Roy H. Bailey

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it would appear that government members do not believe that bringing in legislation will be of any benefit. That is what I hear them saying. I hear them saying that a hodgepodge, throwing it in with CPIC, will be the answer.

Not one province in Canada believes that. Not one police force in Canada believes that. My only assumption is that the Liberals do not seem to understand that high risk offenders do not pay any attention to provincial boundaries. They move back and forth. It is imperative to have a national sex offender registry.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is obvious in this debate that we on this side of the House are extremely concerned about what our constituents have to say about the topic we are debating today.

It is almost a year since the government promised that it would bring in a national sex registry. I wonder how many sexual offences have been committed since that time because of the lack of a registry. I have two girls in my family and three granddaughters. I know very well how I would feel if they had been abused.

I have in my hand a letter from a police association within my constituency. Every detachment of the city police and mounted police agree with the letter dated a year ago which states on behalf of members of this police association that they strongly support the proposed legislation. It is interesting to note the letter also states that the Canadian Police Information Centre does not meet their needs.

I do not know why the government would continue to say it is a matter of simply registering and would defend it as something of very little cost.

In the last two months I have received many letters, mainly from ladies groups, church groups and so on, wanting me to come up with some idea of why the government has delayed the legislation. I could not for the life of me give them an answer at the spur of the moment on the phone.

I have since thought of some of the ways. First, it looks like the solicitor general is the person who is holding back the national sex offender registry and the government is holding back the funds. That is one logical conclusion. I do not know that for sure. I know it has spent, as my colleague has talked about, over half a billion dollars on another registry that has not saved anyone's life and the costs are growing. I saw in the paper that only a third of guns had been registered.

What is another possible reason aside from there being no money left? Is it that the Liberals will only implement an idea they thought of first? I hardly think that. However, if that were the case, then they should take the idea, make it theirs and bring in the registry. We could not care less. We know it is needed and that people are crying out for it.

I wonder if I could answer a phone call by saying the Liberals have an aversion to using something that actually works. We could ask the provinces that have put in their own registries and they will tell us that they work.

However the provinces that have implemented it may not be of the same political stripe. Too much time is spent on the politics of things while we are interested in the possibility and likelihood of saving people, particularly young girls, from a sexual predator.

We cannot say that a national sex registry would not make any difference, because it has made a difference not only in our provinces but around the world.

What other excuse could there be? This is a pretty good one: They actually believe in the rights of the offender more than they believe in the rights of the victim. I think that has been proven over and over again.

Are the Liberals spending too much time worrying that they may bring in legislation that will offend a predator or his rights and freedoms? That is a possibility. Again they are forgetting about the victims.

We should do what we think should be done. I think the solicitor general actually believes he knows better than all the police forces across the country. He thinks he knows better than those who want to protect our children. He thinks he knows better what needs to be done in this area.

We do not believe that. The people of Canada do not believe that. Why in the world have we not moved on this registry?

The hon. gentleman thinks he knows better than the victims groups. We should listen to the victims groups. The hon. minister thinks he knows better than the police associations.

We continue to get letters from the police associations asking that a bill be introduced. In my own riding people have clearly stated the same thing. The Canadian Police Information Centre does not presently meet the requirements for a sex offender registry. Are all those statements going down the drain today? Are the people across Canada not being heard? I do not know how anyone can put up an argument against the bill and this registry.

Do the solicitor general and the government think they know better than the front line officers? The front line officers could write a book about these horrific events. Does the solicitor general think he knows better than those who have been abused?

Abraham Lincoln once said in speaking about alcohol that alcohol “has many defenders” but so far nobody has come up with a defence. I would say the same thing about the motion. There are some defenders on that side of the House. They will speak and they will question but one thing I guarantee is that they cannot come up with a good defence for this motion not being passed.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is time for people on both sides of the House and the young and the old to ask ourselves a few questions as to why we have this bill and why we are at this position in our society. Fifty years ago we had more youth in my province than we have now. We had very few people appearing in court.

Why was car theft almost an unheard thing? Why have we listed all these crimes today? Our jails are not large enough to hold the people. Our courts are busy and stacked up. What were we doing right 50 years ago? Maybe we should take a look at that because obviously what we did then did not promote what we have today. We have to take a serious look at that.

Many of the institutions which held families together then are now gone. Many things we learned at school and beyond have been changed, so we now have a problem today. We try to take it to the courts instead of asking where we went wrong. Maybe we should have a study of why we went wrong.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the people in the capital city of Saskatchewan would like some answers to this particular bill. Regina has now become the car theft capital of Canada, with an average of 20 cars being stolen every day.

The bill sets out that victims have the right to be informed of certain information concerning an offender or the case but there is no requirement that the victims be informed that they have that right. Could the minister tell us why that is?

[Criminal Code, January 30th, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-426,an act to amend the Criminal Code (destruction or desecration of national flag).

Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a time in the history of our country when we want to protect the image and the symbol of this country it is now. People in all provinces represented across the House need to be made aware that on a continual basis our flag is destroyed and desecrated without any lawful punishment whatsoever.

This amendment to the criminal code would make it very clear to those who desecrate and destroy our flag that there are punitive measures for doing so. Individuals doing so will stand trial under the criminal code because this would make that act punishable by law.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague over there. I think he would say we are pretty good friends.

Having said that, as a friend I would like some help from the hon. member. I would like him to look at the $1 billion increase in foreign aid over the next three years and explain to my constituents, more and more of whom have gone bankrupt in their agricultural operations, why the $1 billion investment in some shady deals we have had for years is a better investment than an investment in agricultural support so people can stay on their farms.

If the hon. member could do that I would like to have his help.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, three things bother me a great deal. Perhaps he could help me out, being a member on that side.

Just before September 11, on both sides of the border, Americans and Canadians screened people and they were given cards whereby a 12 hour port could become a 24 hour port. The system has worked so effectively. There is an electronic device, they show their card and so on. That has been cancelled. However that action has cost Canadians hundreds of thousands of dollars. They can no longer cross there. They have to travel further to get to another port.

Why can I not get a response to that item because it could be solved. These people on both sides of the border are honest people.

Another thing I would like the hon. member to comment on is this. It is wrong to deduct EI from kids who work a two hour shift at a Dairy Queen. They know very well that they can never collect it. That is totally wrong.

[World War I, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, we fully support what the minister has done today. We believe this is not only owed to our veterans but that it is one of the ways in which the great country of Canada can avoid covering up or trying to hide and instead can give recognition where recognition is due.

Canada can be proud of its participation in World War I and of its significant contribution to world peace and political stability. It was also a time when we became a nation. In World War II we were one step ahead in lending support to the allies. Not only that, we made a defining difference to the outcome of both wars.

Many Canadians do not realize that 94 of our Canadians received the Victoria Cross which is awarded for bravery, a daring act of valour or self-sacrifice in the presence of the enemy. Even with our small population, Canada received about 10% of all honours issued worldwide. Let no one ever doubt that Canadians were among the very bravest in the world.

However, as the hon. minister has noted, when we speak of the horrors of war we describe experiences and traumatic events that, even for the best of our soldiers, were very hard to overcome. Every soldier handled the horrors and terrors to the best of their ability. Yet, not unlike today, there were some who were not able to cope with the events.

Today we have toned down the language that was used at that time. What is sometimes referred to today as post-traumatic stress disorder was simply called shell shock or some other negative term. Before that, some soldiers were simply labelled as cowards or deserters but they were not deserving of those titles. That is what the hon. minister has done in bringing this issue forward. Whatever the label, whatever the cause, there exists in our history what might be called a dark spot, but today that dark spot has been erased forever.

Twenty-three of our soldiers who were executed in a foreign land and whose graves occupy foreign soil are today receiving what is rightfully theirs: the formal recognition of their deaths recorded forever in The First World War Book of Remembrance .

With this act it is my hope and indeed the hope of the opposition that closure will be given to the families of these individuals to this event in history.

[Veterans Affairs, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, December 7, 1941, is a day that most North Americans remember very well. However most Canadians forget that 1941 was also a very tragic year. That was the year that the Japanese attacked the Canadian contingent at Hong Kong.

Almost 2,000 Canadian soldiers and officers from the Royal Rifles of Canada and the Winnipeg Grenadiers were assigned to defend Hong Kong. Some 290 Canadians were killed, 493 wounded, and in all, after they had been interned in terrible conditions in prison camps, 550 did not return to Canada.

It took nearly 50 years for our government to compensate the Hong Kong vets. That was 10 years after the Canadian government compensated the Japanese, and their descendants, who were interned in Canada.

Because our federal government neglected to pay tribute to these forgotten veterans last week, it falls on the official opposition to express our thanks to those heroes.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member for Medicine Hat to reflect back to 1993 and look at four categories: our health care, our military, our infrastructure, and our highways. I would like the member to comment on what has happened in the years since then.