
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, warning the general public would certainly not be acceptable to us.
As we see the bill, this would be confidential information, for the exclusive use of the police and, of course, the solicitor general. There is no question of tacking up pictures of sexual predators or any sort of general public information on lampposts. My answer is definitely no.
Randy White Canadian Alliance Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on her previous work in the House on justice issues. I respect her opinion.
Would my colleague be able to shed some light on the CPIC system which the police has? I know now government members will support the motion to develop a national sex offender registry by January 2002, but there seems to be some waffling on whether or not they see it as just the CPIC system or something else.
Could the member give us some level of confidence that the CPIC system is doing today or even tomorrow what the people on the other side think it is doing? I understand from the police that its CPIC information system does not look after the problem of sex offenders in communities.
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
As I understand the Canadian Alliance member's motion, responsibility for gathering and maintaining the information would not lie with CPIC but with police forces, which would be individually responsible for all the information they would receive, since sexual predators would be listed with local forces.
I do not think that this would be the case if CPIC were used. Since we have seen how effective they are right now, it would perhaps be an idea to use other means and to list offenders with local police forces.
Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on the clarity of her remarks regarding this motion.
I would like to ask her how it would be decided that those in the registry present a high risk of recidivism.
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of deciding whether or not a sexual predator presents a high risk of recidivism. All sexual predators should be listed. This way, there is no discrimination, there are no supposedly objective criteria, all sexual predators have to register.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say that I am tempted to call quorum. The idea of the opposition day is to provide the opposition with an opportunity to put forward points of view to which the government listens.
It was created to replace the thorough examination of the estimates that used to exist before 1968 or 1969 when government members had to stay in the House, particularly the cabinet minister in charge, to listen to the opposition and answer questions, et cetera. When I look across the way and I see only 3 government members out of 175, it does not exactly inspire one to think that there is a great zest for the House of Commons over there.
Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member opposite has been here a long time. He knows full well that references are not made to attendance in the House. The government is very interested—
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)
That is not really a point of order, but your point is as well taken as his. There is a very clear message in his words, too.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, in that case, if what I just did was offensive, I will do what is permitted within the rules and I will call quorum.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)
A quorum has been called. The bells should ring for a maximum of 15 minutes, but as they are not working are you willing to withdraw your quorum call?
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, ask not for whom the bell tolls. It is tolling for no one at this point. Apparently the bells are not working and therefore we cannot even call a quorum when we want. The government is let off the hook this time by a technological glitch.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Someone says that it is time for electronic voting. This is already electronic and it has failed us. Perhaps that should be a warning to us. We could all come in here some day to vote electronically, press the button and nothing would happen. Then what would we do?
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
The hon. member asks what difference it would make. It certainly would not make any difference to members of the government. They always do what they are told anyway, whether or not it is electronic.
I am pleased to rise in support of the motion moved by my Alliance colleagues on their opposition day. I listened with interest to the solicitor general's reply. I might be mistaken, but I had the impression as I was listening to the solicitor general that he was speaking against the motion. Then of course at the end of the speech he announced that the government would be supporting the motion, which I think took the member from White Rock somewhat by surprise.
Sometimes it is hard to know what is really best, whether to have the government oppose a motion or support it. I have had this experience before. I was reminded today of February 8, 1999, when the government supported an NDP motion with respect to a national ban on water exports. The Liberals all stood and said they supported the motion. The next day they had a press conference to announce a policy that was entirely different from a national ban on water exports and said that they were living up to the opposition day motion to which everyone had agreed.
There is a bit of that going on here if I understand the solicitor general correctly. The argument he was making was that he was supporting the motion but he did not really agree there was any need for the motion or any need for what the motion calls for.
What that means to me is the government simply did not want to endure the political price of voting against this motion and being subject to the considerable vituperativeness of the solicitor general critic of the Alliance Party and others who would have called it to account for not supporting this motion. As I listened to the solicitor general it seemed he was saying the country already had one in the context of CPIC.
The reason we have the motion before us is that no one, except for perhaps the solicitor general and his parliamentary secretary, believes that CPIC as it now stands is anything like what the people who are calling for a national sex offender registry have in mind.
It is a legitimate point that CPIC could be transformed, changed substantially, and used as the basis for a national sex offender registry. That means it would have to include the kinds of information it does not now include. It is a legitimate option. If that is what the government wants to do, perhaps it could have put it forward in a much more clear and convincing way, but it did not.
People who are calling for a national registry are calling at the moment for a stand alone registry. Whether it happens in the form of a stand alone registry or in the form of a substantially transformed CPIC, it remains the case that the people who have to deal with it on an ongoing basis, the police forces represented through the Canadian Police Association, are saying that what we have now is not working, contrary to what the solicitor general has said, and does not constitute the kind of national sex offender registry which they and others think would be very useful to have.
For the solicitor general to sing the praises of what they are already doing and support the motion, while at the same time not really appreciating the worthiness of the arguments being put forward for a stand alone national registry, seems to me to be somewhat politically ambiguous, if not intellectually dishonest.
We support the motion. We think it has to be done properly. There has to be a balance struck between certain privacy rights and the protection of the public. If there is to be any kind of bias, it should be in favour of protection of the public, particularly protection of children who are vulnerable to people who want to exploit them sexually or in any other way.
If I understand what the mover of the motion had in mind the registry would be a separate thing. It would be established and maintained by the solicitor general. It would contain the name, address, date of birth, list of sex offences committed and convictions anywhere in Canada. It would be a national registry because it is not good enough to have it in any one province. We know all Canadians move around, but some people tend to move more than others, particularly if they are trying to lose themselves in the community and reappear in a way that their past is no longer with them.
However, what we and, I think, people who want a registry want, both for people in authority and people who may want to contact those in authority about people seeking positions of trust with young people, is for those people's pasts to in some senses always be with them. This is not because we do not believe people can be rehabilitated, but because we think people who are dealing with young people have a right to that kind of information so that we do not have more tragedies like those that have already occurred.
This is the reason why we rise in support of the motion. We think it has its limits and I do not think that anyone here thinks this will be the answer in that this does not change the psychology or inner consciousness of sex offenders. It does not deal with a lot of the social and spiritual problems that lead to sex offences in the first place and which sometimes create a kind of chain reaction, because we also know that a lot of people who are sex offenders are people who have been offended against themselves, although that is not always so. There is a lot of other work to be done and we need to see this in context.
However, it seems to me that it is something that is supportable. The motion is just that, a motion, and it does not lay down the details. I think as a House we should all be able to support the idea. Again, that is within certain limits of expectation, because it is somewhat debatable whether a registry would be preventative or whether all this would do is help police forces when there has been an occasion of an offence in regard to perhaps finding that offender sooner because they will know who is in the community in which the offence has taken place. That is not prevention, but enforcement, and enforcement is also important. To some extent it might also be prevention if this registry makes it possible for people to preclude previous offenders from having positions of trust with children which would present them with opportunities to reoffend.
Finally, I cannot resist this comment in closing. Listening to the solicitor general make the arguments against a registry, before he said he was in favour of the motion, it sounded an awful lot to me like what might come from the Alliance. He said that offenders would not all register, that they would not all do this or do that. That is his argument against a registry. It is funny that these kinds of arguments did not seem persuasive when people were arguing against the registration of .22s, but that when it comes to the registration of sex offenders these arguments are suddenly very convincing.
Art Hanger Canadian Alliance Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will relate to the member a situation that took place in Calgary some months back, where a sex offender who had offended not only in Canada but in the United States finished serving his time in Bowden penitentiary in Calgary. He served his complete time. Of course there was no registry in the province of Alberta and it just so happened that this offender moved to Oklahoma. He did not tell anyone. Through family and friends, word came back to my office that this offender was down there. He was a serious sex offender who had served several years in prison.
What do we do in a situation like that? It is difficult. We took the initiative and phoned the local sheriff where we knew he was staying in Oklahoma. The local sheriff was quite surprised that he had such an offender in his area and said that according to Oklahoma law the onus is on the offender to register in that area. Of course the offender had been in the States and knew what the laws were there, so the sheriff sought him out. The driving force for a pedophile or a sex offender to react to the registry in a positive way in Oklahoma is a five year sentence if he fails to do so. This is quite significant and it is cut and dried.
Would the member see something like that working in this jurisdiction of Canada? If so, what form should it take?
