Carol Skelton

[Question No. 99—, February 22nd, 2002]

How many persons are working on a contract basis rather than a term or indeterminate basis for each department, agency, and government business enterprise (including crown corporations, the RCMP, and the Armed Forces)?

(Returns tabled)

[Species at Risk Act, February 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I want to reassure the House that my Canadian Alliance colleagues and I are very concerned about species at risk and fully support looking after them. I want to talk about Bill C-5 and the motions before us today that deal with jurisdiction and how extremely important they are. The federal government seems content to ride roughshod over existing policies and legislation.

In 1996 the provinces and the federal government agreed to the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada. The accord was established to ensure that complementary legislation would exist among the federal and provincial levels of government. The key word is complementary. It was an agreement that worked toward the common goal of saving species at risk across Canada.

The provinces are fully aware of the specific species and habitat in the respective provinces and are capable of ensuring that these species and habitat are protected. They are also aware of the impact of legislation upon the citizens of those provinces. I am aware of 33 separate pieces of provincial habitat and species protection legislation. This is obviously an issue of great importance for the provinces. They hardly need reminding of the importance of species protection.

Likewise the property owners in the provinces are aware of the impact their actions have upon species and habitat on their land. Every election year in recent memory has seen the Liberals' red book promises outlining their intention to establish legislation to protect endangered species. I would hope that in an attempt to fulfill these longstanding promises the government would not ignore the invaluable co-operation of individual provinces.

There are concerns the government would use unilateral discretion in the application of the bill. While the provinces have their own unique legislation, this bill allows for the minister to use his own discretion in imposing federal legislation upon the provinces. By what standards would these decisions be made? Individual discretion is not something to be taken lightly. What would the influencing factors be in making these decisions? Leaving these decisions open ended is unfair to the provincial ministers and causes doubts and uncertainty among the citizens of the country.

Without delving too deeply into the issue of penalties and punishment, I must say I have concerns over the issue of jurisdiction. How are property owners going to know which rules apply? They may be in complete compliance with all provincial regulations but the federal minister can override those regulations. Suddenly these law-abiding citizens are guilty in the eyes of the federal government. This is hardly fair or equitable to either the provinces or the property owners.

The principle behind the 1996 accord was to ensure that the federal and provincial governments would work together in protecting species. Both levels of government have important roles to play. Leaving the federal minister with absolute discretion over these matters is in direct conflict with the spirit of the 1996 accord.

The antagonistic feelings between the two levels of government seem to be growing daily. Problems already exist over the Canadian health and social transfer. Feelings of alienation between the west and the federal government are growing. The way the bill is currently written will only lead to feelings of animosity between the provinces and the federal government over species at risk.

There is also an air of secrecy included in the legislation. It allows for the federal government to fly in and impose its rules but there is no provision made for involving the property owners in the process. The property owners and those with interests in the land have the right to know what the government's plans are for that land. After all, the property owners own the land and they make their livelihood from that land. Any decisions made in relation to that land would have an immediate effect on the property owners.

The legislation is set up to allow for consultation processes between other levels of government, wildlife organizations and such, but no mention is made of property owners. This will only serve to build feelings of fear, resentment and uncertainty among the property owners. Those with an interest in the land must be included in these talks and consultations. The co-operation of the property owners is vital if this legislation is to be effective in protecting species and habitat.

The consultation process and actions of the government cannot be secretive. The amendments brought forward by the Canadian Alliance provide for public notice being given by the minister. It also calls for consultation between the minister and the affected property owner.

I feel that this is critical. The government is often seen as an entity unto itself, existing far off with no real understanding of the common citizen. There must be an openness among the government, the provinces and property owners. Government should not be allowed to operate behind closed doors.

We live in a democracy. While I fully understand that rules and regulations must apply to all, the implementation of these rules and regulations must be a public process. The property owners and their interests in the land cannot be ignored. Any legislation must keep in mind the rights of the property owners. They must be allowed to be full participants in any action taken by this legislation. It is essential that property owners be included. Without their co-operation, there is little hope of this legislation helping any species at risk.

This legislation will not work if it is approached with a top down attitude. Conservation and species management starts with property owners, not with lawmakers and legislators. Farmers and ranchers are among the finest conservationists in the country. Most do all they can to treat both animals and habitat with respect.

Last fall at a meeting of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the RMs and their administrators and the landowners group spoke about the federal government's heavy handed fisheries department. They talked about how they cannot put in a culvert to drain a slough without a permit. It was taking up to six months to get a permit to build a road. They talked about how farmers had tried to drain sloughs and because the fisheries department was upset with them, they were fined. The farmers were charged for helping their livelihood and for helping their agricultural land.

The shoot, shovel and shut up policy will go on with this legislation. It happens to farmers and rural property owners across the country. We are conservationists in our own habitat and we will look after our environment.

If the federal government attempts a heavy handed approach, it is inevitable it will be challenged on it. Co-operation among all levels of government, interested groups and property owners is far more likely if these relationships are entered into with a feeling of respect. To override the efforts made by the provinces and the individual landowners is not respectful and will be met with challenges.

As a partner in a farming operation, I fully understand the importance of the land and its inhabitants. If we work against the land, it works against us. As landowners we see the importance of saving and protecting those species that exist on that land. The majority of Canadians feel that species and habitat need to be protected. Our environment is a great source of pride.

Canada has a diverse landscape and an amazing variety of wildlife. We need to protect these, but we must work together in order to ensure that full protection is offered to those species that are at risk.

[National Remembrance Day, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to speak to Motion No. 298 that the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton has brought forward in which he calls for the establishment of Remembrance Day as a national holiday.

Canadians have a proud heritage of remembering our war veterans. Every November residents across Canada can be seen wearing the traditional red poppy in remembrance. We attend Remembrance Day services in our local community halls and legions. These traditions are dear to many of us and must continue.

We tend to think of Remembrance Day as a day to remember only those veterans who have fought in wars past. As World War I and World War II fade further into our past, it would be easy too for our memories of those events to fade. It has been said that understanding our past is essential if we truly want to be aware of our future. The men and women who served our country in the past deserve to be remembered.

Remembrance Day also affords us the opportunity to appreciate the efforts of those who are currently serving in the Canadian armed forces both at home and abroad. Canada currently has armed forces in many countries with the emphasis on peacekeeping.

Last November 11, I saw the blue beret of our peacekeepers being worn with great pride. How proud we are of our men and women who are serving our country today. We must remember and recognize the importance of their contributions and sacrifices. The involvement of our armed forces today is as important and worthy of recognition as those who fought in past wars. These sacrifices are made to ensure the safety of all Canadians.

November 11 is already recognized as a day of remembrance. There are provinces that have legislated that it be a holiday. Should it be a national holiday? There are arguments made on both sides. From the poem Flanders Fields:

To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep...

That quote from Flanders Fields allows us to see the importance of remembering those who fought on our behalf, and they must be remembered.

The question remains, would setting aside November 11 as a national holiday be the best way in which we could remember or would it simply be a day off for Canadians? My granddaughters attended our national Remembrance Day celebration in our home town last year. I was very proud of those two little girls when they stood at attention and remembered their uncles who fought in war.

There are dangers in not being fully aware of the sacrifices made by those who have fought on behalf of Canada. Last December 6 saw flags flying at half mast at every federal building across this country. This action was taken in remembrance of the 14 young women who were killed in the shootings in Montreal. This was a horrific event that deserves a moment of remembrance by all Canadians. Violence on such a scale cannot be tolerated in a society such as ours.

A month earlier on November 11 only one flag was mandated to fly at half mast, the flag on the Peace Tower in Ottawa. Over 114,000 men and women have been killed defending our country from tyranny. Their lives should be remembered on a grand scale as well. Only one flag was lowered in their memory.

That action was met with outrage and dismay from veterans groups across this country. In fact, my colleague from Souris--Moose Mountain will be introducing a private member's bill to ensure that flags on all federal buildings fly at half mast in recognition of the sacrifices made by those in our Canadian armed forces.

What actions should be taken to ensure that the sacrifices of our veterans are effectively remembered? I believe that education is the key. Education of future generations of Canadians is needed to guarantee that our veterans are remembered.

Education on such a scale is easily undertaken in our school system. Every year thousands of children across the country are taught of wars past and the sacrifices made by those who fought to ensure their freedom. Veterans and legionnaires are allowed into schools to tell stories of past events and show children the importance of remembering. My granddaughters have had veterans visit their school. They have been truly impressed and have told me amazing stores.

Schoolchildren are encouraged to actively participate in poetry and poster contests. Last year the Royal Canadian Legion received over 65,000 entries. That is an outstanding number. Some 65,000 Canadian children took an active role in remembering the lives of Canadian veterans.

The knowledge gained by these children will have a direct impact on the lives of those around them. They will begin to ask their parents and grandparents about their own memories of wartime. The impact of the lessons will be carried with them as they grow.

Would the message of Remembrance Day reach these children if they had a day off school or would they spend the day watching television, hanging out at the mall or talking with friends on the phone? Is the message of Remembrance Day being delivered? Would schools participate in the same way to ensure children are taught these important lessons? Having a day a remembrance enables teachers and community groups to relay the message of the day.

Schools throughout Canada hold Remembrance Day services. Children have the opportunity to meet with veterans. These interactions are invaluable in making Remembrance Day real for children. By meeting veterans children are able to see the reality of wars past. It is more than just stories and pictures. They are able to meet people who were in the wars and conflicts. There is no better teaching tool.

Many legions agree that the best way to connect with future generations is to maintain the educational element in the school environment. The title of the day, Remembrance Day, invites us to remember, pause and reflect on the actions and sacrifices of those who have fought for the freedom of our country. Would this be effectively accomplished by having a day off? Would the message be taken to heart more effectively if we were not required to be at work or school?

The education of future generations of Canadians about the sacrifices of our veterans is of utmost importance. Whatever decisions are made we must keep this in mind. We must find a way to effectively convey the importance of the day. Lest we forget.

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the report stage of Bill C-5 is very important. The issue of compensation is one that rose again and again in committee. It is a point of contention for any property owner or other individual or company with a vested interest in land.

The key to the success of Bill C-5 is co-operation. We have been stressing this point. The federal and provincial levels of government, wildlife management agencies and property owners must agree to work together in order for species and habitat to be protected.

There is little hope of true success if this co-operation means financial hardship for property owners. I know that in the western provinces, where many property owners are also farmers and ranchers, they are still reeling from the effects of last year's drought. By all indications that weather pattern will continue on into this production year. The last thing these producers need is more financial burden placed on them by the government.

Most of the producers and landowners with whom I have been in contact are having problems. Many feel that the government has abandoned them. They are in need of help and co-operation from the government, yet they do not see this happening.

The bill rests firmly on the government's feeling that it should be trusted. The government will have a hard time selling that kind of policy in most areas of the country. There must be equality in the bill. In particular, equality must be applied to the financial implications of implementing the legislation. Landowners, ranchers and farmers cannot be expected to take on the lion's share of the cost of these measures. The wildlife and habitat that is to be saved would be to the benefit of all Canadians and the cost of the program should then be shouldered by all Canadians.

Property owners should not be subjected to undue financial hardship. Provisions must be made for the mandatory compensation of property owners. This cannot be left to the discretion of the minister. Compensation must be extended not only to property owners but also to those with an interest in that land. This would mean including those with a legal interest, such as the leasing of crown land.

The minister would have us believe that the issue of compensation is complex and requires more studying. The bill can hardly be passed through the House without having clear and definite guidelines for compensation. Once again the government would have us trust it.

Fair market value should be the basis of compensation. This would simplify the issue. Independent review boards or tribunals would make the decision on what this level of compensation would be. To leave this important issue up to the discretion of the minister simply will not work.

When left to its own discretion, we see what happens within the government. It said that we should trust it, that a national gun registry would be efficient and cost effective, and that Canadian agriculture was a priority and that funding would be adequate.

Guidelines for compensation must be included in the bill. Without the promise of fair compensation, the co-operation of the property owners will be limited. This is not to mean that the property owners are not interested in the protection of endangered species. There is, however, little incentive to co-operate when property owners know that the financial burden of this protection is solely that of the property owner or the interested party.

As the protection of species at risk benefits all, the responsibility of ensuring this protection must be shared by all. Compensation only makes sense. If an owner's financial situation is directly affected by someone else's actions, then it is reasonable for the property owner to seek compensation. The government should not be allowed to consider itself exempt from this basic practice.

Many property owners take it upon themselves to be active in the efforts of conservation and protection. Incentives, such as compensation, would go a long way toward securing these efforts. Conservation and protection is not a one time deal. It is an ongoing effort. There are long term losses faced by property owners if their land is used for these purposes. The property owner has the right to expect compensation for these losses.

The farmers and ranchers that I know are environmentalists and conservationists. They have developed and implemented many fine examples for environmentalists and conservationists to look at. We should listen to them and make sure their wishes and wants are looked at before the government proceeds to make this unfair bill law.

Compensation must be a broad base approach. There should be the inclusion of recovery of legal and other costs incurred by property owners outlined in the bill. Not all property owners have the financial resources to defend their position in courts. Compensating legal costs would offer them a level playing field if conflicts arose between themselves and the federal government due to the implementation of the legislation.

Extraordinary impact cannot be the basis for compensation. Any impact on the property owner must be recognized. To limit compensation to severe circumstances will only serve to limit property owners' willing participation in the protection of endangered species and habitat. That is where we get the shovel and shut up theory that has gone on. It has caused lots of problems in the livestock industry.

If left as it is, the outline for compensation being granted only where extraordinary impact occurs leaves us all wondering who will be making the decisions on what constitutes extraordinary impact. Will these decisions be left to the minister? This is far too indefinite. What may be seen as extraordinary to one person may not be seen as extraordinary to another.

The property owners, I am sure, will be far more likely to view impact on their land as extraordinary than the minister would be. This again leaves the property owners at the mercy of the minister. This is neither fair nor just.

What is key in this issue is the rights of the property owner. These cannot be superseded by the whims of the government. If the principles and goals behind the bill are to truly succeed, the property owner is the first step toward these goals. The bill expects the property owners to be aware of their responsibilities but is negligent in addressing the rights of the property owners. Without landowners' co-operation, there is little hope of success.

Without the necessary amendments, we are left with a bill that amounts only to good intentions. The bill's enforcement and guidelines are far too ambiguous. It lacks the clarity and definition necessary to ensure the adequate protection of species at risk in this country.

The bill must be fair to all participants. Only then will we benefit from its good intentions.

[2002 Winter Olympics, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer congratulations to Catriona LeMay Doan. Catriona won the gold medal in the 500 metre speed skating event at the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City last week. This comes exactly four years after winning the gold at the Olympic Games at Nagano. She continues to set Olympic and world records in her sport.

Catriona, who is originally from Saskatoon, is a source of pride not only for Saskatoon and Saskatchewan residents, but for all Canadians. Her skill, determination and grace are an inspiration to all of us. While Canada may not have the highest medal count, we can be assured that our athletes will face each situation and event with dignity and grace.

Canadian athletes are among the finest at these games. We are proud of our athletes. As the Canadian team continues to participate in these Olympic events, I wish to extend on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar our very best wishes.

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill C-408. The bill would remove the word illegitimate from the definition of child in two federal statutes and replace it with the phrase “child born of persons who were not married to each other at the time of the birth”.

This is not merely a cosmetic change to make people feel better. Words are important. They have profound meaning. Words are concepts that reflect our most deeply held beliefs. They guide the direction of public policy. The word legitimacy in this context lies at the heart of the difference between conservatism and liberalism.

The issue is the negative nature of the word illegitimate. There is an element of fairness to it. A child can be born and raised with a label that stigmatizes him or her as something less than a legitimate person because of the circumstances of his or her birth. The circumstances into which children are born are something over which they have no influence whatsoever, yet children are marked for life with the negative word illegitimate. This is truly unfair. A child should not be forced to suffer because of something his or her parents did.

There are many ways children can suffer because of the actions of their parents. Let us take the problem of fetal alcohol syndrome. A pregnant woman with a drinking problem may be condemning her child to a life of great personal difficulty. This too is unfair.

Parents with substance abuse problems, chronic gambling addictions and diseases brought on by their own actions pass them along to their children on a daily basis. Patterns of verbal and physical abuse are unconsciously transmitted to children by their parents. It is a rule of life that we all echo both the greatness and failings of our ancestors. This is reality but it is not fair.

For this reason I agree that the word illegitimate in referring to children should be removed. Every child is a legitimate person and the laws of Canada should reflect it.

Research literature universally attests to the fact that it is in the best interests of children to grow up in a stable home where the parents are married. A professor at the University of Chicago examined numerous statistical studies across America and had this to say in her recent book, The Case for Marriage :

Why does it matter to kids whether or not their parents are married? A short answer is this: Marriage shapes children's lives first and foremost by directing the time, energy and resources of two adults toward them...it is marriage that creates the conditions under which warm, affectionate, consistent parenting is most likely to take place.

There is much evidence from Canada as well. In its massive National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Statistics Canada found that:

--children from single-mother families had higher rates of difficulties than children from two-parent families for all of the emotional and behavioural problems and academic and social difficulties examined, and the differences in these rates were all statistically significant...The average household income of a single-mother family was...less than half that of a two-parent family.

The value of marriage is confirmed by Canadian social commentators such as Professor John Richards, a former NDP member of the Saskatchewan legislature. He said “At this point, I want to be blunt: family structure matters, and two parents are preferable to one for successful child raising”.

The state of lawful union is designed to be a protection for children. The law recognizes that if a couple is committed to join their lives together and form a permanent home their union forms a stable, healthy cradle in which to grow a happy and healthy child. It would be ideal for every child to enjoy an environment like this. It is therefore less than ideal for a man and woman to have a child when they are not committed to each other, not committed to the child and without any intention of imparting to their child the benefits of their collective support.

If it is in the best interests of children to be born to parents who are lawfully wedded it is in the interests of the state, even the state's responsibility, to encourage that behaviour. John Richards says:

In general, two-parent families, comprising a mother and a father, raise children more successfully than do other family structures...Accordingly, social policy should discriminate fiscally on behalf of such families (and)...it makes sense to discriminate fiscally against divorce--

As a society we need to reaffirm that sex is not just a lark or a thrill. It is a serious act of tremendous gravity and importance. It is the most profound of any physical union and bears the potential to produce another human being worthy of dignity, respect and a lifetime of caring and love.

The recognition of the tremendous value of every child lies at the foundation of the institution of marriage. To reduce its position of privilege and honour by legitimizing arrangements that are not in the child's best interests is to reduce the protection we can afford the weakest members of our society: our children.

The state has the right and the responsibility to help single parents and their children in the difficult situations in which they find themselves, and to encourage marriage and dual parenting in the future by using the instruments of public policy and the institutions of government.

The question marks a great difference between the world view of the liberal and that of the conservative. The liberal believes in the granting of more individual freedom. Unfortunately this too often happens at the expense of others. The conservative believes the state should require more individual responsibility and cause its citizens to exercise more caution and care toward others.

While the dictionary definition of illegitimate is “not lawful”, the word has a more negative connotation. Children should be given every opportunity to enter the world as free of obstacles as possible. The psychological implications of labelling children illegitimate are a barrier to a healthy childhood.

In closing, I reiterate my belief that no child should be labelled with such a negative term as illegitimate. From birth every child is a legitimate being and should be validated as such.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member. I will be watching closely.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saanich--Gulf Islands for his eloquent question.

I believe Canadians want us to support our families and children. I agree totally with him. What I have heard from my constituents is that they want us to put laws and systems in place that protect children totally so they are safe and not preyed on. We must do this.

I have a son in law who is a police officer. My oldest granddaughter is 13 years old. On the weekend she sat on my knee, cuddled me and told me she loved me. She is a little girl. It breaks my heart to think about little children being abused because the government will not go forward and put a system in place that can be used effectively to catch these people.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the Canadian Alliance supply day motion. The motion is in response to the government failing to establish a national sex offender registry.

In a motion adopted by the House in March 2001, the deadline for the introduction of the registry was January 30. That day has now passed with no action on the part of the government.

Canada is quickly becoming a haven for sex offenders. A B.C. court ruled that child pornography was okay. The logic behind that decision eludes me. How can it be okay for our children to be violated in such a manner? How is it okay to allow adults to use, abuse and endanger our children?

It was the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that put forward the motion for the registry. How is justice served by ignoring the recommendations of the committee? How is justice served by allowing our children to face horrific circumstances perpetrated by adults? How are the human rights of our children being protected by ignoring their plight?

Unwilling to wait for the federal government to do something about the safety of children, the Ontario government initiated its own updated and more advanced sex offender registry. This is surely a source of comfort for the parents in that province. I applaud the Ontario government for its forethought and action in this matter.

Why does the federal government continue to drag its feet on this matter? Are the children in other parts of the country not important? Does it believe that if it ignores the issue the rest of the provinces will follow Ontario's lead and initiate their own registries?

Is it not the responsibility of the government to look after the welfare of all children in Canada? Once sex offenders move out of Ontario, tracking them is left to the Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC, a system that is not effective. A national registry is needed in order to track the whereabouts of these offenders.

The solicitor general touts the performance of the CPIC system as being all that Canadians need. That system cannot provide jurisdictional searches, radius searches or searches by physical descriptors. It also does not have the ability to include photographs.

Also lacking in the current system is the legislation necessary to force offenders to register and keep their information current. Pedophiles are given great opportunities to abuse our children in Canada. They are legally allowed to engage in sexual activity with a consenting 14 year old. The sexual age of consent in Canada is 14 years of age. Fourteen year old children--and at 14 they are just children--are legally allowed to make crucial decisions concerning their sexual activities. Children of that age possess neither the maturity nor the life experience to make such critical decisions.

The former minister of justice was approached in connection to raising the age of sexual consent. It currently stands at 14 years of age. The government has refused to act to protect our children.

It is a pedophile's dream to be in a country that legally allows sexual activity with children as young as 14. Due to their lack of maturity and experience, these children are easy prey. It is much easier to induce and persuade them to commit acts that are not in their best interests than it would be with a person who is older.

Parents are helpless against these persuasions and inducements. Police associations and family and social agencies agree that the age of consent must be raised. Parents who are actively trying to get their children off the streets and away from pedophiles, pimps and others are offered no help from the justice system. If the child is 14, he or she is allowed to make these decisions. Law enforcement agencies and other departments are unable to help the parents save their children.

A 14 year old is entitled under the laws of Canada to make these unhealthy decisions. A 40 year old man is legally allowed to live with a 14 year old girl. Parents and law enforcement and social agencies are helpless to intervene. While the age of consent is 14, pedophiles and other deviants are able to legally engage in sexual activity with our children.

Early sexual activity in children often leads to increased promiscuity, teenage pregnancy, higher rates of sexually transmitted disease, a tendency to drop out of school, and an increased chance of deviant behaviour later in life. There is a marked increase in the rate of HIV infection among young heterosexual girls in our country.

Early sexual activity and abuse inflicted by older partners leads to increased emotional and social problems in children. Our children should be given every opportunity to have happy, healthy, normal lives. It is not sufficient to have band aid solutions to the problem. We put money into programs to keep kids in school and numerous other social programs. Why do we not give kids a chance by fixing a law that has their best interests in mind?

The attempt to protect our children by way of Bill C-15 as it pertains to the luring of children over the Internet is a start. However with the current age of sexual consent at 14 the new law would only apply to children 13 years of age and younger.

An entire age group of children is being ignored in Canada. At 18 one is an adult and, in the majority of cases, fully capable of making serious decisions about one's actions and future. Those 13 years of age and younger are protected under the law. However the age group of 14 to 17 is offered no protection. This is sending a dangerous message to pedophiles and deviants. I am disgusted to think our country has become a destination of choice for men and women who seek out younger children.

While the government continues to ignore the plight of children 14 years of age and older it is also doing a great disservice to those who are 13 and younger. While these children are protected from pedophiles and abusers under the law they are not fully protected due to limitations on law enforcement agencies to adequately track the movement of pedophiles. Law enforcement agencies are limited due to the government's inaction in implementing an effective sex offender registry.

It has been said time and again that children are our future. We in our party believe that. However the government seems comfortable in the knowledge that it is depriving many of our children from having a future. Children are forced into sexual slavery every day by child molesters, pedophiles and pimps. They are legally allowed to do so under Canadian law at the moment.

Our children deserve the best protection we are able to provide. By doing nothing we send a message that they are not important. The government must act immediately to implement a working, viable sex offender registry. Let us give our children the future they deserve.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member how many police officers he has spoken to and how many parents who have lost children he has spoken to.