House of Commons Hansard #139 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was national.
Carol Skelton Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member how many police officers he has spoken to and how many parents who have lost children he has spoken to.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Madam Speaker, I would have no way of knowing that. As someone who has been involved in my community, as have most members here who admittedly have extensive community service records, I know that I meet with people in the crime prevention bureau. Many of the volunteers are there simply because they have had incidents, but they do not go around wearing them on their sleeves. They do not say we have to do this and that because of their children. They are there for the right reasons. They want to help and to have that input.
It is an interesting question, but the more important question is whether I feel that Canadians who are interested in this issue have taken the opportunity to influence members of parliament and enforcement agencies, et cetera, to do a better job. I am sure they have.
Lynne Yelich Canadian Alliance Blackstrap, SK
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar.
Today I rise to speak on the very important issue of the need for an efficient and effective national sex offender registry. I approach this issue from two perspectives, the first as a member of parliament and the second as a parent whose love for my children supersedes all other emotions and often helps dictate the kind of Canada I want to be a part of. I, like most parents, work to protect my children from danger. It is our responsibility as parents to do this for our children. This is the concept in a family dynamic, but today we extend this concept to our communities.
The Canadian Alliance is proposing that a more effective national sex offender registry would lessen the impact of danger on our children's lives. The crimes of pedophiles involve our most innocent citizens, our children. There should be no hesitation by members of the House in taking swift steps to develop a more effective national sex offender registry.
Let us examine the current registry, the Canadian Police Information Centre. It is an advanced computerized information storage and retrieval facility that provides tactical information on crimes and criminals. It is the only national information sharing system linking criminal justice and law enforcement officers.
It has four searchable criteria: name, address, offence and age. This is in comparison to the Ontario sex offender registry, which has 18 searchable criteria and is updated far more regularly than the CPIC currently in use. Included in Ontario's sex registry are a photograph and many descriptives like scars and tattoos. This is valuable information when looking for and identifying suspects. Why is the national registry missing such pertinent information?
I was informed by a constituent in my riding that when an individual is removed from public premises for suspicious behaviour displayed toward children, a description of the individual is often e-mailed to other public facilities to create awareness of a potentially dangerous situation. A description may sound something like this: a 51 year old man of average height, slightly overweight, with grey hair, and beginning to bald. I ask how many people sitting here today would fit that description. Would we screen all people fitting the description? On the side of safety, one would have to, but then we have to add that precious element of time.
When a child is abducted, time is of the essence. One does not have time to stop every individual who fits a general description. Police need searchable, relevant and applicable data on a national level. We have yet to provide that for them. Statistics for kidnappings that result in murder show that 44% of victims were dead within one hour, 74% were dead within three hours and 91% were dead within 24 hours. We can imagine the parents of these children as the hours pass by and law enforcement officers are forced to work with an inadequate system.
I refer now to a community in my riding, the community of Clavet. That community has had to deal with the stress and fear of discovering a neighbour who is a convicted sex offender. The man was originally sentenced to two years less a day and three years' probation for three counts of sexual assault. Upon release he moved to and resided in the town of Clavet, just minutes from a local school.
A lot of study has been done on pedophiles, their habits, their reasons for offending and their potential to reoffend. The results of these studies are not very reassuring. It has been shown that 50% of child molesters reoffend 10 to 30 years after sentencing. The community of Clavet did not have to wait that long. The man was eventually charged again for breaking an order to stay away from children. As well, he pleaded guilty to child pornography and weapons charges.
When I go to Clavet and my constituents ask what is being done to protect them and their children, should I expect them to be satisfied that this man's name, offence, age and address will be logged onto a system that may occasionally be updated?
I would not be very satisfied receiving that answer and I am not satisfied giving that answer. Therefore I ask that the government come through on its promise to provide an effective national sex offender registry.
As a parent, I would welcome a system that would ensure that when a heinous sex crime has been committed against children, identifying the perpetrators would be an immediate process. This would allow officials to eliminate or continue investigating the said suspect.
I said earlier that time was of the essence. I now repeat this phrase while considering our work as parliamentarians. The deadline for a new or improved registry was January 30, 2002. The deadline has passed. The dragging of feet through this legislation is unacceptable. We owe our children more than that. We owe law enforcement officers more than that.
The registry would be a tool to aid law enforcement officers to protect our children. My children and my constituents' children deserve this protection.
I have spoken at great length today about how having my own children motivates me in this cause. I now want to tell the real story of one child's pain that led to the creation of the Ontario sex offender registry, Christopher's law.
Christopher's law is the legislation behind the registry created in the memory of a child who was sexually assaulted and murdered. The number one recommendation of the jury presiding over the inquest into Christopher's death was the enactment of the dangerous sexual predator law. It gained strong national support throughout Canada.
The following is the way Linda Slobodian, of the Calgary Herald , explained the background:
Every night, Jim Stephenson and his wife Anna tucked their children, Christopher and Amanda, into bed and said, “Good night, luv ya.”
“You'd get, 'Yeah,' then they'd go off to sleep,” says Stephenson.
In 1988, the Thursday before Father's Day, Stephenson approached Christopher's bed.
“He looked up and said, 'I love you, Dad.' My reaction to that was 'Good! He didn't have to wait for me to tell him that. So now we can move our relationship to another level.' That was the last thing he ever said to me.”
The next evening, Anna and the kids went to the mall. They were on their way to the mall doors to leave, when Anna and Amanda, 8, went into a shop.
They were being stalked by Joseph Fredericks, a pedophile who arrived in Brampton three weeks earlier. He was on automatic parole afforded criminals who serve two-thirds of a sentence. Had there been a registry, police would have known where he was.
The shop was small. Anna told Christopher to stand outside, precious few feet from her, with the parcels.
The courts later heard Fredericks came up behind Christopher, put a knife to his throat and said, “Pick up the bags, come with me or I'll kill you.”
“You think you streetproof children, not to accept invitations for rides, but you never expect they'll be faced with that situation,” says Stephenson.
Anna looked up, didn't see Christopher and knew something was wrong. It wasn't like him to walk away.
A lady at the barber shop said Christopher just went by with a man.
Security sealed the doors. Police arrived within minutes. Fredericks was sexually assaulting Christopher across the street in a vacant field about 100 metres from the police station.
He then forced Christopher back to a basement apartment and repeatedly assaulted him over the course of the Friday evening and into the Saturday.
“Saturday night after it was dark, he was administered some sleeping pills. His hands were tied and he was forced out of the apartment across the street into another vacant field.
I will fast forward to finish.
Fredericks told them where where the body could be found. Stephenson identified him on Father's Day.
In the Stephensons' kitchen hangs a framed print. It is a scenic picture Christopher drew for Father's Day.
“There is a stream in it and a pond and three mountains.... At the cemetery where Christopher rests, there's a monument with three piers to it. And the cemetery has a pond. Curious. You wonder...” says Stephenson softly.
A national registry would not have prevented Christopher's assault but it could have saved his life. I beg the members of the House to put power behind our words and create a registry equal to one created in Christopher's memory before we have to name our national registration after another child.
Paul Szabo LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Madam Speaker, the member provided a fair bit of information and obviously has done some research on the issue. I appreciate the statistics. I think it is important to have them on the floor so that members can appreciate the parameters in which we work.
The hon. member used the kidnapping of children as one of her examples. How many of those kidnapping situations involved one of the parents or guardians?
Lynne Yelich Canadian Alliance Blackstrap, SK
Madam Speaker, I do not know how many kidnappings involved parents. I am assuming and only hope that parents would never have been involved in such an incident.
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Madam Speaker, just to follow on that, although it is not my question, all one has to do is read the child find posters to know that in a good many instances parents are involved in a kidnapping process and it is usually the non-custodial parent. It happens in far too many instances and traumatizes a good number of children.
My question for the hon. member relates to the motion put forward today. We have heard comments today from members in the House and from my friend across the way which have indicated that there probably is not a member in the House who does not think there should be a registry. There is an acceptance that probably everyone thinks there should be a registry. It is the specifics as to how the registry will operate that come into question.
With regard to the motion, what has come into question, quite frankly, is the procedural issue. I hope Canadians will understand that a good many parliamentarians will probably not support the motion because of the procedural irregularity.
I see the motion as being somewhat despicable. I think it is despicable to exploit this type of motion by adding that if the issue of a registry comes up in any private member's bill it will become votable. This is where we get into the procedural issue. If a private member introduces a bill in the House of Commons that relates to the registry then the bill becomes votable. Somehow that private member's bill becomes the issue, not the content of what we are dealing with.
In essence, what has happened with this motion, which members I am sure would all vote for if it did not have this despicable, exploitive procedure, irregularity, is that it will probably be used by a number of Alliance members to make other members of the House look bad because they did not support it, when the bottom line for the Alliance and for the member involved is that it is exploiting the issue. Quite frankly, that is not acceptable.
It is important for us to acknowledge that there should be a registry. I am disappointed that the government has not moved forward a lot quicker and that the resources have not been made available to have a registry that will do the job. However the motion by the Alliance is an exploitive motion.
Lynne Yelich Canadian Alliance Blackstrap, SK
Madam Speaker, I am a little confused. I would think the way the hon. member spoke that she probably would vote for it then. It sounds like she agrees that it is a very good motion.
We certainly are not exploiting. When I read that story I found it a very sad story. I do not think I was exploiting the story at all.
Stories like the one I told can be very helpful to the Canadian Police Association in very many circumstances. Does the member know how the people in Clavet found out there was somebody in their riding who had been a serious sex offender ? They found out through the StarPhoenix , our Saskatoon newspaper. They did not know the man was dangerous. He was in the community which is a small community with very trusting people.
I am very surprised and insulted that the member would even suggest that we were exploiting it.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Madam Speaker, the member should understand that the exploitation is the private member's bill adjustment. It means that any private member's bill dealing with the database must automatically be votable. It violates all the rules we have for private member's business. It could be a lousy bill but it would automatically be votable. The exploitation is the procedure.
Carol Skelton Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the Canadian Alliance supply day motion. The motion is in response to the government failing to establish a national sex offender registry.
In a motion adopted by the House in March 2001, the deadline for the introduction of the registry was January 30. That day has now passed with no action on the part of the government.
Canada is quickly becoming a haven for sex offenders. A B.C. court ruled that child pornography was okay. The logic behind that decision eludes me. How can it be okay for our children to be violated in such a manner? How is it okay to allow adults to use, abuse and endanger our children?
It was the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that put forward the motion for the registry. How is justice served by ignoring the recommendations of the committee? How is justice served by allowing our children to face horrific circumstances perpetrated by adults? How are the human rights of our children being protected by ignoring their plight?
Unwilling to wait for the federal government to do something about the safety of children, the Ontario government initiated its own updated and more advanced sex offender registry. This is surely a source of comfort for the parents in that province. I applaud the Ontario government for its forethought and action in this matter.
Why does the federal government continue to drag its feet on this matter? Are the children in other parts of the country not important? Does it believe that if it ignores the issue the rest of the provinces will follow Ontario's lead and initiate their own registries?
Is it not the responsibility of the government to look after the welfare of all children in Canada? Once sex offenders move out of Ontario, tracking them is left to the Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC, a system that is not effective. A national registry is needed in order to track the whereabouts of these offenders.
The solicitor general touts the performance of the CPIC system as being all that Canadians need. That system cannot provide jurisdictional searches, radius searches or searches by physical descriptors. It also does not have the ability to include photographs.
Also lacking in the current system is the legislation necessary to force offenders to register and keep their information current. Pedophiles are given great opportunities to abuse our children in Canada. They are legally allowed to engage in sexual activity with a consenting 14 year old. The sexual age of consent in Canada is 14 years of age. Fourteen year old children--and at 14 they are just children--are legally allowed to make crucial decisions concerning their sexual activities. Children of that age possess neither the maturity nor the life experience to make such critical decisions.
The former minister of justice was approached in connection to raising the age of sexual consent. It currently stands at 14 years of age. The government has refused to act to protect our children.
It is a pedophile's dream to be in a country that legally allows sexual activity with children as young as 14. Due to their lack of maturity and experience, these children are easy prey. It is much easier to induce and persuade them to commit acts that are not in their best interests than it would be with a person who is older.
Parents are helpless against these persuasions and inducements. Police associations and family and social agencies agree that the age of consent must be raised. Parents who are actively trying to get their children off the streets and away from pedophiles, pimps and others are offered no help from the justice system. If the child is 14, he or she is allowed to make these decisions. Law enforcement agencies and other departments are unable to help the parents save their children.
A 14 year old is entitled under the laws of Canada to make these unhealthy decisions. A 40 year old man is legally allowed to live with a 14 year old girl. Parents and law enforcement and social agencies are helpless to intervene. While the age of consent is 14, pedophiles and other deviants are able to legally engage in sexual activity with our children.
Early sexual activity in children often leads to increased promiscuity, teenage pregnancy, higher rates of sexually transmitted disease, a tendency to drop out of school, and an increased chance of deviant behaviour later in life. There is a marked increase in the rate of HIV infection among young heterosexual girls in our country.
Early sexual activity and abuse inflicted by older partners leads to increased emotional and social problems in children. Our children should be given every opportunity to have happy, healthy, normal lives. It is not sufficient to have band aid solutions to the problem. We put money into programs to keep kids in school and numerous other social programs. Why do we not give kids a chance by fixing a law that has their best interests in mind?
The attempt to protect our children by way of Bill C-15 as it pertains to the luring of children over the Internet is a start. However with the current age of sexual consent at 14 the new law would only apply to children 13 years of age and younger.
An entire age group of children is being ignored in Canada. At 18 one is an adult and, in the majority of cases, fully capable of making serious decisions about one's actions and future. Those 13 years of age and younger are protected under the law. However the age group of 14 to 17 is offered no protection. This is sending a dangerous message to pedophiles and deviants. I am disgusted to think our country has become a destination of choice for men and women who seek out younger children.
While the government continues to ignore the plight of children 14 years of age and older it is also doing a great disservice to those who are 13 and younger. While these children are protected from pedophiles and abusers under the law they are not fully protected due to limitations on law enforcement agencies to adequately track the movement of pedophiles. Law enforcement agencies are limited due to the government's inaction in implementing an effective sex offender registry.
It has been said time and again that children are our future. We in our party believe that. However the government seems comfortable in the knowledge that it is depriving many of our children from having a future. Children are forced into sexual slavery every day by child molesters, pedophiles and pimps. They are legally allowed to do so under Canadian law at the moment.
Our children deserve the best protection we are able to provide. By doing nothing we send a message that they are not important. The government must act immediately to implement a working, viable sex offender registry. Let us give our children the future they deserve.
Gary Lunn Canadian Alliance Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, one of the members from the NDP got up and made a point about exploiting the issue. A member across the way got up and talked about a procedural or technical matter.
I will go to the heart of this as it is all part of the debate. Does the hon. member think the Canadian people care one iota about what is votable, what is not votable or what is a technical point? Perhaps we should leave the technical issues to the experts because the Canadian people want us to show leadership and move legislation to establish a database that does the job they are counting on it to do.
Does the hon. member think Canadians care about the technical points the other members are raising or do they want to see us get the job done?
Carol Skelton Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saanich--Gulf Islands for his eloquent question.
I believe Canadians want us to support our families and children. I agree totally with him. What I have heard from my constituents is that they want us to put laws and systems in place that protect children totally so they are safe and not preyed on. We must do this.
I have a son in law who is a police officer. My oldest granddaughter is 13 years old. On the weekend she sat on my knee, cuddled me and told me she loved me. She is a little girl. It breaks my heart to think about little children being abused because the government will not go forward and put a system in place that can be used effectively to catch these people.
Bob Speller Liberal Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON
Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member's comments. As a member of parliament who has been championing the issue for some time, well before the hon. member was elected, I want to reassure her. After we came into government in 1993 I and a number of members of caucus pushed legislation for the government to move forward on the issue.
As slow as it has been, we have seen governments at all levels recognize the significant problem of sexual offenders in Canada and the problems local police and law enforcement officers have in terms of tracking them down and making sure they are known in their communities.
I have had many meetings with our solicitor general. I can assure the hon. member he is truthful and honest and wants to move forward as quickly as possible on the issue. The hon. minister will be meeting with his counterparts from the provinces over the next couple of weeks to narrow down many of the issues and move forward on them. It has been difficult because of jurisdictional problems, as he has said.
A number of the issues the hon. member and colleagues around the House have brought up today will be addressed in the next few weeks at the meetings. From what we are told, legislation will probably come forward later in the year so we can have a national approach to the problem.
I know the hon. member is sincere when she says the government and all governments across the country need to move forward and do something about this serious problem. I have been given assurances by the minister, and I take him at his word, that we will see the changes the hon. member has requested in the very near future. I am pleased with the minister for giving us those assurances.
Carol Skelton Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member. I will be watching closely.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is: the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas, Foreign Affairs.
Gary Lunn Canadian Alliance Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Surrey Central.
I am pleased to rise today to address the opposition motion put forward by the hon. member for Langley--Abbotsford.
Neither I nor any of my colleagues and friends on the other side of the House believe the government wants to put children at risk. All parties in the House seek to protect society from sexual predators. To suggest otherwise would be inappropriate and unparliamentary. However it is also inappropriate for the government to ignore the will of the House and be wilfully blind to a proposal that would save so many lives at such little cost.
Accordingly I ask the government to examine its record on the file since the House passed a motion on March 13, 2001. Ten months have passed with no action. The registry should have been completed.
I will get to the heart of the issue. I applaud the hon. member for Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant for his efforts on the file. However we can only go by what we hear from the solicitor general who has the almighty power. He has informed the House the government will deal with the issue by adding an address field to CPIC. Adding another field to CPIC will not do. It is no good if the field is empty. We need comprehensive legislation to ensure experts have the tools to develop the system, and we should leave the technicalities to the experts.
The system must be enforceable and mandatory so when sexual predators are released from institutions it is compulsory that they report their whereabouts. There must be provisions that law enforcement agencies can enforce. That is what we are asking for.
We are trying to protect the most vulnerable in society: our children. I could read lists and lists of missing children. The lists keep going on and on. It is not okay that we are not acting.
I will cite a transcript of a CTV News report for March 13, 2001. The reporter was Lisa LaFlamme. She said the motion of the hon. member for Langley--Abbotsford had:
--generated a rare show of political unity. The unanimous support for national sex offender registry even surprised him...Trouble is, it doesn't keep track of sex offenders if they move. The Liberals say they will simply expand that existing database to include the updated addresses so police will know where to start looking--
The then solicitor general confirmed the government was talking about adding an address field. There was nothing to suggest it would be mandatory that offenders report. There were no enforcement mechanisms for our police officers. That is what needs to happen.
We heard the hon. member for Blackstrap give an eloquent speech that went right to our hearts and turned us inside out. We have the ability to act but unfortunately nothing has happened to date.
In the interim provinces are starting to take their own action, as we are aware. The province of Ontario has moved on the issue. My own province of British Columbia plans to move with a sex offender registry. Ontario has spent almost $1 million to develop its registry. It has offered to share it with the federal government in the interest of the country.
On March 20 the then solicitor general stated:
What I have said over the last few days is that the government will not spend dollars just to duplicate a system already in place.
The government keeps making the argument that it voted in favour of something it already has. Yes, we have CPIC but that is not what this is about. I leave it up to the experts. I know some people are arguing for a new registry and I understand that. Some people say the government just wants to add an address field, but it needs much more than that. There are experts out there that can ensure this happens.
At the end of the day we need to ensure that as long as sexual predators are preying on our most vulnerable in society we give our children every available protection that we can. I would argue that sexual predators have a disease. The reoffence rate of child molesters after serving sentences is over 50%. That is not good enough.
Some people will argue about the rights of the offenders under the charter stating that they have served their time. They will ask whether we have the right to track these people and whether we have the right to make this information available to law enforcement agencies. Yes, we do. The cost to society is far greater than the cost to the individual. You know, Madam Speaker, being a lawyer yourself that it would be saved by section one.
We must infringe on the individual's rights. If people commit these acts they forfeit those rights. The danger is so great even after they serve their time. Our most vulnerable in society are put at such a high risk if these offenders are around. There are hundreds of documented cases to support that.
It is incumbent upon us to ensure that we provide a system that is mandatory, that tracks all the required data, from their addresses to who they are, their hair colour, and all of that other information. We must give our enforcement agencies the teeth they need to ensure that this is happening and they can enforce it. That is all we are asking.
The frustrating part is that politics gets in the way. The government looks at this and says that it can spin this. It has CPIC. It will add an address field and then it can vote in favour of the motion. That does not go to the intent of the motion. The majority of members on the other side would also want to protect children in this way. It is important that we act.
We have a firearms registry and there are all kinds of numbers out there, but everyone will agree that they are awfully high numbers. Something in the range of $660 million has been spent on the firearms registry. It would cost a mere pittance of that to put this registry together. It could be something that dovetails on CPIC. There are experts that can do this. We do not need to get caught up in those kinds of details.
We need to focus on what we are trying to achieve. We must agree on what we want the end product to be. We have to listen to the experts in the field, the Canadian Police Association and law enforcement agencies who will be using it. They are crying out for this. We have an opportunity in the House to step out of a partisan nature and show that we will support this.
I encourage the government to listen to the stories that have been told in the House today. I could read the list of missing children but I do not have that much time. I ask members from all parties to leave politics and partisanship aside and do what is right for our children.
Members should not buy into the idea that adding an address field will solve the problem. We all know it will not. What happens after an offender has been released from a penitentiary? There is an address. Do members think that person will be there a week or a month later? Of course not. The reoffence rate is at 50%. Let us allow officials to put some teeth into a system that will work and will protect our most vulnerable in society, our children.
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Madam Speaker, my colleague who just spoke questioned whether or not Canadians are interested in procedural technicalities. Maybe they are not necessarily interested in all procedural technicalities, but I would comment that they would be interested to know that should the official opposition decide to amend its motion and take out that procedural technicality it would probably have the support of the entire House of Commons for the motion.
If my colleague does not think procedural technicalities are important, I suggest that he remove that procedural technicality that he knows will not be supported by a number of members. It would then certainly have the support of a good number in the House.
Gary Lunn Canadian Alliance Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, my point is, is there a technicality there to debate? The motion clearly states what we are passing. We are getting into debate here. We should not be having a debate about technicalities. Obviously we have to get it right and there are experts in the field who can do that.
By passing this motion we turn it over to the experts to ensure that we would get a registry that would protect our children. Nowhere in the motion are we trying to pretend we are the experts on how to do that. We are trying to get the experts to do that. I would argue that is the very example that politics are interfering. It is unfortunate we cannot leave that outside and go to the heart of the motion and support it, so that we can protect our most vulnerable in society, our children.
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Madam Speaker, if politics are not to be involved in this why on earth, with a motion of this importance and magnitude, would the opposition add on a paragraph stating:
That when a Private Member, in proposing a motion for first reading of a bill, states that the bill is in response to the recommendations contained in a report pursuant to this Order, the second reading and subsequent stages of the bill shall be considered under Private Members' Business and the bill shall be placed immediately in the order of precedence for Private Members' Business as a votable item
Knowing that there might be private members who have bills aligned to this, this is done purely for purposes that are unnecessary in relation to the sex offender registry.
I must say that if we want to talk politics it is the official opposition that is playing politics with this serious issue. I suggest that it not play politics with this issue. Canadians are no longer fooled by the actions of the members of the Canadian Alliance. They see them for who they are and they will continue to see them for who they are. These type of motions will only enforce it.
Gary Lunn Canadian Alliance Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, the member for Churchill has questioned the procedural acceptability of the motion with respect to the mechanism to carry the bill through the House. She has talked about this point a number of times.
This procedure is almost an exact rewrite of Standing Order 68(4). It has been repeated in our motion because Standing Order 68(4) establishes a mechanism for government motions and private members' motions. Since we are dealing with a supply motion the procedure had to be included in our motion. It is procedurally acceptable. This is the same procedure used that brought in the impaired driving bills adopted last spring.
I do not know if members have private members' bills or what she is trying to argue. Who cares whose bill it is. Let us pass the motion. It is almost word for word from the standing orders. Let us leave the silliness and politics out of it and let us try to do something that is right for Canadians. I cannot emphasize enough that this is about the most vulnerable in our society, our children. If there is one issue that we can put everything else behind us, this is the one. Let us forget the politics, what party we belong to, whose agenda it is, and who is getting the credit. Let us leave it alone.
This is procedurally correct. NDP members have been ranting on this all day and they cannot get it through their heads. They should read the standing orders. It is virtually word for word Standing Order 68(4), unless the hon. member is challenging it as well.
Gurmant Grewal Canadian Alliance Surrey Central, BC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on the need for a national sex offender registry.
I would like members to think back to March 13, 2001. On that day all members that were present in the House, including our Liberal colleagues, voted in favour of a motion proposed by my Canadian Alliance colleague from Langley--Abbotsford.
I was somewhat skeptical of the government's motive at the time. After all, back then government members stood up in this Chamber to say that they valued the lives of women and children above everything else. They highlighted the need for a sex offender registry. They ignored a mass of information regarding the ineffectiveness of CPIC, the Canadian Police Information Centre, in identifying and tracking dangerous sex offenders in the community.
Instead the government chose to turn the sex offender issue into a political football. The government voted for it because it would not have been politically smart to vote against it. It chose to put politics above the public interest, even in such an important area. It chose to lecture Canadians about why they did not need to have a national sex offender registry today.
During the last federal election in my constituency of Surrey Central, I recall the three time defeated Liberal candidate, whom I will not name because it is not about him, it is about the issue, advocating that if elected he would create a national sex offender registry.
Does anyone know how? He said he would introduce a private member's bill. That Liberal candidate had already been told, probably before the election, that a new Liberal government would not create a national sex offender registry. That is why he resorted to a private member's bill.
The Prime Minister admitted that parents have the right to be concerned and he virtually confessed to the Liberal candidate in Surrey Central, who was defeated by the way, that he could not stop him from trying to create a registry through a private member's bill. That shows that the government lacks the political will to implement the national sex offender registry that was passed in the House in March of last year.
The Canadian Police Association declared that CPIC, which the government touts very much, was not up to the task of tracking dangerous sex offenders. When the government said that CPIC was as good as a national sex offender registry, it forgot that provincial governments and victims rights groups joined the CPA in saying that CPIC fell far short of what was needed to keep Canadians particularly those who are most vulnerable, our children safe from sexual predators.
The government must be ignorant of the fact that time is the key ingredient in saving the lives of children abducted by sexual predators or pedophiles. Of the victims who are murdered by these criminals, 91% are killed within 24 hours of their abduction. Some of the figures indicate that over 44% of children are killed within just the first hour. That is astonishing.
Another astonishing fact is that 75% of the offenders historically live within a few kilometres of the area where the crime is committed. Therefore, it is vitally important to have an effective tool that helps to quickly identify all sexual offenders living within a geographical region.
By not including vital information such as addresses and a requirement that changes of address be reported, CPIC is not conclusive. It is not comprehensive. It is not time sensitive since law enforcement officials will be forced to begin investigations of such disappearances from scratch instead of assembling short lists of suspects residing in the particular area where the crime is committed.
Even with $2 million in upgrades which would allow CPIC to include information regarding the addresses of criminals, provincial governments from coast to coast, from Charlottetown to Victoria, have expressed serious doubts about whether the national police database is up to the job of tracking dangerous sex offenders.
The weak and arrogant federal Liberals have shown a total unwillingness to work with the provinces in many areas including health care, education, regulatory reform and now the national sex offender registry. In each of these areas they have shown a confrontational approach rather than a co-operative approach and a total lack of neglect to co-operate with the provinces and municipalities, in this case setting a national example for provinces and municipalities of co-ordination of their efforts in standardization.
The government is part of the problem, not part of the solution. For example, the federal government still allows sex offenders to apply for a pardon after five years. This would effectively remove them from any provincial or federal sex offenders database. It does this in spite of the fact that 50% of sex offenders, more than half, are known to be at high risk of reoffending even 10 to 30 years after their initial conviction.
Another way the feds are working against the provinces is that they do not make offenders register with the provincial database. When a provincial jurisdiction requests federal authorities to pass on notice of criminals who are released from prison which they have to register, they are reluctant to do that as in the case of Ontario, for instance.
Not only do the feds put Canadian children at risk by not taking action on a national sex offenders database. Their inaction undermines the efforts of jurisdictions that work to solve the problems created by these lazy lousy Liberals.
Ontario's response is typical of public disgust with the foot dragging tactics of the lazy federal Liberals. It is disappointed. It has gone ahead and implemented its own sex offender registry called Christopher's law, named after a young boy who was murdered by a pedophile out on conditional parole.
Alberta began its work after five year old Jessica Koopman was murdered. A 14 year old Heather Thomas of Cloverdale in Surrey was murdered.
I did not have any intention of naming these children in the House, but they are our children. They lived in our communities. They had family members. How many more children must be killed before the federal government will take any action on the national sex offender registry? The Liberals are weak and arrogant and have not taken any action on this matter since the motion was passed a year ago.
Ontario's registry is much more comprehensive than CPIC since it includes 17 different characteristics used to identify convicted sex offenders compared to only 4 characteristics identified in CPIC. Personal attributes like the person's build and a recent photograph are important to keeping tabs on dangerous criminals but CPIC does not track these.
I would like to highlight the fact that even with planned upgrades CPIC in no way is a substitute for a national sex offender registry. It will not help solve the problem.
On behalf of Canada's most vulnerable citizens, our children, I ask the government and the solicitor general to reconsider their position on the sex offender registry and to honour the commitment they made to Canadians on March 13, 2001, when they voted unanimously to support the Canadian Alliance motion to create a national sex offender registry.
Paul Szabo LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a lot of the debate today. I am sorry to say the message coming from the member who just spoke is disturbing from the standpoint that he asked a rhetorical question: How many children must yet be killed before we come in with a registry?
By the very nature of the question he somehow presumes that there is a simple solution to a complex problem. He somehow assumes that something in a database will be the simple solution. For every complex problem there is a simple solution and it is wrong.
The particular motion before the House right now calls for this matter to go to the justice committee to draft a bill, to start all over again. Would the member explain why he believes that we can respect the urgency he is asking for by taking so many steps backward?
He may want to address my concern about the last item of private members' business. Why are they exploiting this issue by saying any private member's bill which comes forward that has anything to do with a national sex offender registry has to automatically be votable? It is procedurally way out of line and makes no sense.
For those reasons I know many of our colleagues will vote against the motion. It is just a nonsense resolution.
Gurmant Grewal Canadian Alliance Surrey Central, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is disturbing to mention the names of children. It is a compassionate issue. I never intended to do that and I will not do that, but how do we highlight the gravity of the situation?
Prevention is better than cure. If we do not have a sex offender registry in place once those criminals, those predators, abduct a small child the police have to start from scratch. If we had a database they could go to it and look for possible criminals, possible repeat offenders in the area.
What is wrong with that? We need a comprehensive database that could work at preventing a possible death in the future. We need a law with teeth. We need an effective mechanism in place. We need deterrents in place. We need to give our law enforcement agencies effective tools.
According to the Canadian Police Association victims rights groups and many other agencies, a national sex offender registry would put a tool into the hands of the law enforcement agencies which could prevent the possible killing of children.
Let me also quickly mention that 75% of sex offender crimes are committed within the geographical area where the predators live, so why not have them on record? Over 44% of abducted children are killed within the first hour. Time is of the essence and an effective tool is important.
I urge all members of the House to support the motion and implement a national sex offender registry.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from all the speakers in this place that everyone is supportive of the objective of protecting our children.
The member should recognize we cannot have a federal registry system that does not integrate and have the support of the provinces and territories. That is precisely what has been happening over the months since March 13, 2001.
They have been working on a common understanding of the necessary components of a registry system, the principles and objectives, the respective jurisdictional roles, et cetera.
The member should understand that working with the provinces to ensure we have a consolidated consensus registry system is very important. Sending this matter to justice committee makes no sense whatsoever.
Gurmant Grewal Canadian Alliance Surrey Central, BC
Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary can say whatever he wants to say but his government has not acted. I urge them not to make political speeches but to act. That is most important.
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the member across the way as well. He talks about inaction and the government. Because my time is limited let me talk about April 8, 1997, and then I would like to go on to May 7, 1998, and talk about the inaction of the government on these sorts of issues.
On April 8 I asked the then justice minister who is now the Minister of Industry a question related to a sex offender who had just been released into our community on March 14. I had just met with 200 young parents in a school gymnasium. We had an RCMP officer there who said that this person would reoffend. We had a psychiatrist there who said that this person would reoffend. We had several other people there from police agencies who said he would reoffend.
My question in the House was what I would tell the parents of the 10th victim of this person. I will paraphrase because he gave a very long answer, but the then justice minister answered that he too had children and would also worry about sex offenders being released into his community. He indicated that the new Bill C-65 would take care of it, that it would not be a problem any more and that I should not worry about it.
I then asked a supplementary question in which I explained to the minister that it was not good enough to say that the new bill would take care of it. The answer I got from the then minister was that he would send me a copy of Bill C-65 to take back to the parents and tell them that all was fine. On May 7, 1998, I again rose in the House and said:
Mr. Speaker, in this House some 13 months ago I asked the former justice minister about a nine time convicted pedophile who was released into my riding. The experts said he would reoffend. I asked the minister what would I tell the parents of the 10th victim. The minister said that we have new legislation which will prevent an offending pedophile from ever doing this again.
On the Friday before I rose in the House the sex offender had a 10th and an 11th victim. I rose again in the House and asked what I could tell the parents. The answer from the justice minister, now the health minister, was:
Mr. Speaker, obviously the situation that the hon. member refers to is a very serious one and a very tragic one. My colleague, the solicitor general, and I have discussed this issue and we are going to be looking at it further.
That was 1998. There have now been other victims and there are other examples. Perhaps it is the truck driver driving across the country who is a convicted sex offender. He reoffends as he goes from province to province because he has changed his name and we do not have a registry. That is the issue. How could anyone not react to putting a sex offender registry in place?
Let me talk about the most recent situation in my riding. I believe everyone is familiar with the Schneeberger case and Lisa's law, which I have been begging the House to take a look at. It is a case of a convicted pedophile, a convicted sex offender, who is about to be released in another couple of years from prison. This person even foiled the RCMP for six years before he finally was convicted of sexually assaulting, raping, his 11 year old stepdaughter as well as an adult patient.
I was with the mother and her five year old and six year old little girls when we were forced to go into the prison in Bowden in May of last year with a psychologist to see a sex offender. This single mother and these two little children are now really worried. When this person gets out of prison, will they pay a price? They are genuinely concerned.
They want to know and they deserve to know where the person is going to be at all times. The police should know. There are the technicalities of how this is done. I have heard in the House that some people are worried about the wording. Let us change the wording. This is not a partisan issue. This is about sex offenders. This is about pedophiles who prey on those people who cannot defend themselves.
The police say that CPIC is not adequate. The police say that sex offenders are getting out, changing their names, and carrying on life as usual. In many cases they will reoffend. Those reoffences are the problem.
Will I ever forget talking to the two fathers whose two five year old daughters had been attacked by a pedophile? Will I ever forget saying to them that parliament is not working for them, that parliament does not care? I quoted what the minister said in 1997. I quoted what a different minister said in 1998. It is now 2002 and I have to conclude that the government does not care about sex offenders. It does not care about a registry. It does not care about pedophiles reoffending. Parents should take care of their own kids because the government is not going to put that protection in place.
I ask that members look at this issue carefully and that they vote in favour of the motion.