Brent Rathgeber

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, September 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brant and I sit on the public safety committee to make Canadian streets safer. I wonder if he might like to expand or comment on how the amendments in this piece of legislation fit in with the government's overall strategy to promote safe streets and safe communities.

[Justice Legislation, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as the spring session of this House moves toward conclusion, I am relieved that this House has finally found a compromise on Bill C-23 to prevent dangerous offenders convicted of serious crimes from receiving pardons.

However, I am convinced that the only reason such a compromise was reached was due to the outcry of thousands of Canadians and their many calls to many MPs' offices demanding immediate action.

It is reassuring to know that members of the soft on crime coalition still occasionally listen to their constituents and act on their wishes.

I hope that those members will pay similar attention to the express wishes of their constituents over the summer and that, come this fall, the soft on crime coalition will stop stalling important pieces of legislation, such as Bill C-4, which would make crucial amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I also trust that the 20 opposition members who voted in favour of Bill C-391 will be capable of applying that same democratic deference this fall and finally bring an end to a wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, June 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it will only be the member and I who will participate in this debate, so I will ask him a question. Which government established the office of the victims' ombudsman?

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, June 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes it too easy for me to limit my response to only one bill, but I will talk about Sebastian's law, the amendments to the Young Offenders Act, which are currently before the justice committee.

As the hon. member knows from his participation at committee, young offender crime, although statistically on the decline, with respect to crimes of violence has stabilized and in fact has slightly increased over the last decade. What we have experienced in the area of youth crime is a shift from non-violent youth crime to serious youth crime.

The bill is not only named after a victim of a brutal murder, but it calls for denunciation and deterrence as prospects of sentencing. Victims' groups support it. Police support it. It is one of many bills this government has introduced and is in the process of passing that have been called for by Canadians, by victims, and certainly support victims.

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, June 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is really a pleasure for me to rise to speak to the merits of Bill S-2, Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act.

This legislation proposes to enhance the current provisions respecting the registration of information related to sex offenders. As hon. members will know, and we have heard some debate here this afternoon, this is an extremely important bill. It is a bill that deserves our utmost attention, as it deals with ensuring the safety of our children and other vulnerable Canadians from sexual predators.

As hon. members know, public safety is an objective shared by all parliamentarians, both here and in the other place, where this bill originated. Moreover, Bill S-2 carries on initiatives undertaken by all premiers and all territorial leaders, in concert with the federal government, calling for a national sex offender registration system.

Let me give the House a little bit of history. As early as 1997, the principle features of a registry were thoroughly discussed by all of the ministers responsible for criminal justice in their own provinces, the federal government, and all territorial jurisdictions. Their endorsement led to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act of 2004. Indeed, Bill S-2 reflects and continues a national consensus that responds to a concern shared by all Canadians.

Since forming government in 2006, we have taken a series of actions to better protect Canadians from sexual abusers, and we will continue to do so. I would like to reiterate that the legislative foundations for this bill we are considering here today stand out as a wonderful example of what can be accomplished when federal, provincial, and territorial interests are accommodated through consultation and co-operation. I should also mention that this bill has the support of law enforcement, prosecutors, and victim advocacy groups.

Bill S-2 has been reported by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and was previously examined, as Bill C-34, by the parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, of which I am a member, in the last session of this Parliament.

This legislation reflects input from a number of sectors, including corrections, law enforcement, child protection agencies, and victims groups. The Senate committee provided a forum for a thorough discussion of a range of views and positions regarding the efficacy of a national sex offender registry.

I would submit that this is a strong indication that the government's proposals were a fitting response to urgent suggestions that the sex offender database be more inclusive.

These multi-sectoral consultations I referred to led to the significant amendments that have been before the legislative drafters for some years. Discussions have covered the viability of the registry and have monitored the implementation of the act.

Perhaps the most pressing question in this debate has been about arriving at a balance between limiting or increasing the scope of the registry. The question becomes this: What parameters should govern the number of offences, and which offenders ought to be included in a registry?

The following questions also need to be resolved and have been resolved by these amendments: How long should a registration order remain in force? Who should determine whether an offender should be registered? In other words, once a list is begun, where should it end?

These questions were pivotal to the establishment of the national sex offender registry. Experience gained by criminal justice practitioners can now be applied to better balance public safety and human rights in this legislation.

At the time of its inception, the only sex offender registry in Canada was maintained by the Province of Ontario. Aspects of that registry were then being contested in the courts, and we now have the benefit of a number of judicial decisions.

Accordingly, our government has drafted legislation that is responsive to public safety concerns across the country, while it achieves a balance with concerns about fairness and human rights.

Although, Mr. Speaker, you need no education in the area of criminal justice, please allow me to refresh the memories of those who were present when the national registry was created and to provide background for more recent arrivals.

The initial legislation, which I referred to, the starting point for the legislative changes we are considering today, proposed a registry that was to have included only those convicted of designated offences after the legislation came into force. However, during review by Parliament, the registry was amended to include offenders previously convicted of scheduled offences who were, as of the date of coming into force, incarcerated in a provincial or federal institution, under conditional or intermittent sentence, or on probation or parole.

Also included are those offenders under a detention order or who had not been absolutely discharged subsequent to a finding of being “not criminally responsible” for that offence. This latter inclusion stems from the fact that while a disposition by a court that an offender is not criminally responsible means there has been no finding of guilt, it is still a finding that the offender committed the offence.

For reasons that are apparent, it was deemed desirable to keep this class of offenders within the registration scope of the act.

Parliamentarians heard from a number of sectors regarding registration and made appropriate amendments. The registry's effectiveness has been monitored through the implementation period. With the benefit of this experience, the government believes the time has come to ensure a more rigorous approach. The final outcome of our efforts here today ultimately focus on the central concern of all involved, the safety of Canadians from exploitation and crime. Protection from sexual predators is the raison d'être of this legislation.

Briefly, I will touch on the main features of Bill S-2. To reinforce what others have mentioned, the key provision is that registration under both the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the DNA Identification Act would become automatic upon conviction, making it mandatory for the sentencing judge to impose an order to register and provide a DNA sample whenever a conviction for a scheduled sexual offence had been entered against the offender.

The crown prosecutor will no longer be required to bring an application for an order. This legislation would empower police officers to take action if they detected suspicious activity on the part of a registrant, even if no overt criminal activity was under way. Prevention becomes possible that previously was beyond the scope of the law.

Certainly in committee, upon examination of the former Bill C-34, we heard anecdotally and otherwise of many instances when crown prosecutors would not ask the court for an order of inclusion on the registry. Some of this was a matter of a plea bargain. Occasionally, it was a mere oversight. However, in any event, under the proposed legislation before the House, the crown will no longer be required to bring an application. Such inclusion will be automatic. I think all members will agree that change is worthy of their support.

Furthermore, police will be able to identify registered sex offenders who are travelling to other jurisdictions, both domestically and internationally. Again, a level of prevention is made possible by these amendments. In addition, corrections officials will be able to notify police forces of both the release and the re-admission of registrants.

Finally, and just as important, the registry will be enhanced by the inclusion of vehicle data to assist authorities in monitoring, investigating and, if necessary, prosecuting registrants where necessary.

To sum up for all members of the House, the development of Bill S-2 sets out a framework for continuity in a co-operative effort among federal, provincial and territorial governments. Significantly this is a national system, unlike the efforts elsewhere, where duplication and confusion may reign. We have the advantage of a single common approach that combines the efforts of various criminal justice sectors but, at the same time, respects the provincial role in the administration of the system.

The additional measures we will be passing in the House after due consideration will further simplify, unify and strengthen efforts to protect the vulnerable among us. It must be emphasized that these goals will be achieved while respecting both the needs of law enforcement and the courts and the civil liberties of all Canadians.

Bill S-2 is an undertaking to improve earlier legislative efforts that, although well-intentioned, have proven to be less than comprehensive. In this we have benefited from the experience, the expertise and the goodwill of many sectors within the Canadian criminal justice system.

I believe we can move this matter to a timely conclusion. I understand there is support among all members of the House, or the majority of the members of the House, to pass the bill at second reading and to send it to the public safety committee in which I and all its members will give it a thorough examination.

Accordingly I urge all hon. members to speed the passage of this important bill. Canadians have asked for it. Victims of crime deserve no less.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is correct. The costs for one summit in Hokkaido, Japan were $1.5 billion.

As I said in my main speech, and I quoted from integrated security unit chief Ward Elcock, the hon. member raised a good question. We cannot compare apples to oranges or to any other fruit.

The integrated security unit chief Ward Elcock said:

I think Canada is one of the rare countries that has actually been transparent about the security costs.

He also said:

If you could actually compare apples to apples, the costs are going to be fairly comparable.

When the opposition rails on and on about these costs being out of the ballpark of normal security costs for other summits, they are being disingenuous. As the hon. member pointed out, it was $1.5 billion for Hokkaido, Japan.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway does not understand how the parliamentary budget system works and that is why he is in the fourth party and likely always will be.

In March, $179 million was allocated as part of the overall security budget for the G8 and G20 summits. The recently tabled supplementary estimates (A) allocate a further $654 million. As we have always stated, overall costs will be finalized following the completion of the summits. However, based on a medium level threat assessment we budgeted up to $930 million for security. This is the normal budgetary process. Now $179 million was allocated as part of the overall security budget. That was never intended to be the entire amount.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise that the locations were incorrectly chosen in the first place. However, I am not a security expert and certainly the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering is not a security expert. The reality is that security is a necessity at these summits. All the world leaders are going to be at the G8 and G20 summits. They require protection. The issue is whether or not the costs of these summits and providing security is in line with similar summits that have been hosted in other parts of the world.

As I said in my speech, John Kirton, director of the University of Toronto G8 Research Group, has attended every G8 since 1988. I will quote what he said again because I do not think the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering heard me the first time:

The costs for each of the two Canadian summits are more or less within the range of what G8 and even G20 summits have been costing. It is a very good investment. Most of the money has permanent benefits well beyond the G8.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with Jeffrey Simpson, choosing not to read The Globe and Mail on a regular basis, but I will quote Sheila Fraser on the costs. The hon. member might have heard of Ms. Fraser, the Auditor General of Canada. She said:

Obviously $1 billion is a lot of money, but I think we have to recognize that security is expensive. There are a lot of people that are involved over a long period of time. We may think that the meetings only last for a few days, but all the preparations involve extensive planning, extensive coordination for months before that and I think we have to be really, really careful.

Toronto was chosen. There has been some debate regarding whether the locations were appropriate. Hon. members cannot decide whether they want to hold them in an urban area or a rural area because they also criticized the government when one of the summits was proposed to be in rural Ontario. The reality is wherever these summits are located, there is going to be security. There is going to be expensive security. We owe that not only to Canadians who reside in those areas, but we owe that to the delegations and the world leaders who will be coming. We also owe that security to the people who will be engaged in lawful protests. They too need to be protected. We do not want to see any violent incidents or protests that get out of hand.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity to speak about the motion brought forward to us today by the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering.

I want to say at the outset that some of the statements we have just heard from that hon. member only serve to reinforce many of the misconceptions about the security costs with regard to the upcoming G8 and G20 summits. They also serve to trivialize the very good work that all of us can and will accomplish with our international partners through these important conferences.

The truth is that this summer's meetings of G8 and G20 ministers represent a wonderful opportunity for Canada to shine on the world stage. They represent a chance for all of us as Canadians to show the world not only what we value and cherish as a society, but to have those values put front and centre on the international agenda.

As the Prime Minister recently noted with regard to the G8 and G20, it will be a tremendous opportunity to promote Canada's values and interests. Moreover, it will be a tremendous opportunity to advocate for open markets and trade opportunities, to assist on global action against global warming, and to champion values such as freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, values that are cherished by all Canadians.

On the G20 front, Canada as chair has an equally great opportunity to work with our partners to ensure that we all honour the promises that were made at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh in order to ensure a complete economic recovery by developing credible plans to encourage long-term growth and prosperity.

The motion before us today, sponsored by the member for Ajax—Pickering, essentially suggests that Canada should abandon these opportunities and turn our backs on our international partners. We are not prepared to do that. It suggests that we should ignore the very pressing challenges all of us face and the chances that both summits present to work in a spirit of co-operation and collaboration to address those issues.

I say that because the opportunity to lead on the world stage comes with an obligation to ensure that we can accomplish what we want to do. It comes with an obligation to ensure that security concerns and issues do not become the prime focus of either summit. That is what our government is committing to achieve. That is what the motion before us today clearly ignores.

What we have before us today are unprecedented opportunities. Never before has Canada or any other country had the chance to chair and host back-to-back summits of global leaders. However, with that comes the need for unprecedented security operations, which will likely represent the largest deployment of security personnel for a major event in Canadian history. It will surpass the Vancouver Olympics on this front. It will surpass the Pope's visit to Toronto, the APEC summit in Vancouver in 1997, and even the very volatile Summit of the Americas in Quebec City.

This is what I would like to turn my attention to over the next few minutes. The cost of security is not money our government has arbitrarily decided to spend. This is a very important point. This is money that recognized security experts have told us we have to spend. The experts have been quite clear that hosting two major world summits could not be done on the cheap, as the motion before us today suggests it can.

These summits do not lend themselves to cutting corners when it comes to ensuring the safety and security of world leaders and their delegations as the motion before us today suggests they should. We have also been open and honest with Canadians as to what the costs would be. Those costs have been laid out clearly in supplementary estimates (A) and (C).

As well, the Minister of Public Safety has indicated that the Auditor General of Canada is more than welcome to review these expenditures once they are completed and that he will release a detailed breakdown of the cost after the summits are over.

For now, let me talk about the supplementary estimates. In March, our government tabled supplementary estimates (C), which included an initial allocation of $179.4 million for the fiscal year 2009-10 related to pre-event policing and security operations for the upcoming summits.

There was no indication that this would represent the final costs associated with the security and policing. I think the member for Ajax—Pickering knows that and is being quite disingenuous about it.

We have been quite clear. This allocation represented an initial drawdown on funds for security planning and preparation at the two summits.

Since the Prime Minister announced on December 7, 2009 that Canada would host the G20 summit in Toronto, a large proportion of the planning budget was allocated to the 2010-11 fiscal year and was included in supplementary estimates (A), which the government tabled on May 25. The supplementary estimates (A) allocate $653.9 million for policing and security at the two summits.

I want to be quite clear that this is not a case of escalating costs as the member for Ajax—Pickering would have us believe. It is a question of identifying the money required and getting it ready when it is in fact needed. That is the way the parliamentary budget system works.

The safety and security of Canadians, delegates and international visitors during the G8 and G20 summits are Canada's highest priorities. That is why we have consulted with experts in the field and have budgeted that the costs for policing and security at these events will be up to $930 million on a medium threat level.

Let me read a quote from John Kirton, the director of the University of Toronto's G8 Research Group, who has attended every G8 meeting since 1988. Mr. Kirton recently noted in an interview in BusinessWeek, “The cost for each of the two Canada summits are more or less within the range of what G8 and even G20 summits have been costing.”

One might ask about certain comparisons to the reported figure of $30 million for the G8 security in London. Let me read the comments of Bill Blair, chief of the Toronto Police Service. Mr. Blair recently told the CBC that he found the $30 million quote for the G8 in London to be “extraordinary” and that he was told this figure represented merely the overtime costs for police officers. What he was told was that it certainly did not in any way nearly represent the actual cost of providing security for the G8 that took place in that city.

One might ask about comparisons to the Vancouver Olympics. Let me quote Ward Elcock, co-ordinator for the 2010 Olympics and G8 security. Mr. Elcock recently told CBC that such comparisons cannot be made since the Olympics were not a security event, but instead were a sporting event for which we provided security.

The bottom line is that the experts agree that comparing security for the Olympics and G8 and G20 summits is like comparing apples to oranges. The two events are quite dissimilar.

Mr. Elcock said in another interview that the G8 and G20 summits are major meetings of global governance at the present time and in the context of the economic crisis not unimportant. He said that it means we are hosting 30-plus leaders of the most powerful countries in the world, many of whom travel with much higher levels of security, even within their own countries and we have an obligation to ensure that when they come to Canada to attend the G8 and G20 that they are secure.

To repeat, we have an obligation. That is what our government is committed to achieving and in the most open and transparent way possible. I would like, therefore, to outline for the House exactly where the allocations for security and policing for the G8 and G20 summits will be spent.

Security planning for the G8 and G20 summits, of course, is led by the RCMP through the integrated security unit in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The supplementary estimates (A) allocate $321 million to the RCMP so that it can perform this function in the most comprehensive, efficient and fiscally prudent way possible.

An additional $262.6 million is allocated through supplementary estimates (A) to Public Safety Canada to reimburse provincial and municipal partners for eligible, justifiable and reasonable incremental security expenses that may incur. Reimbursements to our security partners will be based on audits that will be conducted following the summits.

I want to point out that in both cases, these allocations will not be used only to ensure we protect the safety and security of visiting heads of state and their delegations. Indeed, they are being used to protect the safety and security of all Canadians, including those who wish to engage in peaceful protests during those summits. Clearly, our government believes in freedom of expression.

We believe that everyone has the right to be heard. That is why the community relations group within the G8 and G20 integrated security unit has been proactively reaching out to individuals and groups who may wish to protest in order to ensure their needs are accommodated and also to ensure that we can facilitate peaceful and lawful protests at both summits.

At the same time, the integrated security unit has been working to ensure the safety and security of residents around Huntsville and Toronto, as well as businesses and also their properties.

We have already seen senseless acts of vandalism connected to the summits. These are stark reminders that we need to remain vigilant and take action to keep our communities and streets safe for everyone. This is something our government has made a top priority since we were first elected in 2006.

Among other allocations, the supplementary estimates (A) allocate $63.1 million to the Department of National Defence to provide unique military capabilities that will assist in ensuring the safety and security of the G8 and G20 summits.

There is an allocation of $2.2 million to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to provide intelligence support related to threats to the national security of Canada, including the G8 and G20 summits.

As well, the supplementary estimates (A) allocate $1 million to the Canada Border Services Agency for activities associated with the provision of incremental border services and critical program support for both the G8 and G20 summits. In particular, border services will focus on managing the entry of all accredited G8 and G20 participants and ensuring that these individuals are in possession of the required travel documents.

Since our government was first elected, one of our top priorities has been to ensure that the necessary resources are always in place for law enforcement officials and our security partners to do their jobs.

We have invested prudently and transparently in the RCMP so that it has the manpower, the training and the equipment necessary to help make our communities safer places to be enjoyed by all Canadians.

We have invested prudently and transparently in the Canadian armed forces so that Canada can play a leadership role overseas in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and work with our international partners to help foster peace and security around the world.

We have made investments to further improve security at our domestic airports so that Canadians can feel confident about air travel and safely travel should they choose to do so by air.

These are just some of the investments our government has made to ensure we protect the safety and security of all Canadians.

We are committed to investing in the same prudent and fiscally responsible way with regard to the G8 and G20 summits. We are not going to cut corners.

According to a recent Leger Marketing survey, 50% of Canadians are sure there will be protests and violence at the upcoming summits, but they also think that Canada is well equipped to handle such events and to show the world what good hosts we are. The reason they believe that is our government's track record which speaks for itself.

We have told Canadians from coast to coast to coast that their safety and security is one of our top priorities, and we have delivered on what we said we would do. We have told them we would take action to crack down on crime, and we have delivered. We have told them that we would take action to combat the threat of terrorism both at home and abroad, and we have delivered. Most of all, we have told Canadians that we would do all that in an open and transparent way, and once again we have delivered.

We have delivered when it comes to improving accountability in government. We have delivered when it comes to being open and forthright in outlining security expenditures for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics and Paralympics, as well as the upcoming G8 and G20 summits.

With those comments, I therefore cannot support the motion from the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering, which I believe ignores these facts. If the motion passed, it would have the effect of encouraging the government to ignore our obligations to our international partners, as well as to all Canadians who expect us to show leadership on the world stage. That is the not the Canadian way. We will not ignore those obligations. I encourage all hon. members to vote against this motion.