Lynn Myers

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honour to stand in the House to discuss the national registry for convicted sex offenders. It makes a valuable contribution to protecting the most vulnerable members of our society from the most dangerous offenders who would sexually abuse and exploit them. No one in the House or Canadians across our great country condone that kind of action.

I am sure all members of the House would agree that we want the best system possible to protect our communities from high risk offenders and to enhance public protection, especially for our children.

The primary goal of our national registry of convicted sex offenders is to prevent individuals from having the opportunity to perpetrate these horrendous crimes while remaining unidentified and undetected. To contribute to this most vital effort of prevention and protection, the government is committed to giving police better tools to help fight crime. We are fulfilling our commitments.

For this reason, the federal government can assure all Canadians that the Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC as the national registry for all convicted sex offenders, is the appropriate tool to achieve the goal of enhancing public safety through the timely and well directed sharing of relevant information.

As all hon. members in the House are aware, we in Canada are currently protected by a criminal justice system that actively encourages and participates in extensive information sharing. Furthermore, through co-operation and consultation with all partners and stakeholders, we are looking at ways to build on the framework now in place. Our ultimate goal is to find ways to maximize the contribution that our criminal justice system makes to public safety and security.

With the primary goal of achieving excellence in protecting the Canadian public, the government has attempted to implement more effective practices and to correct any inadequacies. This means the focus now is on maintaining and improving the lines of communication between and among the police, the courts and the correctional and conditional release authorities.

As many members are aware, the Department of the Solicitor General has been leading a federally integrated justice information initiative. The goal of that initiative is to create a trans-Canada highway of criminal justice information to improve the sharing of offender and crime related information among all partners in Canada's criminal justice system.

The system is called the Canadian public safety information network, and it is a top priority of the government. A crucial improvement will be in the ability to share information more widely and in a more timely manner among police, prosecutors, courts, corrections and parole officials. The backbone of the initiative is a funding contribution of $115 million to the RCMP to renew CPIC to which the solicitor general just referred.

However, because these tools are so critical for law enforcement agencies, it is necessary to embark upon important endeavours, such as the Canadian public safety information network, with foresight and planning. That is something that we as a government are doing. They need to be developed in close co-operation with partners in the system.

In addition to the well-directed efforts and initiatives previously mentioned, the federal government, in consultation with the voluntary and child care sectors and with police and provincial representatives, has chosen a range of other effective measures targeted to protect children from sex abusers.

First, we have put in place a national screening system based on CPIC that allows child caring organizations and individuals to access the criminal records of persons assuming positions of trust with children and other vulnerable groups.

Second, we have passed legislation to give police access to pardon records for screening purposes through Bill C-7, which was passed in the House last spring.

Third, we continue to work in partnership with Volunteer Canada to conduct training and public education about screening practices and to promote screening with voluntary and public sector agencies.

In addition to that, we have adopted strict measures for the most serious offenders, such as the dangerous and long term offender designations. In addition, we provide support for post-sentence programs, such as circles of support.

We also work closely with local police to support public notification schemes about sex offenders. We have put in place special protections to restrict the movement and conduct of sex offenders after their release.

Finally, we have created new offences to protect children and other vulnerable groups.

All of this underscores the commitment of the solicitor general and the Government of Canada to ensuring the protection, safety and security of our children, especially as related to these horrific cases.

These are tangible examples of how seriously the government takes public safety. However, our work is not done. We need to continue to make good on additional work. We have made a good start with CPIC as a national registry of convicted sex offenders. We have already complied with the hon. member's motion, which is why I, for example, have no hesitation in offering my support.

The point is, as the solicitor general outlined in his speech, we will continue to ensure we have the absolute best possible tools necessary and available to protect all Canadians, especially our young people. The values of Canada and of the government are to ensure safety and security for our children and to ensure we have in place the kind of system necessary to ensure that ours is a good and decent society. That is precisely what we on the government side want, that is what the solicitor general wants and, more to the point, that is what all Canadians want.

I repeat that I have no hesitation in supporting this motion. It is something that we are already doing and will continue to do in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Organized Crime, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in 1997 we brought forward anti-gang legislation that has proved quite effective over the last little while, but we can do better and we are. As we said in the throne speech, we will bring in anti-gang legislation that is tougher. We will also ensure that justice officials are not intimidated. We will also provide the tools necessary to do an effective job.

Instead of the noise opposite and the brouhahas that they create, we are operating in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the member's proposal contained in Bill C-233.

The bill is outlined and is put before us today to discourage an offender from cancelling or postponing his or her parole hearing within a certain period of time before it is scheduled to take place. I understand that this proposal is being put forward to stop the inconvenience that such a cancellation would cause.

I think it is fair to say that is a laudable goal. Last minute postponements can be an inconvenience, especially for those who have to travel great distances, as was pointed out by the speaker prior to me, and also for the victims, media representatives and other observers. Of most concern, obviously, is the situation where a victim has planned to attend a hearing only to have the offender then cancel the hearing after the travel arrangements have been made. This can only add to the upset the victims feel in that kind of situation and with the whole system.

Victims do not choose to be in the situation they are in. To the extent that it is possible to make the process work better for them of course we should do so.

However I fear that the hon. member has gone too far with this bill. If an offender cancels for any reason not found acceptable to the National Parole Board, he or she would not be eligible for another hearing for two years. This is extreme punishment for an offender for what may turn out to be a minor inconvenience. If an offender cancels his or hearing a month or six weeks before it is scheduled to take place, the bill would deny the offender another chance for a parole hearing for two years.

I am afraid that this lengthy deprivation of access to conditional release in cases where only a very minor inconvenience was caused would not stand up to legal challenge.

The hon. member also referred to the need to protect the taxpayer in the first reading presentation of the bill. Any initiatives that would make our system of delivery of services to Canadians more effective would certainly be welcome. That being said, however, I am afraid that is not really an area where substantial or even minimal savings can be made.

When the National Parole Board schedules hearings, it normally schedules a number of hearings on the same day. If one such hearing is cancelled it can still proceed with the other hearings and no additional costs are incurred.

If the case management work has already been done then it is not lost if a hearing is not held. Case management is an ongoing process and reports are continually updated to reflect the current progress the offender is making. A report may need to be updated for a future hearing but again the costs are minimal.

What we need to do in these cases is to ensure that the victims and other observers are told as quickly as possible of the cancellation or postponement. We need to ensure that they find out when the hearing is rescheduled and we need to assist them in participating in a way that is most meaningful to them.

I have to point out that the government continues to work hard to understand the concerns of victims and supports the goal of helping them. We have a track record in that area and will continue it. That is why the government has taken a number of initiatives that will help victims.

We have established the policy centre for victims issues in the Department of Justice. The policy centre is mandated to develop and co-ordinate federal initiatives to strengthen the voice of victims in the criminal justice system.

Bill C-79 was brought into force December 1, 1999. It is legislation to enhance the safety, security and privacy of victims of crime in the criminal justice system. It is intended to ensure that victims are informed about opportunities to prepare victim impact statements and permits victims to read the statements out loud if they so choose. It requires police and judges to consider the safety of victims in all bail decisions. It makes it easier for victims and witnesses to participate in trials and permits a judge to ban the publication of the identity of victims and witnesses in the appropriate circumstances.

Finally, it requires all offenders to pay an automatic victim surcharge, an additional monetary penalty, which will increase revenue for provinces and territories to expand and improve victim services.

The victims policy centre will administer a $10 million victims' fund which will help to ensure that the perspective of victims of crime is considered in the development of all policies and legislation that may affect them. These funds will support innovative programs and services, public education initiatives, conferences and research by non-governmental experts. It will also be used to involve victim advocates and service providers, in partnership with provincial and territorial authorities, to identify key concerns and to develop options and strategies to meet the needs of victims in their communities.

The funds will also assist provinces and territories to implement the new criminal code provisions benefiting victims of crime and the principles enunciated in the Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime agreed to by provinces and territories.

In May 2000 the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled its report on the five year review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act known as the CCRA. In that review it made a number of additional recommendations that will assist victims. In its response, the government has committed to take action on those recommendations.

What victims have told us is that they want more information and they want access to information earlier in the process. They want more opportunities to be heard and more opportunities to provide information. To that end, the government is committed to build on those identified needs.

The government, for example, has agreed to expand the information that will be provided to victims in the CCRA.

Currently, victims can attend National Parole Board hearings as observers. They can submit an impact statement to the board for consideration. New policies will allow victims to personally read a victim impact statement during the conditional release hearing.

For those victims who cannot attend the hearing, we will be exploring how they can have an opportunity to listen to the tapes of parole board hearings at local offices of the National Parole Board or the Correctional Service Canada. This is an attempt to bring the hearings closer to the victim, recognizing that not all victims can or want to be at a hearing in person.

The government also made a commitment to setting up a national office for the victims of crime to improve the links between the federal correctional system and victims.

The office will work with the policy centre at the Department of Justice. It will develop information for victims. It will assist in preparing training materials to ensure that all victim liaison staff are well trained to meet the needs of the victims. That is important and Canadians will recognize that.

The office will work with the Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board to ensure that policies are sensitive to victims' issues and needs.

Finally, it will be focused on solving problems that are identified by victims who find themselves in the system.

To be sure that whatever measures are put in place meet the needs of victims, consultations are taking place right now across Canada to meet with victims and seek their input on what they want from the system and how best to meet their needs. These are the types of meaningful actions that will work to support victims once they find themselves in our criminal justice system.

I respectfully suggest that the approaches taken by the government and that are in the process of being taken by the government go a long way to improving the lot of victims.

However, I cannot support the hon. member's bill. While the inconvenience caused to other observers is regrettable, I think we need to ensure that whatever approach we take balances the rights of all participants, including the offender's right to have a hearing.

The vast majority of offenders do not cancel their hearings to cause inconvenience to either the National Parole Board members, their case management staff or the people who attend. In a small number of cases, unfortunately, this does happen. When it does, it reflects an attitude on the part of the offender that I am sure is taken into account by the parole board.

Having said that, I think it is important that we not support this non-votable item.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, based on the comments being given opposite it is very clear that they have absolutely no interest in assisting the military. It seems to me too that they are writing off Atlantic Canada because after all it is Atlantic Canada that stands to benefit as a result of the kind of movement we are making.

Members opposite have talked about political interference. They are the last people who should be lecturing anyone about political interference, especially in light of some of the comments made by their critic, the member for Calgary Northeast, who said that we should use the notwithstanding clause to get rid of recruiting targets that were mandated by the human rights tribunal and which were designated to diversify the ethnic and gender representation in the military. Talk about political interference.

He went on to say that the prescribed levels of women and visible minorities in the Canadian armed forces had compromised combat capability. Shame on him. Finally he asked if we would force aboriginal people to serve in the navy? It is insane and dangerous. Does that not sum up exactly what those people stand for?

Last Tuesday there was a press release given by the member for St. Albert in which he said the government was on a spending spree. One of the departments in which we spent money was defence. Would the member talk to the member for St. Albert and tell him to get his facts straight? More to the point, would the member make sure that he supports the kind of spending that we are doing, and rightfully so, in the military?

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the last time the member for Saint John brought forward a procurement issue like this, the member for Calgary Northeast, the critic, jumped right on the bandwagon and away he went. As it turned out, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal noted that in fact they were both wrong.

Here we have another example of the reformed Alliance blindly following the Tories in this case.

The point I want to make is this: why is it that the reformed Alliance in 1993, in 1995 and again in 1997, wanted to cut defence but finally, in the last election, talked about $2 billion? We have already done $2.3 billion.

Why are they Johnny-come-latelies on this important issue? Why do they call Atlantic Canada—

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is not fair to this great institution. This is an institution that has evolved, as I said at the outset, over time based on the great principles of the British model. I believe we have come to grips with a kind of democracy that is an example to the world.

It is unfair to use the kinds of abuse tactics that we have seen taking place over time. It is better that we close the loophole and allow you, Madam Speaker, and your colleagues to make the appropriate judgments based on report stage amendments as they should proceed coming from the committee to us.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is not fair to the House of Commons staff who do a great deal of work on our behalf as parliamentarians. It is not fair to have the reform alliance people and the Bloc for example—

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

The taxpayers resent that kind of frivolous frittering away of tax dollars. I suppose it is better to give $800,000 to a law firm that would have settled for $60,000.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, this is precisely the kind of loophole we want to change to ensure that the business of this parliament works in an effective and efficient manner.

The cost of the kind of abuse that we saw in the case of the reform alliance people with Nisga'a and the case of the Bloc Quebecois with respect to the youth justice initiatives bill is totally unacceptable, not only to the House of Commons but to Canadians as a whole.

Canadians who elected us to debate and study legislation resent us wasting the kind of time that the reform alliance and the Bloc members had us do. Canadians simply do not want to see the people, who should be debating legislation and voting according to the will and the needs of their constituents, being hog tied by people who would rather abuse the system. It is an abuse to taxpayers who do not like to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars that were spent as a result of precisely what the reform alliance people did on the Nisga'a bill and what the Bloc did on the youth justice initiative bill. People do not like to see the squandering of those kinds of tax dollars.

The reform alliance always talks the high ground when it comes to making sure that the—

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to speak to the motion tonight. For purposes of public edification I repeat what it is:

That section (5) of Standing Order 76 and section (5) of Standing Order 76.1 be amended by adding at the conclusion of the notes thereto the following: For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage and, in exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be guided by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

I wish to say first and foremost that to listen to the member for Surrey Central is really outrageous. I will tell hon. members why. He raised every grievance, perceived or real, and tried to somehow work it into the example of how we will make parliament work better.

This institution, I can tell members from my time in this great House, came about as a result of the founding fathers getting together in 1867 and providing a framework, a template that works well along the lines of the British parliamentary democracy. It is a template that has evolved over the time we have been here. It has worked well in a democratic fashion, to the benefit of all Canadians as a result.

To hear members opposite, in particular the one prior to my speaking and others too for that matter, talking in terms of how this is tearing down the pillars of democracy in Canada and denigrating parliament is not only outrageous but pathetic in its intent. I will tell the House why.

What we have here is something we have honed over time. We have put in place the very pillars of democracy that we now see bearing fruit. I believe it is something to behold and should be something of great pride to all parliamentarians.

It hurts me to hear members, especially those of the reform alliance, tear away at this institution. That is what they are good at. They are good at being negative. They are good at always trying to rip at the very fabric of this great country. It is a shameful spectacle. It is not something we do not expect from them because, after all, that is who they are: people who would rather tear down than build up and people who would rather rip it apart than make sure it works properly.

The purpose of the motion is straightforward. It is to reconfirm the authority of the Speaker. That is you, Madam Speaker and your colleagues. It is to reassert your ability to select motions for debate at report stage in the manner in which they are intended when they are presented in a legislative process in the House.

We can follow the string all the way back to 1867. More important, I believe our parliamentary procedure and what we are capable of doing in the House go back 32 years as the direct result of a committee that looked at these kinds of things.

For the benefit of the public, fearing that members would take advantage of report stage to move similar amendments of little importance or which were dilatory in nature, the special committee on procedure recommended in its report in 1968 that a rule be adopted to permit the Speaker “to select and combine the amendments of which notice had been given”. Such a rule was then adopted.

Why was that done? It was done to enable the business of the House to get done in a democratically elected fashion to the benefit of Canadians. We have committees where we listen to witnesses. We take amendments. We massage the legislation in front of us. With the benefit of the experience of all the members present, at the end of the day we are able then to come out with a piece of legislation that is workable and to the benefit to all Canadians.

When it comes back at report stage we should not have to be hornswoggled, that is a farmer's term I am used to saying from time to time, by the reform alliance or the Bloc. They should not be tying our hands and doing all kinds of outrageous things when it comes to amendments: frivolous, vexatious and downright terrible things to tie the hands of parliamentarians and to tie up the workings of this great House of Commons.

The Speaker has the power to select or group motions in amendment to be proposed at report stage. That is what we are trying to get back to. That is exactly what was adopted 32 years ago, and that is the way it should be. We would like the Speaker's decision on the grouping of these motions in amendment at report stage to be in a manner consistent with the values of parliament.

In doing that the Speaker would address two matters. The first would be the grouping for debate and the second would be the voting arrangement. These are very important. The motions are grouped according to two factors. The first is the content and the second is the place where they would be inserted in the bill.

Motions would be grouped according to content if they could form the subject of a simple debate. Once adopted, they would have the same effect in different places of the bill or if they relate to the same provision or similar provisions in the same bill.

That is straightforward. That is common sense. That is simply making parliament work effectively in the way it was intended to work. Motions in amendment are continued according to the place where they are to be inserted in the bill when they relate to the same line or lines. These motions in amendment would be part of a single scheme for voting patterns.

That seems to be something Speakers have had over time. It is certainly something that was developed and evolved in the 1970s and beyond. It is important that we reassert the Speaker's ability to make those kinds of rulings.

It is fair at this stage to point out that in recent years successive Speakers have felt less and less inclined to exercise their authority in this matter, with the consequence that report stage has been rendered vulnerable to unsatisfactory and unintended use.

For example, in December 1999 the House was obliged to spend more than 42 consecutive hours voting on 469 report stage motions, most of which were concocted at the last minute or in consultation with the reform alliance people and whatever shenanigans they had in mind to hijack the House in a way that was not only unprofessional and undemocratic but downright silly. At the end of the day we spent enormous amounts of time doing things that should not have been done. The reform alliance people proceeded in a very undemocratic way.

In March 2000 the Bloc followed a similar exercise. Having watched the reform alliance people act out their hijinks and their shenanigans, members of the Bloc decided to get in on the act. This was over another bill and it was an exercise that simply spun out of control. There is no other way of putting it.

We were faced in September 2000 with having to deal with 3,000 frivolous and vexatious motions of little intent, motions that were simply silly and downright ridiculous. The Bloc was trying to emulate the reform alliance. I thank the opposition for not doing its job. Its job is to oppose. It is to be constructive. It is to do things in a manner consistent with our great democratic principles. Those shenanigans are not in keeping with that. Rather, they are simply to be silly for the sake of being silly. If that was what they tried to accomplish, they succeeded.

In the last parliament we had to vote for days on report stage motions because of the abuse of the loophole in the standing orders at report stage. That is exactly and precisely the loophole we are looking to close tonight. It is one that should not be subject to the kind of abuse we saw in 1999.