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.
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Mr. Speaker, I listened to both my hon. colleagues in the opposition. One of my hon. colleagues indicated that CPIC is outdated and not worth it. The hon. member says CPIC is not a valuable tool.
My hon. colleague for Langley--Abbotsford wants me not to bother working with the provinces and territories. He says we should never mind co-operation and not work together. He says we should take no pass at the progress we have made to this date or at the system we have put in place--
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed my hon. colleague does not want to listen to the facts. He wants to impose certain conditions on the provinces and territories. We got where we are today because of co-operation with the provinces and territories. Why does my hon. colleague want to throw all that out the window? Where we are today is much beyond where he would have us.
My hon. colleague says we did not comply with his motion. We did comply with his motion. My hon. colleague does not understand what his motion was. His previous motion was that we establish a sex offender registry. Everyone convicted of a sex offence is registered on CPIC. We have established a new category. We have established a large amount of criteria to make sure the RCMP and other police forces can search for these individuals by region and conviction.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, I thank the solicitor general for being here and participating in the debate. I will be the first to say there have been improvements, some of which the solicitor general has pointed out: the flagging system that passed through the House recently; long term supervision; and the ability of the RCMP, prosecutors and municipal police to identify high risk offenders. We are quick to embrace all these things as good ideas.
Yet in his remarks the solicitor general made reference to jurisdictional concerns and the need for national consensus. First, sex offenders do not respect jurisdictional concerns. They do not respect the law, period. They are predatory. References have been made to the high rate of recidivism among sex offenders.
My question pertains to the minister's reference to national consensus. My first thought was that national consensus did not enter the government's mind at all when it imposed a gun registry, particularly on rural parts of the country which the solicitor general himself represents.
Where is this national consensus? We are hearing completely contradictory evidence from provincial governments and attorneys general with respect to the federal government's approach to implementing a national sex offender registry. They are calling for a separate and distinct stand-alone sex offender registry, not something rolled into the CPIC system.
Yes, what we have is better than nothing at all, but it does not provide the quick access to information required by police working in the field. There is no national consensus as the solicitor general would have us believe. How does he respond to that? What consensus is he speaking of?
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague having at least accepted the value of CPIC and how important it is for police forces in Canada. It is the envy of police forces around the world.
We are where we are today because of consensus with the provinces and territories. Compatibility, enforcement, costs and many other issues must be dealt with, and they have been dealt with to this point by co-operation between federal and provincial and territorial officials. This has brought us to where we are, which is much beyond where my hon. colleague from Langley--Abbotsford had us in his last motion.
The government has put many improvements in place, dollar wise and technology wise, to make sure the country is a safe place for our society and for children in particular.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure and honour to stand in the House today to discuss the need for effective information handling on sex offenders.
It is important to recognize that the Government of Canada is moving forward with a comprehensive solution to enhance public safety and increase the confidence of Canadians in our criminal justice system. It will be of interest to my colleagues to know that this would deal not only with sex offenders but with all offenders.
In 1999 an integrated justice information action plan was launched to create the Canada Public Safety Information Network, CPSIN. CPSIN is fundamentally about networking and sharing information electronically across the many jurisdictions in Canada's criminal justice system. All the practitioners within this system, police officers, parole or correctional officers, prosecutors, or customs and immigration officials at the border, have one thing in common: They need current, complete and timely information in order to make informed decisions that preserve public safety.
Included is information on sex offenders as well as critical information on violent offenders. What the government is doing in its integrated justice action plan is first and foremost enhancing public safety through the elimination of obstacles to quick and effective information sharing across the criminal justice system. This means being better equipped to locate and capture criminals, including sex offenders, as well as process them through the criminal justice business cycle. It also entails getting connected both locally and nationally.
In this future environment there would be a new tool to connect these sources, called a national criminal justice index, or NCJI. Through this index data could be gathered instantaneously and electronically from across the country and potentially from around the globe whether on sex offenders, terrorists, organized crime or any other type of criminal. Putting all the various pieces together electronically would create the Canada Public Safety Information Network which would support the information sharing that is crucial to ensuring public safety.
Within CPSIN police officers as well as other criminal justice stakeholders would be able to do a number of things that they could not do at the present time, such as: determine the correctional status of any person; access the complete criminal history, including sexual offences, of any person, including provincial infractions; and view a judge's sentencing rationale for a decision immediately upon being rendered.
At the federal level two key components of the initiative for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would include, first, a renewal of the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC. CPIC is a national tool used by virtually every law enforcement official in Canada, including police, customs officers, correctional officials, immigration officers and various others. CPIC renewal would be the first critical step in the commitment to link criminal justice information. CPIC is accessed over 150 million times every year. The modernization of CPIC is well under way, being delivered in phases from the year 1999 and to be completed in 2005.
Second, it would include the police reporting and occurrence system, or PROS. This system would provide direct support to front line RCMP officers in their response to service calls, investigation of occurrences, the processing of individuals and the preparation of essential information for the RCMP, courts and external agencies by simplifying the process and reducing the time spent by officers on administrative and paperwork functions.
The conditional release system of the National Parole Board would provide enhanced support to assist National Parole Board members in making fully informed conditional release decisions in support of public safety, including those pertaining to sex offenders seeking parole.
Correctional Service of Canada would renew its offender management system through the use of modern technology to facilitate the exchange of information with criminal justice partners. Among other things, this would give it a better tool to prepare sex offenders and others for eventual reintegration into the communities following their sentence.
These systems are large and complex projects which would take several years to fully complete. To be successful, we would require these organizations to work together. It is important to establish a strong sense of partnership to have effective mechanisms for co-ordination. The machinery, as the minister indicated, is in place at the federal level and work has begun with the provinces toward a national approach.
Thus far, the co-operation between the partner organizations has been excellent, based on a shared sense of what is important and what is necessary. Everyone involved believes that they must move ahead as quickly as possible with an integrated justice information system. Much of this work is pioneering, for example, the work being done on data standards to facilitate the exchange of data between agencies.
It is important to note that the events of September 11 have made it all the more imperative for the government to move ahead quickly in advancing this integrated justice information initiative. Although this is not something that can be realized overnight, great strides are being made to achieve the complex but eminently worthwhile goal of an integrated justice information system.
The Canada Public Safety Information Network would be extremely helpful in addressing the handling of sex offender information as well as the information pertaining to all other criminals and offenders in Canada. We will continue, as the minister has stated, to work to ensure that we have the best possible tools available to protect Canadians.
The solicitor general explained a little earlier the importance of working together with our provincial and territorial partners on these files. We cannot have an effective national approach without a national consensus. That is why we cannot support the motion at the present time.
Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I must confess that when this member stood up to speak I could not help but recall that he is the same member who tabled a private member's bill in this House to legalize prostitution. Here he is talking about the wonderful work that the Liberal government would be doing to reduce the freedom of sexual predators. It just is not happening. What the government says and what it does are two different things. I would like to ask this member a specific question.
CPIC is inadequate. Notwithstanding what the solicitor general said, it fails on a number of important points. For example, a sexual predator or a rapist can go to a different province from where the crime is committed. There is no necessity for him to report that he is changing his address. CPIC shows him as living wherever he was living at the time his offence was committed. I am using he because most of the time these are men. If he moves to a different province, there is no requirement for him to phone anyone and say that he is moving to Manitoba and to tell the people in Winnipeg that he is now there and that they better keep their children safe. There is no requirement for that.
Does the hon. member not agree that there should be legislation which says that this person must declare his new address when he moves? Does he agree with that or does he not?
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, my colleague may have inadvertently misled the House in stating that the bill I proposed dealt with legalizing prostitution. That was not the case. The bill merely gave the provinces the right to decide whether or not they wanted to legalize prostitution. I hope the hon. member will have an opportunity to correct that for the record.
I hope the hon. member was listening when the federal government stated it had already made an unequivocal commitment to establish a national system in order to collect, deal with , prosecute and do whatever was necessary in order to ensure the safety of Canadians. The minister stated that the government has already put in place $2 million in terms of capital funding to establish a more effective system and an additional $400,000 has been put in place to support the operational aspect of the system.
My colleague has to also bear in mind that we must have a collective team approach. We have the provinces as partners. They have their own objectives and goals. We want to hear their concerns and what it is they would like to see in this system through a national approach.
It is important for us to look at other issues which I know my colleague may not be interested in. Potentially, the charter of rights and privacy rights might be involved in the development of such a national approach. We must look at the issue of jurisdiction, whether it is federal, provincial or municipal. My colleagues in some cases are not interested in that.
If I were my colleague on the other side, I would have declared victory already. The government has supported the objective of the motion. I would declare victory and move on. The government has gone beyond what was in the motion and extended the system far beyond what was called for in the original motion.
If he wants me to tell him now what the approach will be at the end of the day, then we may as well not consult at all. However the government will not do that. The government will ensure that the different partners at all levels, different agencies, including police officers, RCMP officers on the front line, are collectively involved in the development of a national approach. That is what the minister was saying and that is what the government is saying.
My colleague should stand up and congratulate the government, rather than standing up and attacking it.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, I will not congratulate the hon. member. I will point out that what he has told us about the government accepting and implementing the motion is the complete opposite of the truth.
In fact, what the new system does not do is allow for updated information that could be used in a preventive way by the police and the communities. The system simply does not do that. It does not take into account the mobility of offenders. Therefore, much of the prevention is lost. The system is only as good as the information that is entered into it. Unfortunately, these changes in location are currently not available under the CPIC system. Therefore, it is failing. It is not up to snuff. It is not what is needed at this time.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, there is a connotation that we must establish a parallel system and that is not the intent. We must work within the existing system. The government is specifically working on requirements to upgrade, update and improve the existing system. Therefore my colleague cannot turn around and say the government has not taken note of the opposition motion. It has, but it has exceeded that too.
If the hon. member wants the government to abandon the existing system, the answer is no. The system is working. We can ensure that it would work better through consultations with the provinces and the territories.
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, if I said I was pleased to intervene today in this debate on the official opposition's motion calling for the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill calling for the establishment of a sex offender registry, it would be a mere sham. I would just be playing along with the game the government played on us on March 13, 2001.
On that date, the House was debating a motion by the Canadian Alliance, which read as follows:
That the government establish a national sex offender registry by January 1, 2002.
This was clear, yet here we are on February 5 revisiting the same matter, because the government has done nothing to follow up on this motion. Yet the solicitor general of the day, and the man still in that position today despite all the speculation that was running rampant about him before the last cabinet shuffle, which had him going to the Senate, concluded his speech that day with “I have absolutely no problem in supporting the opposition motion”.
If the solicitor general had indeed read the motion introduced by my colleagues from the Alliance, and more importantly, if he had listened carefully to their speeches, he would have realized that he supported a motion requesting the creation of a separate registry of sexual offenders, rather than some attempt to revamp, at the cost of millions of dollars, a system known as the Canadian Police Information Centre, which the provincial ministers of justice admit is clearly insufficient.
As if this were not enough, in addition to being inadequate for the needs being discussed today, the system's shortcomings when it comes to protecting privacy were revealed yesterday, by the media. We learned that Citizenship and Immigration employees had accessed the CPIC database for purely personal purposes. Given the very specific nature of the information that could be contained in a registry of sexual offenders, this incident demonstrates the importance of creating a separate database with restricted access in order to avoid any kind of abuse.
Not only has the solicitor general failed to follow through on his support for this motion, but furthermore, for historic and contextual considerations, it is important to remind the House and those who are watching—to be sure that they understand what kind of government we are dealing with—that during the vote, not one member present in the House voted against this motion. In other words, all of the Liberal members present in the House voted for the motion.
Clearly, this government respects absolutely nothing. We already knew that it did not respect the privilege of parliamentarians to express themselves in debate; witness their invoking closure for the eighth time, yesterday when we were debating Bill C-7. No more than it respects the witnesses who do us the favour of sharing their expertise with us in the different committees. It is the same thing when it comes to provincial consensus. Add to this a minister who misleads the House and we have yet another glimpse into those who lead this government.
However, this time the Liberals have reached a new low by not even respecting their own vote. There again, members opposite may tell us that the fact that they supported that motion is just a myth or, better still, that it was a scheme by sovereignists. Why not? Given the current situation, it is obvious that ridicule never killed anyone.
As regards the substantive issues relating to the motion calling for the establishment of a sex offender registry, from which today's motion stems, the Bloc Quebecois remains convinced that it is an interesting idea and that such a project could prove very constructive in terms of protecting society from a very specific type of crime. Of course, the establishment of such a registry would allow us to exert some control but, more importantly, it would also prevent sex offenders who have served their sentences and who want to be rehabilitated back into society from reoffending.
Again, the position of the Bloc Quebecois goes well beyond mere partisanship and party line, because it primarily reflects the will of the people. This idea is also supported by the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, the provincial ministers of justice, as I mentioned before, and all the opposition parties in this House.
Moreover, up until January 1, we were naive to the point of having confidence in democracy and its institutions, and to believe that the government was also on board. Once again, this Liberal government fooled members of parliament and, consequently, the public.
Considering the government's lack of action in that area since March 13 of last year, I want to reiterate my comments on the major principles that should guide the establishment of a sex offender registry.
First, we must take into consideration the particular profile of the sex offender, who is often left to himself and could therefore reoffend, since this type of crime is primarily motivated by deeply repressed sexual urges.
We must also consider the vulnerability of the victims of sex crimes, particularly children, who are easy prey for sexual predators.
Sexual crimes, whether the victims are children or adults, often destroy lives. These people have gone through hell and may possibly go through hell for the rest of their lives, with all the consequences that one can imagine.
It is therefore imperative for all necessary steps to be taken to protect society from the potential risk of recidivism. Concrete actions must be taken in order to protect the public from repeat offenders. This is the only way of appeasing the public's strong reaction to the odious nature of these crimes.
We have reached a point where the families and friends of the victims of this type of crime take the law into their own hands. One example of this is the Many affair, where a father badly beat up the person who had attacked his son. There is also the instance of the retaliatory lynching in Laval of the presumed attacker of an 11 year old girl.
What is even more worrisome in this state of affairs is that, while the public does not openly endorse such behaviour, it still shows understanding of such acts.
That understanding translates into sympathy for the victim's relatives when they resort to this far west style of justice. Under these circumstances, there is not far to go between understanding and legitimizing acts that are contrary to the principles of a law-abiding state.
There is, therefore, an urgent need to develop programs and mechanisms which will restore citizens' trust in the criminal justice system.
We therefore feel that the establishment of a sex offender registry, which would include the offender's photo, name, address and date of birth, and a complete list of all the sex crimes committed, would allow a more thorough follow-up on these people.
By thus requiring offenders to inform local police forces of their whereabouts, society could keep an eye on these offenders and thus reduce, or at least monitor, the threat they pose to our community.
Second, the registry must be maintained by the responsible authorities, in this case, police forces, which, along with certain categories of stakeholders specifically listed in the legislative framework establishing the registry, would be the only people allowed to consult it.
The information in this registry would have to remain confidential and on no account be available to the general population. A consultation procedure and a rigorous framework for the new powers given police would have to be drawn up so as not to create yet another problem in the form of abuse.
There is therefore no question of the general public being allowed to consult the information in this database. The purpose of the registry is essentially to ensure effective follow-up of offenders and not to create a state of alarm, which could traumatize the public or launch witch hunts.
Let us remember that such a registry must serve a dual purpose: protecting the public and providing a means of rehabilitation.
In the latter regard, a registry that stigmatized an individual within a community would be very harmful and eliminate practically any chance of rehabilitation, which comes about through an individual's return to the community, not through his exclusion from it.
Incidentally, the following are included among the guiding principles of the criminal justice system, and I quote: first at all times the rights and dignity of all those involved in the correctional process must be respected and upheld; second, the offender remains a member of society and forfeits only those rights and privileges which are expressly taken away by statute or as a necessary consequence of the custody and control imposed by the court; third, correctional policies and practices must not deny the offender the hope of regaining status as a free citizen; fourth, correctional agencies have the responsibility to assist the offender to develop or maintain positive and supportive personal and family relations; fifth, correctional objectives should be met through shared responsibility and co-operative action by the community, correctional workers, other segments of the criminal justice system and the offenders themselves.
Furthermore, among the many goals and objectives behind criminal sanctions is that of promoting reintegration into the community. Therefore, the undeniable principles that guide our criminal justice system are rehabilitation and reintegration. These goals cannot be reached overnight. The offender must go through a long process, which must include a period of supervision and support.
It is imperative that there be long term follow-up, which would require an offender to report in for a period to be determined in accordance with the sentence handed down. Obviously, the stiffer the sentence, the longer the period during which he would have to report to police authorities.
It is understood that the offenders concerned will have to be informed that their names will remain in the registry for a set period of time.
In conclusion, it is now commonly known that in most cases sex offenders present a high risk of recidivism. This is much more than just a popular myth. It is borne out by research and by the experience of those working directly in the field. This is why this phenomenon deserves a special approach.
Furthermore, it is easy to understand that a sex offender registry would be an integral part of the rehabilitation process, which should in theory end with an application for pardon. Of course, we would have to make sure that police forces have all the necessary information to do proper follow-up and be able to act quickly before the worst happens. All this would be in the best interests of the offender, victims and society in general.
The Bloc Quebecois supports this motion and will be voting in favour.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, the origin of today's motion is really the disappointment experienced by the opposition collectively but particularly by the official opposition in respect of the government's failure to act on a motion that was passed in the House on Tuesday, March 13, 2001.
At the beginning of my remarks I would like to reflect on what happened on that day. If members will excuse what may seem an overly narcissistic exercise, I will refer to some of the things I had to say on that day because, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
On March 13, 2001, I said:
Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say that I am tempted to call quorum.
I went on to say that the idea of an 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 estimate system that existed in the House up until 1969 which required government members to stay in the House, particularly the minister whose estimates were being considered, until such time as members of the opposition were satisfied that all the questions they had with respect to the particular department had been answered. It was a discipline on the government.
I also said on March 13, 2001, that when I looked across the way and saw only 3 government members out of 175 it did not exactly inspire one to think that there was a great zest in the House of Commons for parliament or, for that matter, for the principle of the government listening to what opposition members had to say on an opposition day.
Things may have improved a little. I think I see five. Perhaps they are getting the hint. They are starting to show up on this side of the curtains but they have not even taken their seats yet.
Bob Speller Liberal Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON
How many of your own colleagues are there listening to you, Bill? How many NDP are watching you?
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, we can always tell when we throw a stone into a pack of wild animals whether we have hit something because they start to yelp. There is a bit of yelping going on over there.
Just out of respect for the tradition I established on that day, I think I will call quorum so that government members have an opportunity to listen to what opposition members have to say on this matter.
And the count having been taken:
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I will return to my remarks but perhaps government members will return to the lobby. Lunch is not even being served back there. I did not know that what I had to say was so offensive, but perhaps Liberals do not like to listen to the truth. I can understand that, particularly when we want to talk about how they do not live up to commitments they make in the House, something about which I also spoke on March 13, 2001, the last time this matter came up. It is almost like a replay.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Yes, it reminds me of that movie. Parliament is a lot like the movie where the guy keeps getting up and the same thing happens over and over again. That is true with respect to the Liberals when it comes to certain things.
I say to my colleagues in the Alliance that the disappointment they are expressing today is a product of perhaps wishful thinking combined with a little naiveté, combined with not listening to what I had to say on March 13, 2001.
On that date I said that I listened with interest to the solicitor general's reply and that I might be mistaken but I had the impression he was speaking against the motion. At the end of his speech the last time this matter came up he announced that the government would be supporting the motion. The hon. member from White Rock was somewhat surprised at that time.
Subsequently I reminded the House of a similar experience I had when the government supported an opposition day motion on February 9, 1999, having to do with the creation of a national ban on the bulk export of water. We were all very happy because we thought we had accomplished something. We thought there had been unanimity in the House with respect to such a ban, and what happened?
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Nothing with respect to a national ban, but the very next day the government announced a policy that was completely at odds with what it had agreed to the day before. It announced a policy that relied entirely on the provinces bringing in provincial bans on the bulk export of water and made no mention whatever of the need for or the legitimacy of a national ban on the bulk export of water.
I say to my Alliance colleagues that they were warned at that time about the insincerity of the government with respect to this motion. As I listened to the solicitor general then he seemed to be saying that the only reason he was voting for the motion was that in his view the country already had what the Alliance was calling for in the form of CPIC. It was basically the same argument as the solicitor general made today.
Unfortunately the solicitor general, the member for Ottawa Centre and perhaps another two or three individuals in the country are the only people who believe that CPIC is the equivalent of a national sex offender registry.
Whether one is for or against a national sex offender registry, it is absolutely clear that CPIC is not a national sex offender registry in the sense that there is no requirement whatsoever for sex offenders to register when they move from one part of the country to another or, for that matter, move within a particular province.
The whole idea of a national sex offender registry is that there would be some obligation placed on sex offenders after they have been released from prison to let the communities they live in know that they are there. CPIC does not do this. All CPIC does is record the last known address of a particular sex offender.
It is quite disingenuous for the solicitor general to suggest that what they have now in any way approaches what parliament itself approved. I am referring to the motion that was approved, not what the Liberals might have had in their own minds but what parliament approved on March 13, what this motion is calling for, what the provinces are calling for, what the Canadian Police Association is calling for and what a great many other people associated with or concerned about the problem of repeat sex offenders are concerned with. It is only the government that believes CPIC somehow meets the test of what people think is required in this case.
I am reiterating our support for the idea of a national sex offender registry. However I am concerned about the motion because if we look at it, as is often the case, the Alliance is its own worst enemy. Just when its members have a good idea they like to throw a monkey wrench into it and come up with some goofy idea to wreck a good motion. What did they put in the final clause of their motion today? It reads:
That when a Private Member, in proposing a motion for the 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.
This reflects two things. It reflects the ongoing obsession of Alliance members with private members' business and trying to get everything votable. It also establishes a completely inadequate process in that a private member in proposing a motion for the first reading of a bill states that the bill is in response to recommendations. We do not have to prove. There is no process. Nobody else has to agree. We just state it and that is it. It automatically goes on to the order of precedence for private members' business and it automatically becomes votable.
Even the hon. member for Medicine Hat would see that there is something wrong with this proposal. If Alliance members were serious about the House reaffirming its support for a national sex offender registry, although the government has already indicated that this time around it would not be duplicitous and would actually vote against the Alliance motion, they would take this out of their motion. They have the opportunity to do that between now and the end of the day.
I certainly cannot vote for this procedural poison pill in the middle of an otherwise acceptable motion or certainly an otherwise acceptable idea that we supported in the past. If it is suggested, for instance, that somehow the bill would have to be found to be in accordance with the committee's recommendations by the Speaker, by an all party committee or by someone other than simply the member who rises, perhaps there might be a way of dealing with it.
However to have it that any particular member can simply affirm without any burden of proof and without any associated process that the bill is in response to recommendations contained in the report pursuant to this order, et cetera, I think is woefully procedurally inaccurate and makes it very difficult for us to support the motion.
Our non-support for the motion as it stands should not be construed in any way as a weakening of our support for the idea of a national sex offender registry or a weakening of our criticisms of the solicitor general for not levelling with the House on March 13, 2001, when if we read between the lines and listened to the parliamentary code we know darned well that he had no such intention.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Order, please. I would ask the member with the cellphone to remove it from the Chamber. It is contrary to our rules. I caution members that our rules are very clear when it comes to cellphones. They are not appropriate in our Chamber.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could make that clearer than it is to a lot of members who I see wandering around the Chamber with cellphones.
Yesterday while we were waiting to vote, people were talking on cell phones in the Chamber. Cell phones are proliferating. Some day there will be a thing called cellphone rage here and it is not going to be pretty.
We would be much better debating a bill today that would respond to the growing evidence that the use of cellphones, not in parliament but while driving is a danger to the public.
For the record, I have a private member's bill that calls on the government to act on this matter. Hopefully some day I will win the draw, we will get that item votable and have it come before the House.
Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
They should all be votable, should they not?
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to live by the process. I know some people think that all private members' business should be votable but that would require that bills far inferior to mine would also come up for a vote and I do not think that would be recommended.
In any case, we continue to support the idea of a national sex offender registry. However we find that the procedural innovation, to put it politely, in the Alliance motion makes it difficult for us to support it as it stands.
We call on the government to finally admit, although having listened to the solicitor general it does not sound like it is imminent, that CPIC is not a national sex offender registry. It bears no resemblance to it in the sense that the key element of what is being called for when people call for a national sex offender registry is that people have to register.
Seeing that people do not register with CPIC makes it not a registry in any sense of the word. It might make it a record or a detailed list or all kinds of things, but it is not a registry. It is completely intellectually dishonest and politically misleading for the solicitor general to continue to insist that it is so.
Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the NDP member. He recognized in his dissertation that the issue is really the national sex offender registry. I appreciate that it has been muddied a bit with respect to the process of private members' business.
I believe very strongly that all private members' business should be votable. Perhaps the member for Winnipeg--Transcona does not believe that. Could he not see it within himself to support the motion before us focusing specifically on the greater good of the national sex offender registry as opposed to having the waters muddied with respect to private members' business?
I believe, as does almost every member in the House, that the issue is of paramount importance. We should be putting the government on record that a registry is something that is for the better good of all Canadian citizens. Can he not see it within his own ability to support the motion as opposed to simply trying to muddy the waters with private members' business?