Paul Devillers

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it was with some amusement that I listened to the NDP and its position in this regard. The hon. member just mentioned that it was a question of there are none so blind as those who would not see, but I think it is more a case over there with the unholy alliance between all the opposition parties of monkey see, monkey do.

The leader of the Tories, the Progressive Conservatives, has made this a personal inquisition he is conducting against the Prime Minister and all opposition parties are trying not to be outdone in the process.

The member talked about the government being cute on the issue. I think the NDP is being particularly cute in trying to suck and blow at the same time. It is trying to be part of the attack but it recognizes the necessity of dealing with the important issues in the country. It is trying to have a foot in both camps, so to speak.

I asked the leader of the Bloc Quebecois why he does not accept the letter of March 20 from Pouliot, Mercure, solicitors for the company that owns the Grand-Mère golf course. The letter confirms that the resolution was passed confirming the sale in 1993. Why does that not put an end to the matter?

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have here the letter the lawyers for the firm the golf club belonged to, which was submitted to the Standing Committee on Industry.

The fourth paragraph reads:

The board of directors approved, on November 1, 1993, the transfer to Akimbo Development Corporation of all shares of the company held by J. C. Consultants Inc. As of that date, J. C. Consultants Inc. no longer appeared in the resolutions of the shareholders and the company of—

Here they name the Prime Minister.

—no longer appeared in the resolutions of the shareholders and the company;

Why does the leader of the Bloc Quebecois not accept this letter from the well known lawyers Pouliot and Mercure, the company's lawyers? Why does he not accept that the sale took place in 1993?

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I think the government has demonstrated through its crime prevention initiatives and in the most recent election platform where more funds were dedicated to crime prevention that this is definitely the way to protect society. We need to invest in programs. In my riding of Simcoe North there are several good examples of groups of people working with young offenders and taking a sort of sentencing circle approach, where the young offender is brought before the person who suffered the damage from the offender's acts of vandalism et cetera.

These are the types of initiatives that the crime prevention funds are there to support. Those are the kinds of initiatives that will be successful in protecting our society. We need to know that early intervention is the best method of dealing with these folks.

What we do not need are references to Karla Homolka, because that catches people's attention. I heard it referred to again today. I noticed in the TV coverage this morning that the corrections minister for Ontario was talking about Karla Homolka and using her as an example of how statutory release is not working, but Karla Homolka has been detained until her warrant expiry date.

The minister of the provincial government was referring to Karla Homolka in a statutory release situation and saying that the federal government has to fix it. The problem with the Karla Homolka case was the plea bargain that was done through the office of the attorney general of Ontario. It is a provincial issue. There is no lax federal policy that contributes to the concern that people are experiencing there. It is something that they can look to their own backyard and deal with, but no, they want to use that example because they know it catches the attention of the media and the public.

That is the type of thing we do not need. What we do need are reasonable programs of crime prevention and rehabilitation.

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion, which reads:

That the government establish a national sex offender registry, by January 1, 2002.

Obviously I am able to support that motion because there already exists such a national registry. It is called the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC. I want to make it perfectly clear that while I am able to support the motion, I certainly do not support some of the premises and some of the arguments we have been hearing from the official opposition in the course of today's debate.

If we would listen to the official opposition, we would believe that the government has been sitting on its hands and doing absolutely nothing as far as protection of society is concerned.

Madam Speaker, I know that as a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice you are fully aware of many of the initiatives the government has undertaken over the last few years.

I would like to mention just a few of them. There is the national screening system that was put in place in 1994 and allows an agency serving children to request a local police criminal background check through CPIC on anybody wanting to be involved with that agency. In 1999 the solicitor general announced an additional $115 million to renew and enhance CPIC.

The Liberal government has taken a number of steps to protect our children and other targets of sex offenders. For instance, in 1997 the Liberal government passed a number of tough measures dealing with high risk offenders, including sex offenders, to strengthen the sentencing and correctional regime. These include a new long term offender designation which permits supervision of up to 10 years following release from prison. There is also a strengthening of the dangerous offender provision which requires judges to impose indeterminate sentences on all dangerous offenders. There are also new measures in judicial restraining provisions for certain individuals.

There is also the national flagging system. In the year 2000, Bill C-7 was passed, which ensures that even the records of pardoned sex offenders are available through the screening process. Colleagues have made also reference to the DNA identification act, whereby DNA profiles are preserved in a convicted offenders index.

These are all measures that have been put in place by the government to ensure the protection of society, and in particular, children and people who might be susceptible to sex offenders.

I will take the rest of my time to concentrate on what it is that we are doing here today and what the gist of the motion is. Today is a supply day, commonly known as an opposition day, when the opposition gets to choose the topic for debate and put a motion forward for consideration by the House.

Unfortunately, inasmuch as the whole issue of sex offenders is a very serious subject, we are once again seeing partisan politics coming from the opposition party. We hear those party members complain about the way things function around here and about how the government does not listen to their concerns, et cetera. When they have an opportunity to bring forward serious subjects in a serious fashion, we get tricked up opposition day motions. They employ a little device whereby, in this case, they amend the date on the motion, which prevents the government from bringing forward meaningful amendments to the motion so that we can deal with the very serious issues that this whole topic engenders.

There are a lot of things we could be discussing. There are a lot of implications in the subject matter we have here, but with the limited motion designed to entrap the government members so that they would be embarrassed by the vote, it is that trick question where a person is held culpable whether he or she says yes or no. This is the type of tactic that has been employed here. That is why I personally have no compulsion in supporting the motion on the basis that the registry already exists, because I think that is more or less in the spirit of the motion that has been presented.

It also gets us to the point that the opposition would have Canadians believe that crime is out of control in our streets and that we need these draconian measures that have been suggested from time to time in order to increase penalties and in order to protect society. That is the spirit I do not want to be seen to be contributing to and supporting through my support for this motion.

We have a perfect example of this, and that was the Sharpe decision on possession of child pornography, where the opposition, in an opposition day motion, brought a motion to invoke the notwithstanding clause to overturn the B.C. court's decision. Obviously the government was not prepared to invoke the notwithstanding clause to overturn a trial court decision or even the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision when we had recourse to the Supreme Court of Canada, so the government voted against that opposition day motion.

Lo and behold, in the most recent campaign in November 2000 it became an issue when the Alliance candidate in my riding said that the member of parliament for Simcoe North obviously supported child pornography because he voted against an opposition day motion, refusing to invoke the notwithstanding clause to overturn the Sharpe decision. By the way, the Alliance candidate was only parroting what his leader was saying on that same motion in the middle of the campaign. To that I attribute the increase in my plurality from 45% to 51%.

The constituents of Simcoe North know their member. They know that he does not condone child pornography, but that these arguments go too far. When one is dealing with extremists who take their arguments too far, this is a big help in opposing them.

The House should also know that polls were released this week showing that 54% of the Canadians questioned think that more funding is needed for crime prevention programs. What we do not need are measures such as those proposed by the opposition, which keeps calling for tougher sentences because they think that is what the public wants, even though all the experts say the opposite.

However, I think the Canadian public has passed the opposition on this issue. The Canadian public in that poll this week is way ahead of the opposition and knows full well that crime prevention and measures that lead toward rehabilitation are the best ways to protect Canadian society. The best way is not necessarily to bring in more draconian measures.

In conclusion, I just want to confirm that since the CPIC system already exists, which is in conformity with the motion, I will be able to support the motion, but I do want to make it very clear that I certainly do not support the spirit behind the motion.

[Petitions, February 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition containing 135 signatures of people primarily from Simcoe county.

They petition parliament to work and support the bioartificial kidney, which will eventually eliminate the need for both dialysis or transplantation for those suffering from kidney disease.

[Committees Of The House, October 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to order of reference of Tuesday, November 30, 1999 a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was established to conduct a study on organized crime to analyze the options available to parliament to combat the activities of criminal groups and the committee has agreed to report it with recommendations.

I will take this opportunity to congratulate all the hon. members who were on the subcommittee and most particularly the House of Commons staff, the interpreters and our researchers. They worked long and hard to help in the preparation of this report.

[Jim Stone, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to Mr. Jim Stone, a constituent in my riding of Simcoe North, who recently donated his time and talent overseas in the service of the Canadian Executive Services Organization.

CESO is a non-profit, volunteer based organization which brings Canadian expertise to businesses, communities and organizations in Canada and abroad. Mr. Jim Stone volunteered in Lima, Peru where he used his expertise to advise on the management of the paper and textile industry. He also provided technical assistance and made recommendations on production quality and cost.

On behalf of all Canadians, I wish to congratulate Mr. Stone and the many highly skilled Canadian volunteers. It is because of the efforts of people like Mr. Stone that Canada enjoys a strong international reputation.

[John Connor, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to John Connor, a constituent in my riding of Simcoe North, for his work as a volunteer with the Canadian Executive Services Organization. CESO is a non-profit, volunteer based organization which brings Canadian expertise to businesses, communities and organizations in Canada and abroad.

As a volunteer with CESO international services, Mr. Connor provided business advice to a Russian company involved in the manufacture of electric switches for auto plants. He also assisted the company in developing a business plan encompassing marketing and professional development.

On behalf of all Canadians, I wish to congratulate Mr. Connor for his commitment to share his time and expertise with emerging economies like Russia.

[Petitions, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of tabling a petition containing 75 names requesting the labelling of foods containing genetically modified organisms.

[Ronald Reid, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and pleasure today to honour Mr. Ronald Reid, a Canadian volunteer from my riding of Simcoe North.

Mr. Reid is a member of the Canadian volunteer advisers to business, and recently returned from working on assignment in Kyrgyzstan. Mr. Reid worked with the youth ecological movement, an organization that focuses on the preservation of the environment and the development of ecological activities.

Mr. Reid helped to develop a business plan and a fundraising strategy to expand the work of the organization. He held meetings with five potential lending agencies and, as a result, the organization has reworked its submission to the World Bank small branch programs.

I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Mr. Ronald Reid on his outstanding efforts, and a special thanks to all volunteers who have committed time, energy and talent to this successful project.