Debates of March 31st, 2003

Sex Offender Information Registration Act

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments that my colleague made with regard to the registry. If this was some sort of hypothetical, alleged infringement of the law that these individuals had perpetrated, that would be one thing. However we have people who have been convicted of a sexual offence. We know what kind of people they are.

I remember so clearly that one of my colleagues in the Rotary Club came to me one day. He told me that he and his wife knew there was a sex offender in their community who had been convicted. They wanted to know why they could not know where that person was. It is absolutely ridiculous that we should have some kind of a provision that makes it impossible for a young mother and her husband, the father, to protect their children.

Is that not what this is all about?

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kelowna is absolutely right. That is what this should be all about. If we were working in this place to that end, I would not feel as frustrated as I do now. I know my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford has torn his hair out literally trying to come to grips with not being able to put this type of safe legislation out there on the streets for people.

[An hon. member]

Is that what is happening to you too?

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

It is happening to me, too. This place is frustrating at times. Mr. Speaker, I know you wring your hands too.

We do not see the end result matching anywhere near the need that was driving it from the end.

My colleague is absolutely right. People see right through this as they look at their daily lives and say, “There is no safety here. There are too many loopholes. The bad guys still get away with things. Are their rights taking precedence over ours?” Yes they are and it is very unfortunate.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been said many times today that one of the flaws in this bill is primarily the fact that there is no retroactivity. The list will come out on the national sex offender registry and it will be completely empty and being completely empty, it will also necessarily be completely useless.

Just in case, as time goes forward, this thing actually does a tiny bit of good, and I do emphasize the word tiny, at some future point someone is going to commit one of these heinous acts and that person's name will be put into the book. However, because the government wants to keep not only all the people who have already committed offences of this nature out of the book but also wants to provide an opportunity for people who commit these offences in the future to be kept out of the book, it put in a provision which says that if this does more harm to the poor person who sexually molested a young child than public good, then that person's name does not have to go in the book either.

Let us consider for a minute why on earth the Liberal government would do this type of thing. There are two reasons.

One I almost hate to use because it gives the government the credit of being clever in a very sinister sort of way. The first reason is that we have to consider the people who make up the primary front line of the Liberal government starting with the Prime Minister and working down through the cabinet to junior cabinet ministers. The vast majority of them have listed “lawyer” as their former occupation. They are lawyers. They have that background and training. They have that strange kind of mindset. I do not necessarily wish to attack other lawyers. At least they have had the dignity to continue to do what it is they do and not come in here and combine it with politics. It seems that combination brings out some really twisted ideas.

The other reason is a more Machiavellian look into the psyche of the Liberal mind. This is the kind of psyche that produced the non-position the Prime Minister has taken on Iraq. The Minister of National Defence cannot even decide if we are there or not there, if we are there but are invisible, if we are visible but it is not because we are really there because we are not. That is the kind of mind spin that comes out of this.

The Machiavellian approach goes like this. The Liberals say, “We know the Canadian Alliance received a great deal of support when it came out with this push for a national sex offender registry. We know that the public is demanding this. What we want to do is come out with something that makes the public think we have actually done something. We want to take the pressure off, so we will do just the tiniest bit. No one who has already committed an offence will be in there, so we will not lose any support from the pedophiles, child rapists and molesters who have already committed an offence. After all, we went to a great deal of trouble to make sure they were able to vote while they are still in jail. The last thing we would want is to do something that would offend them”.

“We finally got this new cache of votes, so we certainly do not want to do anything that offends convicted people by telling them, just when they are able to start voting for a member of Parliament, that we are going to put their names in a sex registry. They might be offended by that and gee, we do not want to do that. Let us make sure that those who have already committed offences do not go in the book. We are going to put some other people in jail in the future and we want their votes too, so let us make sure they have the opportunity of not getting their names into the book either. We will leave that little loophole for them and make sure they understand where it came from. It came from us Liberals, so they will want to vote for us when they get to cast their vote in a federal jail”.

The other is an even more Machiavellian part of the same thing. That is where the Liberals actually want to come out with this and then have all the people who pushed and worked so hard to have this brought in and who put pressure on the government say, “See? We were not so bad not having brought it in because now we have brought it in and it really is not doing any good. A big fuss has been created over nothing. People were kind of looking down their noses at the Liberal Party because we would not bring this in. Now that we have brought it in, nothing has really changed. Everyone was wrong and we were right and therefore, people had better start thinking better about the Liberal Party because we know what we are doing when we do not bring in these laws that others want. They are not going to work”.

Certainly the laws are not going to work the way the government brings them forward.

I do not know how much time I have, but I can assure members that this is something on which I could talk at length. It is something which resonates strongly in my riding. It has been asked already here by a couple of my colleagues how this resonates in different ridings.

I represent a western riding, as do most of my colleagues. I have to assume that people in eastern ridings feel as strongly about this as we do in the west, that they are just as appalled at a government that brings in legislation for which people have been calling, then emasculates it in such a way that it has no real impact or effect.

I have heard people talking about judicial activism. That is where people are complaining about decisions made by the judges in this country. In this particular case, we are going to get into a situation where the government will say that if it starts putting people's names retroactively in the book, the judges may not like it. The judges may decide that it is not constitutionally fair, that we have not been reasonable to those terrible criminals and we have to uphold their rights. They would challenge the government.

I talked to a judge some time ago about the concept of judicial activism. He said to me, “I am not going to stand here and say that there is not a judge anywhere who makes a bad decision. We are human. We are like every other group. But before you start coming down on judges, start writing better legislation. When Parliament writes sloppy legislation, judges have no alternative but to consider the ramifications of what is written. Fix the legislation. Write better legislation. After doing that, if you still feel you have a problem, that is when you need to start looking at the judges”.

Let me give an example of this. I have a private member's bill on conditional sentencing right which tries to fix what the government itself admitted was a problem but would not do anything about. Conditional sentencing is something brought in by the Liberal government which says that judges can consider if jailing a person is not necessarily in the public good. If there is nothing to be gained from it, the judge may, at his or her discretion, decide to sentence a person to serve time in the public, not to have to go to jail, to serve no jail time whatsoever.

After the Liberals brought this in, not surprisingly we found that some people who committed violent offences, in some cases very violent rapes, were being let go with a conditional sentence. People who heard this were absolutely outraged, as well they might be. They wrote to the government. Certainly they wrote to us asking for our help and we raised it in the House of Commons.

The Minister of Justice said in defence that it was never his intention that it should apply to violent offenders. We said, “Then it is an easy fix. All you have to do is bring in a simple amendment that says it does not apply to violent offenders. We can pass it in the House in a day and we can take that loophole out”.

I believe that the minister said that in 1995. It is 2003 and it has still not been brought forward. I have now put it in a private member's bill. Hopefully with the new system we have managed to bring in, I may get to bring that bill before the House one day and hopefully the government will recognize the wisdom of passing it. That is just one example.

Another one which is a little different situation is statutory release. Statutory release is where someone, and in this case we are talking about child molesters, pedophiles, and people who commit sex offences, in some cases very serious ones, serve two-thirds of their sentences. They gave no cooperation inside prison. They did not take any kind of courses that would help them deal with whatever makes their minds so twisted to do those type of things. Maybe they have had some offences inside the prison, they have had problems with other prisoners, they have been disruptive. They have served two-thirds of their sentence and they automatically get out. It is not even subject to review by the parole board.

These are the kinds of things we want to change but the government says no, it cannot do that, that it is the prisoner's right. In fact, the Liberal government believes that prisoners retain every right and privilege of law-abiding citizens, except obviously the ability to keep them incarcerated. I fundamentally disagree with that.

If people want to hear more about this and particularly about statutory release, they should feel free to look at my website. There is a great deal of information on it. If the Liberals would like to raise questions, I would love to hear what they have to say about this.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion that triggered this part of the debate was driven by the issue of retroactivity. I want to focus on the aspect of retroactivity.

I would think from the discussion that has been held that generally speaking all relevant information that is known with regard to sex offenders should be readily available.

I noted in some of the briefing notes that there is some concern about principles of justice and also charter rights issues. Obviously whenever we deal with legislation this is important to deal with. As the member knows, it also lays out substantial provisions whereby a judge's order is necessary in a hearing, there are appeals and other things et cetera. The retroactivity concept in light of the current bill would be in conflict. That does not mean members at the committee could not look at transitional provisions or amendments to the bill which would take into account current reviews of the Ontario situation which is looking at retroactivity. That could be incorporated. These options are available.

I wonder if the member is aware of the justice principles and charter issues that might come into play with regard to retroactivity.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it always amuses me when I hear a Liberal member, albeit one who has some compassion in some areas, use the term justice principles. Principles and justice just do not seem to go together with the Liberal government.

I suppose one question might be, why would we want to have this bill ticking away instead of going to committee and putting in amendments. There are two reasons. First, there is the word maybe. We do not believe the Liberals would put in amendments on this. Second, we are not talking about a little tinkering. We are not talking about a bill that is fundamentally good and to which we have to make a little correction or two. We are talking about a bill that is fundamentally flawed.

It is an absolute farce to bring in the bill in the manner in which it is now. Are there problems of how judges would deal with this and interpret it? We have to start realizing that we are not people who draft some little thing for judges to consider. We are legislators. We write the laws. The job of the judges is to enforce what we write.

We have to start writing it a lot better. If there are problems, we had better find ways to fix them. What is happening right now is an absolute farce of the justice system. The victims have no rights at all. We bend over backward for the criminals and say that we do not want to step on their rights. What about the rights of the people who they violated? Those are the ones to whom we have to start paying a lot more attention than we are doing right now. The bill certainly does not do that.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member would address the motion itself which basically says that the bill not be read because of that issue. In other words it would kill the bill. I am not sure that would be in the best interests of Canadians and those who are abused by sexual predators.

I do not believe the member can have it both ways. Maybe he could explain how we move this forward for the protection of all Canadians.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member will probably recall that when I made my speech I talked about the Machiavellian mindset of the Liberals where they come out with something that gives us just a little bit and we are supposed to think the thing is fixed.

Is this going to do any good if it moves ahead? No. The bill is so flawed it has to be scrapped. We need to go back to the drawing board. If the bill goes through in the manner in which it is now, even with a little tinkering, the Liberals are going to say they lived up to what the people asked for and brought in a national sex offender registry. It is absolutely useless but people would have their sex offender registry.

I say to scrap it, take it back. We would not have one. They would still have to answer to all the people who demand that they have something. They would have to come back with something that actually worked and dealt with what the people asked for in the first place instead of pretending they have done something when they have not. They should go back and get it right. Maybe we could start fixing some of the problems in the country if we brought in new bills that had real teeth, that were not open to interpretation and which actually answered what the public was demanding.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a topic where the rights of Canadians are at stake and until we get it right we need to keep on pushing the government. I will quickly reiterate the main points that some of my colleagues have indicated. One of them is the importance of such legislation and also the tardiness of the government in bringing it forward.

For a long time, our policy has been that there should be such a registry for the protection of society, which is the main goal of our justice system. We would to ensure that the registry is used to prevent the criminal from reoffending which in the case of sexual offences, unfortunately, is one of the higher rates or recidivism. It is important that these people be held to account for the safety of our society.

Our party moved this motion on a supply day a little over two years ago and the House voted in favour of it. The motion said that such a registry be established by January 30, 2002 and it is now March 31, 2003. We really need to wonder when a government is that slow on such a relatively simple bill that it would first of all take so long to do it and then do such a colossally bad job of it.

When I was an instructor, if my students asked for an extension of time it was because they wanted to do a better job on their assignment. The government has taken an extension of over a year and it still fails the assignment because it does not accomplish what it was intended to do.

I will not reiterate all of the points that my colleagues have made. The bill is not that large. Sometimes we get bills which are a couple of inches thick. This one is relatively short.

I would like to make a few comments from the bill as I read it. First of all I am struck by the fact that the principle in the bill is not to protect society, innocent victims, or women and children who are usually victims of sexual offences. It states in clause 2(1):

The purpose of this Act is to help police services investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring the registration of certain information relating to sex offenders.

The purpose is not to protect society; it is to help the police investigate after it has happened. The government has it backwards. We must work to prevent these crimes. We must protect our women, children, and young boys who are sometimes the object of sexual predators. Instead, what the government does is introduce a bill and make it like it is a big deal when its purpose is only to investigate after the crime has occurred. The government has a failing grade on this particular bill.

Just as an aside, and I hate to accuse the Liberals, the justice minister and others of improper motives. I hate to do that, but I see politics written all over the bill. The Liberals have introduced a bill entitled “An act respecting the registration of information relating to sex offenders...” Therefore, it would be a sex offenders registry.

At the next election I can see the Liberal candidate in my riding running around and telling people not to vote for me because I voted against the sex registry. Saying so does not make it so. This legislation has the label, but the contents are devoid of any effectiveness in solving the problem. I would be remiss to vote in favour of the bill because it has serious flaws. Yet, because it has the label this is how the government is going to use it. Can members imagine using an issue like this for political purposes? I object to that very strenuously.

If the next part were not true it would be funny. The bill begins by requiring that there be a registration of accurate information. We know how accurate the government's registration system is with the gun registry. I sure wish the government more success here.

The bill goes on to say that the privacy interests of sex offenders would be protected. I have a small amount of sympathy for that. I do not believe in making a public spectacle of a person who has wronged society, but I sure believe in ensuring that the public is aware of who is in their midst. It is an error in the bill to put the privacy rights of the offender at such a high level without balancing it with the important rights of a community to know who is living there.

There is another serious flaw in this legislation and it reminds me of a story I heard. A man took his young boy to the post office where there were pictures of individuals who were wanted. These posters indicated that if anybody had information on the whereabouts of these individuals the police should be called so they could be arrested. This little boy, who was probably four or five years old, asked his dad why these men were not kept by the police when their picture was taken. That is funny in a way. Obviously, the police had the individuals because they had their pictures.

Bill C-23 would not require police officers to report into the database anything they know. Instead, it would require offenders to report. In other words, the bill says that when offenders are convicted of a crime and when those individuals are released they must show up at a registration centre within 15 days and provide accurate information. That is wonderful. It is in the bill. Hansard does not record cynicism or sarcasm, and I must say here in brackets that the member “was dripping with sarcasm” when he said that offenders had so much regard for the law when they forced other persons into a sexual act against their will at gun point or at knife point.

That is a very serious crime. That is how much respect those individuals have for the law. We now expect them to show up within 15 days to register and tell the registry person everything in order to have accurate information. This begs the question: Will the persons show up at all? Will they give accurate information? We certainly hope so.

I must draw the House's attention to another clause. As a mathematician and one who plays a bit with logic games, clause 3.(2) blows me away. It says:

For the purposes of this Act, a crime is of a sexual nature if it consists of one or more acts that (a) are either sexual in nature...

That is a circular argument; it is a circular definition. It is like saying that a circle is round because a circle is round. One cannot engage in that type of flippant definition in a bill that is so serious and be taken seriously by Canadians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians would have better understood the member if he had read the entire clause into the record. It does not say that if it is sexual in nature. It says that it is sexual in nature if it consists of one or more of the following acts: either sexual in nature or committed with the intent to commit an act or acts that are sexual in nature. It is also the concept of intent and it is there for a specific reason.

The member also made the statement that the bill was flawed. He said that it had omissions and that he would vote against it.

The bill would create a national sex offender registry that would include information on convicted sex offenders. The information would be available to assist police officers across Canada in their work. This is precisely the purpose and the bill addresses that purpose. Although there may be questions about issues, such as retroactivity, which are currently before the courts with regard to the Ontario registry, this matter is something that can be dealt with at committee in terms of either transitional provisions or subject to the disposition of jurisdictional proceedings with regard to the justice practice or the charter challenges.

Is the member satisfied that the matters he has raised are sufficient to simply throw the bill away or does he believe that there are matters in the bill that could be appropriately addressed at committee where substantive amendments could be discussed and made at committee stage?

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, if there are amendments, and there will be amendments from our party, if those amendments are taken seriously and are accepted as being reasonable amendments to improve the legislation, if sufficient work is done on it to improve the bill to make it palatable, I do not have a closed mind on this. I like to look at bills and motions and evaluate them for what they are.

Where the bill is right now, I cannot support it, anymore than when I was in trucking and my boss would pay me to go from here to a place 400 miles away and return with the same empty truck. We were paid to pick up a load, not just to drive there and back. This is what the bill does. It has the label and the pages but the words on the pages do not do what they should be doing. Consequently, yes, I am forced on principle to vote against the bill because it does not do anything. It only has the labels.

I would like to encourage the member and other members in the Liberal Party, when they work on the bill in committee, to put partisanship aside and if amendments come across from our party or other opposition parties, as well as their own backbenchers, that they will listen to them. The member in particular knows how open the government is to seriously considering amendments that are made in committee. He has learned that very well in Bill C-13 in the last little while.

I am not very hopeful. It just does not happen around here. It should but it does not. However that is my answer to the question.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the member's last reference to Bill C-13, I think we all recognize now that we must make 43 amendments to get 3. Maybe we have some opportunity.

Should the bill, as presented, be defeated, I would ask the member to advise the House on what specifically he would like to see in a new bill that would be different and that would make it acceptable to him.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to see in the principles a statement that the primary purpose of the bill is to protect innocent people, to protect the citizens of our country from sexual predators. I would like to see the bill have a clause in it that says that any known sexual offenders in our country, and there are many of them who are known, would automatically go into the registry.

What is the point of having a registry if all of the present offenders are not in it? That is the purpose of it, is it not, to identify people who have offended before? If we break it down to just the bare bones purpose stated in this bill it is to help the police do their investigation. How does it help them if it is an empty registry, until it slowly grows over the next years?

I have many more. Could I have another minute? Mr. Speaker, could you ask for unanimous consent?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

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 as follows: the hon. member for Windsor West, Automobile Industry.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of debate in the House is to have an exchange of ideas. I just asked the hon. member a question about what he would like to see in the bill, a new bill coming forward if this one is defeated, and what could be changed to make it acceptable to him. He said that he wanted to see the principles and that it was there to protect Canadians. I am not quoting him directly but I think the intent of his statement was that the registry would be there to protect Canadians from sexual offenders.

Let us look at Bill C-23, clause 2, “Purpose and Principles”. Subclause 2(1) reads:

The purpose of this Act is to help police services investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring the registration of certain information relating to sex offenders.

Subclause 2(2) reads:

This Act shall be carried out in recognition of, and in accordance with, the following principles:

(a) in the interest of protecting society through the effective investigation of crimes of a sexual nature, police services must have rapid access to certain information relating to sex offenders;

I could go on but I think the second clause of the bill addresses precisely what the member said he would like to see in it. It is there to protect the interest of the public.

Canadians can see that in debate the opposition has a role, not only in debate but as an opposition party, the official opposition, and that is to make the government look bad. The opposition tries to pick away and provide information, maybe not all the information, but in a way which will tend to paint a picture. It also does a good job of giving selective information.

Canadians will know that the bill is dedicated to the establishment of a sex offender registry. It is being responsive to the needs of our police enforcement agencies.

I want to go back to the announcement made by the federal Solicitor General and the Attorney General of Canada of December 11 when he introduced the legislation. He announced that the new legislation reflected the consensus reached with provincial and territorial ministers last November.

The first and important point here is that this has been an issue of concern, not only to the federal government but also to provincial and territorial governments. Those jurisdictions have worked carefully and closely to ensure that as the legislation moves forward and goes through all the stages that it actually will deal with the substantive points for which advocates have been calling for some time.

We know there always has been, as long as I can remember, an RCMP registry. Indeed, it includes substantial information on those convicted of crimes, and that has been available for the police to look at for a variety of reasons.

However the issue of a sex offender registry is more focused and more intense so as to reflect the values Canadians have expressed with regard to the whole issue of sexual abuse.

I do not think I have heard any hon. member in this place deny the fact that we abhor sexual abuse, those who would perpetrate crimes or exploit women, children or others in a sexual manner. It is a degrading, offensive act that the House will address, and this bill is one of the tools.

The Solicitor General and Attorney General of Canada, and the Minister of Justice jointly brought this forward to advise Canadians.

We are getting to the point where a lot of posturing or positioning has been made and we are getting a little focused on maybe just throwing the negatives out. We now have an amendment before the House that basically says that we should defeat the bill right now, that we should not pass it at this stage of the legislative process because it does not do what it is supposed to do.

That is a very valid amendment for the opposition to make. It also is important for other members in the House to share their views with regard to whether this is a bill with which we can work. We are at second reading and it means that agreement in principle will be dealt with, but some of the most important work that will be done on the bill will be done at committee.

I believe members will agree that when we can bring a bill before committee, it puts a motion on the floor, as it were. It defines the ballpark in which we are going to discuss things. Rather than the development of the concepts, we will have some things to speak to directly. It also means that we are able then to bring before a committee expert witnesses and testimonies from those who either have been directly affected by the subject matter or who have material and information that they believe is important for members of Parliament to be aware of, particularly those on the committee who are dealing with the bill at committee stage, so that as we move forward in the process and consider amendments, there will be reasoned amendments proposed that will be responsive to the testimony given at committee.

Members will know that with legislation they cannot afford to play the partisan card all the time. They are there to do the best they can to bring forward reasoned amendments that will improve the legislation or correct inconsistencies, errors or matters which do not make the bill as strong as it otherwise could be.

The consensus will be that we need to have a national sex offender registry, but we also need functional and useful legislation so it will do the best possible job with regard to not only the identification of sex offenders but for the purposes of deterrence or identifying where they may be in the event a sexual offence has been committed, that there will be this ready access. I am not familiar enough with the logistics about whether this has preventive measures but I would think that the existence of a sex offender registry will constitute, to some extent, a deterrent situation.

The amendment to which I am speaking was raised specifically because of the whole concept of retroactivity. As I had indicated earlier, it would appear to me that it is in the best interests of all concerned that all information currently known about any persons would be relevant for a sex offender registry. As a principle, I think that makes sense. It is very difficult to say that some information is not as relevant. I know the information but I will not share it because of the timing of legislation or other things.

On its face, one would say that certainly the retroactivity principle seems to be an area where we have to consider whether or not there are ways in which we can effectively get there to make use of important and relevant information. That, from a common sense basis, is useful and important for members to know, but we also have to educate ourselves about some of the practicalities of our laws and whether or not our laws have been written in a way that will withstand a charter challenge or some sort of jurisdictional challenge because they were not written in the right way. It would be disastrous if a piece of legislation were impaired because of a technical problem.

I have looked at the briefing notes. There is a section on retroactivity. I am not a lawyer by profession but I understand some of these principles. Certainly the first point is that with regard to the retroactivity, the fact that it is not there is consistent with the principles of justice. That is a very broad statement, but it is a statement with which the members can make some examination. What principles of justice are there? How can the bill still respect the consistency with established law and precedent, et cetera, and not get into challenges in some jurisdictions?

The second part has to do with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We know that the charter not only brings to us a tremendous protection of the rights and freedoms of Canadians but it also opens us up to defend them in ways which sometimes drag things on. In this regard it is suggested that there are potential or in fact actual charter questions that have been brought to bear. I am told that there is a proceeding in Ontario on its SOR act and it is currently under review by Ontario and federal justice officials with regard to this very issue of retroactivity. As that review and all the activities with regard to the retroactivity provisions within that Ontario legislation are dealt with, they will give members a better sense of the validity of the concerns with regard to either justice practices and principles or potential charter challenges.

The registration system ensures and must ensure the fair treatment of persons subject to the registry through a number of measures. I would suspect that there are some members who will not agree with the premise that those who are convicted of sexual offences are entitled to fair treatment and that they would be entitled to fair treatment under the registry under the bill, because they are convicted criminals. That is not how it works in Canada. All persons in Canada have rights.

I know that there are many cases of habitual criminals or others who have a recidivism rate such that they would be a clear threat to society, and that there are cases in which people may be retained, incarcerated, et cetera, so that the Canadian public can be protected. I am not sure how this works, but there are examples. Although these people have rights, as do others, the Supreme Court of Canada has often made rulings in which it has not rejected the fact that any one party would have rights but has decided in a number of cases that the rights of one person would supersede or override the rights of another person. So there are ways in which even the charter challenges could be dealt with and I am aware of a couple of cases, but I think the members understand my point.

The bill calls for requirements to register and states that can only occur through a judge's order in a hearing where the offender has the right to counsel and the right to be heard. Again, this is to the point: Does a convicted sex offender have the right, that right to be heard and the right to counsel? Under our system, all Canadians do.

It also states that the presiding judge will have the discretion to refuse Crown applications for registration orders based on the “grossly disproportionate” test provided in section 487.05 of the Criminal Code for DNA identification act orders. I am going to have to study that one a little more carefully because it is substantive, but again, it is a specific matter on which the members must take the time to consult with those who are trained and have the expertise to explain the grossly disproportionate test and to determine its applicability here as it relates to the retroactivity concern.

It also states that the Crown must make an application at the time of sentencing and that registered offenders will have the right to apply for a review of their status after 20, 10 or 5 years, and when they receive a pardon. Again, there are prescriptions for the registration. It may not be a forever thing. I think members could make a good argument that the recidivism rate for sexual offenders generally is high and that it would be very easy to apply this to all who are sexual offenders of any type or sort. I am not sure if that is the case. I suspect that some cases are much clearer than others, but this is part of the process and I think that the members at committee will want to satisfy themselves that all either should or should not be painted with the same brush.

The bill prescribes that registered offenders will also have the right to appeal a registration order. Again, right of appeal, in justice practice, is the right of all. I guess it comes down to the point of whether or not Canadians, even those who are convicted of criminal offences, have diminished rights. I know that there are some examples where in fact they do have diminished rights in a number of cases. Members may be able to demonstrate that the diminishment of certain rights is substantively the same and that maybe this would also be applicable to some provision of this bill as it relates to the concern about the retroactivity provisions.

The registered offenders will also have the right to review their data within the sex offender database and to request corrections. That may seem like a pretty nominal request, but I would suspect that any information that is kept on persons and that is not correct, regardless of what it relates to, could be damaging to a person. Again, the person has rights, so it does make some sense.

The bill contains strict controls on who has access to information in the sex offender database and on how authorized persons may use the data. Now we get into the aspects where it is very important to ensure that the integrity of the system and the integrity of the information are not misused or abused in a way that would affect probably all concerned, I would suggest.

Finally, breaches of privacy rights of the registered offenders would be a criminal offence. For some members I suspect that may be on its face somewhat problematic, in that to say that violating the privacy rights of a particular individual would be a criminal offence. I am not sure what the dimensions of that are on other criteria, but I suspect that there are degrees of disclosure of information covered under the Privacy Act, some of which may not be meritorious of a criminal offence. I think this is probably another area at which members may want to look.

I have been trying to make the point that, notwithstanding the fact that we can all make a case on our concerns about issues related to sexual offenders and to the best interests of those who have been abused, or those at risk of being abused or those in the public who may be exposed to persons with a high recidivism rate, we have to be very careful with the bill. But from what I hear in listening to the debate today, I am somewhat encouraged by the tenacity of members to ask tough questions. This is the way that we make legislation better.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, when we start each day here we have a prayer and we pray for the wisdom to make good laws. This is part of that process. Hopefully we are achieving some wisdom and that wisdom will be carried forward into committee stage.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments and then a very specific question for the hon. member.

First, he said in his speech that we were very selective, that we showed all the flaws in the plan but did not mention the good stuff, so I am going to correct that. It has a great title. It was a good point to start from and that is where they quit. The government had the title right but there is absolutely no meat in the sandwich. That is what the government has to go back to.

This has to be retroactive from the time it is put in or it is never going to be put in. If this thing passes without retroactivity, somewhere later it will be 10 times as hard. If a bunch of vacillating, fence-sitting, blow in the wind Liberals do not have the guts to do it now, then it is better that there is absolutely nothing and that they just get out of the way and let some new party come in that is going to do the kinds of things Canadians want and will put in this kind of law.

Second, he talked about getting it to committee so we could have expert witnesses. I saw that process already in the justice committee. I saw it with statutory release. I saw where there was unanimity that we would put in a recommendation to get rid of statutory release. What happened? The whip's office or the PMO or someone up there said, “We do not like this. Get back there and fix that”. What did the Liberals do? They selectively called more expert witnesses to come in and say that this was bad and that was bad. They reversed themselves and they reversed the arrangements we had already made.

The question I have is this. During his speech, the hon. member said that the bill is in response to the request of police agencies. There are at least a dozen police agencies in my riding alone and there are hundreds, if not thousands, across the country. I would ask him this: Can he name just one police agency, just one of all the thousands in this country, just one police agency that came to him or anybody in his party and said, “Please bring in a bill that has no retroactivity and a big loophole for anybody in the future”? Just one.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the title of the bill is “An Act respecting the registration of information relating to sex offenders, to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”.

That is one piece. The member related it to a sandwich, but that is one piece. I think the member is very good at giving rhetoric. I saw a sizzle but I did not see the steak. I did not see what exactly is missing. If it is the matter of retroactivity, he would have certainly listened to my speech in which I laid out that there are within the bill some problems with regard to retroactivity, which may be subject to certain charter challenges or justice principles or practices.

I am sorry that he is so cynical about the opportunities we have at committee. Members are all asked to make recommendations for witnesses to be heard. I think that the member will concede that no witnesses are ever denied, unless it is clear that they would be repetitive of other witnesses who have the same or better expertise.

With regard to his final question, I have talked to our own police chief about the sex offender registry. In fairness, he did not raise with me a concern about the retroactivity provision, but he did say that it is important for us to pursue the establishment of the national sex offender registry because it is in the best interests of Canadians.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was on a roll about all the things that are wrong with this bill and I am not even a critic in this area. I just walked in here, asked a page to give me a copy of the bill so that I could speak intelligently on it and got as far as page two in my speech. I would like to have the opportunity to go right to the end of the bill, there are so many things that are so offensive in it. I do not understand how this member, who generally stands up for the family, for marriage and for the protection of citizens, at least in words, would even contemplate being in favour of this bill.

One of the most absurd things in the bill is that the offender is required to show up 15 days after he is released to tell things like his name, his aliases, if there are any, and any distinguishing marks on his body. He has to tell them. This is not rocket science. They have the guy in custody. Surely they know his name. Surely if he has some distinguishing marks on his body, they could detect them. Why not have a bill which provides that the police, the officials at the prison where he is being kept or the institution enter this information? Why do we have say he has to register it?

There is also a deal about penalties if the offenders do not register: We have to go find them again. Generally these are people who commit crime after crime of this nature. How many more offences will this person commit before he ever registers and how is that going to help the police to conduct an investigation on those new crimes after he is released?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member but we are talking about persons who are convicted of sexual offences. I am pretty sure those who are convicted probably go to jail. I thought that once there was a conviction and a sentencing, at that point the Crown could apply to the court for a registration order and registration would occur for sexual offences.

It also says that once a court has ordered registration, notice will be provided to the offender requiring him to register in person at a designated police agency within 15 days after the order is made or upon release from custody. If I read this properly, and I guess it is subject to dealing with the justice officials to explain, this order could be processed during the incarceration of the person.

I also understand though that there may be cases where people are convicted of a sexual offence and they may have served their sentence and are discharged back into society before this period is up. In that case there would be the requirement for them to go to an agency.

I do not think it is as simple as waiting until after people serve their sentence and they go out into the public, then we have to go find them to register. It would appear to me that substantively all this will take place at the time just following the conviction of a sex offender.

The member is not a lawyer nor am I. He has raised a question, which is a good question to ask in committee or of justice officials who are available to him at any time to answer questions on the bill. There is also a legislative summary. However to start to interpret at this point what he thinks it means may not be helpful to the overall bill. I ask him to maybe make the necessary inquiries before he asks his questions.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to read the bill. I urge the member to read it. It says, “A sex offender shall report for the first time under an order, in person, to the registration centre within 15 days”. Then there are different items listed and one of them, part (d) says after “they are released from custody after serving the custodial portion of a sentence”.

I looked for the part about actually making an initial registry while they are incarcerated and I cannot find it. If he knows it is there, that is great but I would like to see it. I cannot find it and I do not believe it is there. That is why I was so very much opposed to this.

Furthermore, it says in paragraph 6(2), “Notification shall be by registered mail or any means authorized by the lieutenant governor in council of the province”. Then it says, “a sex offender may not be required to provide notification in person”.

Therefore, the bill even states that the provinces cannot pass a law that states that the offender must physically, personally show up. That is wrong.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the procedures were fairly clear. It did say that once a court has ordered registration, notice will be provided to the offender requiring him to register in person. He may very well and probably will be incarcerated at that time but registration is required to be renewed annually. Therefore depending on the circumstances, the bill has to cover the renewal of registration.

It also says that the registration period begins on the day the order is made and re-registration is required once a year and within 15 days of a change of name or residence.

I think the member may not be reading the bill very clearly but it would appear to me that the registration order, in the vast majority of cases, likely will be made at the time when the person is still in custody.