Debates of March 13th, 2001

Supply

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member opposite and the one preceding, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, underscores how the reform alliance people are prepared to push the hot buttons and always to take a knee-jerk reactionary position. It is almost a lynch mob mentality. It is kind of sad if we think about it. They always take the simplistic view on very complex issues.

Let us consider the Robin Sharpe case, for example, the pornography case. They all screamed and hollered about how we should scrap the charter and how we should invoke the notwithstanding clause because of pornography in British Columbia. Had we followed that lame advice we would be in deep trouble now.

Instead the government, with its rational, reasoned approach, was able to withstand that kind of nonsense. As a result the rule of law prevails, not the lynch mob mentality they are only too good at promoting.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today in my address I talked about the need for discipline and proper protocol in the House when dealing with this issue. What I find offensive about the member's comments is that they are neither complimentary to his colleagues nor to his party. I would ask that he—

[The Deputy Speaker]

With the greatest respect to the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford, I believe we are engaging in debate.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, do you remember when their former justice critic Jack Ramsay said that all sex offenders should be locked up forever? After some reflection did they not change their minds? All of a sudden it was diluted a bit. All of a sudden it became only after examination by two psychiatrists and then maybe they would look at it.

Mr. Ramsay was the same person, we will recall, who when speaking of sex offences went on to say that there should be blood taken from people even suspected of sexual criminal activity. They have walked away from that one too.

Do you see what I mean, Mr. Speaker? They always have simplistic views on very complex issues. That is who those people are. They are always in a lynch mob mentality. They are always in a knee-jerk situation—

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today I talked about protocol and the need for our colleagues in the House to speak at least respectfully of one another in this debate which is so important to children and women in our country. The member is not abiding by any parliamentary courtesy whatsoever. I ask you to reconsider—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Again, with the greatest respect, the authority of the Chair must be maintained. I can only maintain the rules I have been given to handle and apply.

Notwithstanding the knowledgeable member for Langley—Abbotsford, I am very cognizant that on both sides of the House all of us should act very judiciously and respectfully of one another and of course particularly regarding the issue at hand. Certainly at this point we would be engaging in debate.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member who intervened is the last one in this House to talk about protocol and decorum. On his brochure during the election he had the picture of Heather Thomas from Allouette Lake on it. He is the last—

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I think more important, what the member is about to report or to say in the House is absolutely 100% a lie where he is going. I expect you in the chair to keep that person accountable for what he says. That is shameful, disgusting.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. If I might, I want to begin by addressing myself to the member for Langley—Abbotsford for whom I have a great deal of respect.

I do not question anyone's strong views on a very important matter before the House of Commons today. There were some words used in his last intervention which require me to ask him, and hopefully he will see fit, to withdraw. Perhaps I could ask the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford to please withdraw.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Withdraw what?

[The Deputy Speaker]

If I could be more specific, then, with the greatest of respect, the word lie, please.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford. Now I turn to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. I would ask the hon. member to be mindful that we are in a very short period of questions and comments. He has already used up a good portion of that time. I ask him to direct his question immediately and to do so in a very judicious and respectful way.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pose a question to the member who spoke a bit—

[An hon. member]

What is the question?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I want to be clear. The hon. parliamentary secretary will put the question.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

The question is simple. In September, in Iqaluit, the justice ministers, attorneys general and solicitors general met with respect to this very important issue.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Scarborough East. I hope we can refocus our debate on the issue. We are dealing with an extremely important issue and I know that we all have very strong feelings about it.

I am pleased to participate in the debate brought about by the motion put forward by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford. I welcome the opportunity to demonstrate how the government has risen to the challenge of protecting victims and potential victims of sex offenders.

In the past eight years the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice have taken a number of initiatives, each of which contributes significantly to public safety. In short, as other speakers will mention, the government has already taken action to prevent the victimization of children.

The motion put forward by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford basically endorses the efforts undertaken on this side of the House and ultimately has my support and I would assume my government's support.

These efforts began immediately after the change in government following the 1993 federal election. In 1994 the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada responded to the needs expressed by child centred organizations and groups representing victims by introducing the national screening system.

I was part of one of those groups that lobbied the government as a result of the horrible murder of little Christopher. I was very pleased to see the government listening to and responding to it. I wear a button today that I have kept for many years since meeting the Stephensons. Together with thousands of other Canadians I have worked on lobbying the government and pressing forward for these changes to happen.

Today, as in 1994, the RCMP's Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC, already provides a national registry of all criminal convictions. It is not limited just to sexual offences. Employers and volunteer groups providing services to children can screen all potential employees by requiring them to obtain a CPIC check through the local police. Any individual who has a criminal record, no matter what, can be screened out by the agency.

To assist local agencies with the process, which in the beginning they found expensive to carry out, the government has also supported Volunteer Canada in providing a national education and training campaign for volunteer agencies to promote effective screening approaches for the protection of children and other vulnerable groups.

This database was enhanced by government action and these enhancements did not stand alone and unused. The announcement was followed by programs to promote awareness of its existence and the necessary initiatives to educate the appropriate individuals in the use of the database.

These efforts have enhanced the ability of child caring agencies to obtain the criminal records of those seeking positions of trust. Great efforts have been made by government officials and their counterparts in the private and voluntary sectors to educate those who are involved in the selection of employees and volunteers to work with the most vulnerable members of Canadian society.

For the most part, I have been referring to children as the potential victims of sex offenders. I am sure that the minds of most members take a similar direction when they hear of sexual exploitation of victims.

Children are not alone when it comes to victimization. I recognize that the institutionalized, the mentally challenged, the physically disabled and the elderly may also be particularly susceptible to victimization through the sexual misconduct of those who prey on the most vulnerable.

Canadians from all walks of life in various circumstances who until victimized participate in the daily life in their communities, oblivious to the predations of a small number of offenders who do not think that the rules and the mores of society apply to them. Nonetheless it is for our children that we reserve our highest level of concern. I am sure all hon. members will recognize that the positive actions of the government on their behalf contribute to the safety of all Canadians.

The most recent reform to strengthen our defences against sex offenders came into effect on August 1, 2000. In the spring of 1999 the solicitor general introduced legislative proposals to ensure that even the records of sex offenders who have been pardoned would be available for screening purposes. This addition to the CPIC arsenal of information focused on the attention of police forces conducting criminal investigations of those offenders previously convicted of offences of particular interest to those who might otherwise engage them in positions of trust involving children.

Even a successful application for a pardon is no longer a shield against the discovery of relevant offences by a records check. The legislation was Bill C-7 and its provisions came into effect on August 1, 2000. Such government initiatives are not undertaken on a whim or without the recognition that other jurisdictions also have an interest in protecting Canadians.

Bill C-7 was born of the recommendations of a federal-provincial-territorial working group. It was supported by all jurisdictions in Canada as represented by federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for criminal justice. These officials heartily recommended and endorsed Bill C-7.

Through this forum the government has studied and discussed the question of a sex offender registry on more than one occasion and conducted extensive consultations. As requested by the federal-provincial-territorial ministers, senior officials have prepared a report entitled “Information systems on sex offenders against children and other vulnerable groups”.

At their meeting in Regina on October 29, 1998, the FPT ministers accepted the 10 recommendations contained in the report and agreed to its public release. Since then FPT officials have met several times to review progress regarding the implementation of these recommendations.

At any rate, the recommendations in the FPT report became the foundation for the Criminal Records Act amendments of Bill C-7 that came into force in August 2000. These will provide genuine enhancement of the protection of children and other vulnerable sectors.

With the exception of the governments of Ontario and British Columbia, officials from all jurisdictions supported the amending legislation. We can conclude from the support that the majority equally rejected the notion of a sex offender registry, be it national or local, at that time.

Therefore the thrust of the current proposal for a national registry is largely addressed through the current practice of the government. The current national screening process announced by the solicitor general in November 1994 was done after careful study. The study was conducted by the departments of the solicitor general, health and justice. It included extensive consultations across the country. It involved victims, police and child serving organizations. There was a general consensus that a registry system would be expensive, difficult to administer and not very useful. It would also give the public a false sense of security rather than enhance public safety.

We have a national registry of all criminal convictions which is provided through the RCMP CPIC database. There is broad agreement that the federal government has produced meaningful initiatives to protect all Canadians. In addition there is a degree of consensus that a national sex offender registry is not the answer to the problems identified by the hon. member.

The government is always open to suggestions that may promise positive reform. It is open to changes in policy that come from time to time when provincial elections are held or senior officials are given different positions within the machinery of government. This is a government that is open to constant review of its legislation to strengthen it in order to protect all Canadians.

At the recent meeting of the FPT ministers of justice, the Saskatchewan justice minister, with the support of his colleagues from Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, favoured another review that would revisit options regarding the protection of children against sex offenders, including a national sex offender registry. The ministers agreed that officials would again study these options and related issues.

The government will never be satisfied that all possible measures have been taken to protect the vulnerable from sex offenders. As long as there are victims there will be the willingness to move toward a safer society. The federal door is not closed to suggestions, and motions such as the one before us today provide a welcome occasion to review positive action of the recent past as well as possibilities for the future.

Perhaps the motion will lead to reinforced protection for young and vulnerable Canadians as well as for any other individuals who might fall prey to the recidivism of a sex offender. We should not deny these proposals a chance to contribute to the ongoing improvements stemming from the government's public safety agenda.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to listen to government member after government member saying that the legislation is working, there is a registry, there are no problems and it is all moving along very nicely.

I have a letter from a lady in my constituency that gives an example of just how well it is working. This lady had two young boys who were lured into a large truck with a sleeper in the back. They were sexually molested. The person was put in jail and is now out on parole. He is now allowed by the parole board to travel across the country in his truck. He is a truck driver. No one knows where he is. No one knows what community he will be in next. The same government officials say the person is likely to reoffend.

How could any member say that the parents, the grandparents, the people of Canada should not know where a Mr. Michael Duggan is at any given time? He could pick up somebody else's kids or their grandchildren. That is what this lady in my constituency wants to know. I would like the member to comment on that.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about issues as though he has the only caring heart. All of us feel exactly the same way that he feels. We are continually looking at ways of improving safety for Canadians.

As a former police commissioner, I am well aware of the frustrations of the police in trying to deal with these issues. Bringing in a national registry or making our registry stronger will not be the answer. We have committed to continually look for improvements.

The answer at the end of the day is never having the offences occur to begin with, not only worrying about addresses. I do not want them to happen, period. I should like to see us put some emphasis in prevention and educating our children so that the offences do not happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, it will soon be three hours since we started the debate. I am becoming more perplexed about it, listening to this side and to that side. They all say they will support the motion.

Am I wrong in assuming the motion says that we are about to establish a new registry? That is what I understand. Members opposite say they will be supporting the motion. Are they supporting a new registry? Is the member supporting additions to existing promises? Just what will they be supporting tonight in the motion?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I refer to a pamphlet that was recently delivered to us. It refers to “CPIC serves as Canada's national registry of convicted sex offenders”. We currently have a national registry for all people who have criminal convictions.

The question is whether we can continue to make it better. Are there ways of looking at our current registry that will improve safety for all Canadians? We are always prepared to continually look. It was part of the agreement last fall in Saskatchewan. Let us review and continually look at how we make it safer for all Canadians.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite still has not answered the question of the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

Our motion specifically requests that the government support a new registry for sex offenders. While government members are paying lip service to what their whip has told them to do, obviously it is very clear they will perhaps support the motion in public but in private will carry on with the status quo, with the inadequate screening they have in place now.

It is not just some tinkering we want in our motion but a complete overhaul, a new registry that will work to keep sex offenders away from our children.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a bit of difficulty in the issue of separating completely sex offenders from other criminals. We all know what they are, but when they are convicted they are convicted. It does not necessarily have to specify. The current registry operating in Canada registers everyone who is convicted of a criminal offence, including those convicted of sexual offences or of being sexual predators. That is already happening. Can we make it better? We are open to constant review, as I have indicated previously.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to re-enter the debate. The members opposite talk about the wording of their own motion. I will read the motion to the House: “that the government establish a national sex offender registry”. It says nothing about a new national sex offender registry. We are not trying to be pedantic, but I think the members opposite should read their own motion.

That is part of the difficulty. The emotions have been running pretty high. This is a very serious issue. However, when the Alliance brings forward a motion like this and the members of parliament on this side look at what the government has done, it is confusing. The members on the other side are saying that what we have does not work and yet the information they have shared with other members does not seem to make that point very well.

As I said earlier, last year in my riding of Etobicoke North we had a sexual predator who was convicted. His name was actually quite high profile and got into all the media. Mr. Peter Robert Whitmore had been convicted and had served a full term of five years in a federal penitentiary. He was then released, but with a set of conditions. I would like to read some of the conditions to the House, because they were quite exhaustive. The one he did not adhere to caused him to be arrested again. He was moved out of the Etobicoke North area into downtown Toronto, breached one of the conditions and on the basis of that was put back in jail.

There was a list of 11 conditions for his release from federal penitentiary after serving five years. First, he was not to be in the presence of children under the age of 14 unless accompanied by an adult who had previously been approved by the Toronto Police Service. Second, he was not to attend any public park or public swimming pool where persons under 14 years of age were present or could reasonably be expected to be present. Third, he was not to attend any day care centre, school ground, playground, community centre or arcade where persons under 14 years of age were present or could reasonably be expected to be present. Fourth, he was not to enter into any romantic relationship, cohabitation, marriage or common law relationship with a person who was the parent or guardian of a child under the age of 14 years until that person had been identified to the Toronto Police Service and there had been an opportunity provided to inform that person of his criminal behaviours involving children. Fifth, he was required to report once a week to the Toronto police at specified times. Sixth, he was to notify the Toronto Police Service of his current address and any change within 24 hours. Seventh, he was to notify the Toronto Police Service of any employment or change of employment within 24 hours. Eighth, he had to make himself available for random visits by the Toronto Police Service between the hours of 8 a.m. and 11 p.m. at his place of residence. Ninth, he was to notify the Toronto Police Service at least 24 hours prior to leaving the jurisdiction of the city, et cetera.

Peter Robert Whitmore served his full five years. There was a lot of rhetoric at a town hall meeting in my riding with some people saying that the reason he was back in the community was because of liberal attitudes and the soft attitudes of the Liberals. I will tell the House that he served his full five years in a federal penitentiary, he was released with 11 conditions, and one of the conditions was broken and he was put back in jail.

I find it disturbing when members opposite cite the pamphlet “Canada's National Screening System” and say that it is the only way in which the government has responded. In fact, the national screening system is one of a variety of responses and measures introduced by the government to deal with criminals and sex offenders. I would like to remind the House of some of these, because I think that Canadians watching this debate could be very confused, as they often could be because we often do not really deal with the facts.

The most important tool in our bag is CPIC, the Canadian Police Information Centre. This centre has a criminal history database that provides access to criminal information for law enforcement agencies across Canada. The government has just put another $115 million into the system to upgrade it and make sure it is fully functional and operating smoothly.

In my riding of Etobicoke North I have not had division 23 policemen tell me that what they really need is a sex offender registry. We have had a lot of crime in Etobicoke North. We have had nine murders or thereabouts in the last year or so. That is why we had the chief of police, Mr. Fantino, out to the riding at a big town hall meeting. Basically the chief said that the whole community has to be engaged and involved. Yes, tougher enforcement could be implemented, and yes, the police could change their routines and techniques, but we as citizens all have to work together, not just the different orders of government. The federal government obviously has a role to play in terms of criminal law and many other aspects. There are the provincial government, the provincial court system and the police, all with a role to play. However, individual citizens also have to take some responsibility for their own behaviour.

At churches, gudwaras, mosques or schools in my riding of Etobicoke North, I take the opportunity to tell people that this is where the rubber hits the road. Yes, we can ask for tougher laws and say the federal and provincial governments are not doing this or that, but if we do not start taking individual responsibility for our own behaviour and actions, we are missing the boat.

I mentioned CPIC, but the government has also lengthened sentences for dangerous and long term offenders. Perhaps the opposition has forgotten that. The government has tightened the rules for early parole. The government has passed one of the toughest child pornography laws in the world. Maybe that has escaped opposition members. The government has cracked down on child prostitution and stalking. We in the government also have implemented the very famous and very effective national screening system. Let me remind the House that this system empowers volunteer, community and service groups to screen persons seeking positions of trust with children and other vulnerable people. To date, over 700,000 screenings have been conducted using the CPIC system.

The government has done other things. It has partnered with Volunteer Canada to promote screening and to train users. The government has passed Bill C-7 to make pardon records accessible for screening purposes by flagging the records of pardoned sexual offenders on the CPIC system. The government has put in place extra protection to allow police more control of high risk offenders even after they have completed their sentences. The government also recently created a national DNA databank, a critical investigative tool that has already resulted in successful matches.

If the opposition party really wants a thoughtful debate on these opposition days, perhaps it should elaborate more on its motions so members could understand them. We are saying we already have this and the opposition is saying we do not.

Maybe members opposite have much more contact with the police than I do. I have a lot of contact with my police and, as I say, they have not been banging on my door saying that we need this registry. They have been banging on my door saying that we need to get the community mobilized, that we need everybody to take individual responsibility. Certainly there are things that different orders of government can do, along with the techniques the police use.

I think we should try to bring this debate back to some level of decorum and rationality. It is a very emotional issue. A pedophile was released into the community a block away from where I live. The community responded. I think there were over 1,000 people at a town hall meeting. What happened? The pedophile was moved to downtown Toronto and then breached one of the conditions and was reincarcerated.

It is a very serious issue. I certainly will be supporting the motion, but I am not exactly sure what the motion proposes that we do not already have. If the opposition parties have some information they could share with the House about why what we have does not work, I am sure members would like to listen.