Kevin Sorenson

[National Security, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is this RCMP agency that is voicing the concern. These documents confirm a longstanding fear. For the whole time the government has been in power our federal police and our intelligence agencies have not been communicating properly.

Now more than ever Canadians need their security agencies to co-operate. Would the solicitor general tell Canadians what specific and concrete action he will take to finally break this log-jam of information between the RCMP, that great police force, and CSIS?

[National Security, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have government documents that show the RCMP and CSIS are not sharing vital information despite a written agreement to do so.

With the threat of terrorism operating within our borders, a plague of missing refugee claimants and biker gangs flexing their muscles, how long will the solicitor general sit idly by and let our public security agencies wage a turf war?

[Laura Ellis, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to Toronto police constable Laura Ellis.

Tragically, constable Ellis was killed yesterday when her police cruiser collided with another car and hit a utility pole. Ms. Ellis and her partner were apparently responding to an emergency call.

Every day police officers all across the country put their lives on the line to protect Canadian citizens. We all know and respect the sacrifices they make to keep our communities and streets safe. No other profession demands such selfless acts of courage day in and day out as that of a police officer.

I extend my condolences to constable Ellis' husband, young daughter and other family members. They are all in our thoughts and our prayers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to partake in the debate on Bill C-5, the species at risk act.

This is the first opportunity I have had to state to my constituents', mostly my rural constituents, opposition to certain provisions in the new law. We should make no mistake, there is great opposition to the bill in Crowfoot.

Before I proceed I would like to mention that it is absolutely abhorrent that we have waited this long to get this or any other legislation pertaining to an endangered species completed. It has taken six years and two failed attempts at earlier legislation to get to this point. This is not to say that I would agree to fast tracking any of the legislation through. I fully concur with my colleague, the official opposition critic for the environment, that this legislation, any legislation that may have such serious repercussions for landowners, deserves a thorough and complete review.

It is quite obvious that the bill has not been a priority for the government as evidenced from much of its past actions. Agriculture or farming related issues in general are not high on the priority list for those opposite in the Liberal government.

Bill C-5 is the Liberals' third attempt, third try, third strike at passing endangered species legislation. Its previous attempts died when parliament was dissolved for both the 1997 and the 2000 elections. However, despite the fact that the Liberals have had all this for such a long time, they still do not have it right. The bill still falls short. They still do not recognize and respect the fact that ranchers and farmers are good stewards of the land. They certainly do not appreciate nor understand the importance of property rights in this country.

The best way to protect species at risk is to allow for voluntary co-operation and partnership. Protection of endangered species cannot be accomplished through regulation and enforcement without compensation. In my opinion there should be no regulatory or otherwise taking of property without fair compensation.

Nothing in Bill C-5 compels Ottawa to fully compensate landowners at fair market value for their property. It does allow some far away bureaucrat to all of a sudden unilaterally say that certain land is inhabited by an endangered species. Property owners may get less than half of what their land is worth and still less than that if we factor in the future loss of income over a period of time.

Since provincial governments would get no compensation for losses flowing from habitat restoration on crown lands, no one with a grazing lease from the province would be eligible for compensation. The lessee will be left shouldering all the loss.

In my riding of Crowfoot in central Alberta this is not acceptable. We will not, however, know at the time of passing this legislation what exactly the compensation formula will be. We will have absolutely no say in what it will be. Compensation provisions for the bill are to be established in regulations pursuant to the bill.

Something else the Liberal government does not get is that the provinces enjoy exclusive powers over property and civil rights. The 1960 bill of rights, still good law and still applicable to federal legislation, confers a right to “enjoyment of property” on all Canadians as well as a right not to be deprived of that property except by due process of the law.

Although some do and will deem this law unconstitutional, the supreme court's decision regarding the confiscation of property and the regulation of property, for example in Bill C-68, the firearms legislation, shows that a precedent has been set. Be very sure that if the government believes it can take firearms, it believes it can take land.

In the supreme court challenge of Bill C-68, the court ruled that under the federal government's criminal law power it could regulate firearms in shooting clubs.

Repeatedly in the House today and on other occasions colleagues on all sides have referred to the experience in the United States.

Under similar legislation to what we are contemplating, United States farmers afraid of losing their property are clear that they will shoot, shovel and shut up if they spot an endangered species, a wild turkey or a ruffed grouse, squatting on their land.

In the words of a grade 12 student in Delia, who I had the opportunity to speak with last week as I travelled throughout my constituency, Canadian farmers, upon spotting a burrowing owl and faced with the prospect of losing their land, would shoot fast and dig faster.

This legislation would be absolutely contrary to what it is trying to achieve. It would put species at risk in a much greater threat.

With regard to the United States, I have heard that despite its legislation being 25 years old not one species at risk or endangered species has been saved by this type of top down command and control law. It appears, by most accounts, to be a total failure.

If it were not bad enough that we are enacting an unconstitutional law that would steal our property and destroy a farmer's and rancher's livelihood, Bill C-5 would make criminals out of our landowners.

Clauses 97 to 107 in the bill prescribe the offences and punishment for persons harming an endangered species. Clause 97 states:

Every person who contravenes subsection 32(1) or (2), section 33, subsection 36(1), 58(1), 60(1), 61(1) or 74(1) or section 91 or 92 or any prescribed provision of a regulation or an emergency order, or who fails to comply with an alternative measures agreement the person has entered into under this Act,

(a) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable

(i) in the case of a corporation...to a fine of not more than $300,000,

It further states:

(iii) in the case of any other person, to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both;

Clause 100 states:

Due diligence is a defence in a prosecution for an offence.

Clause 102 states:

A court that imposes a sentence shall take into account--

(b) whether the offender was found to have committed the offence intentionally, recklessly or inadvertently;

The bill says that it is up to the landowner, rancher or farmer to prove to the court that if an animal was taken it was done unintentionally. It is not up to the prosecution or the crown to say that they are guilty or should be prosecuted; it is up to the defence, the landowner or rancher, to prove the innocence of their actions. Nowhere in the legislation is it specified upon whose onus the defence lies.

Farmers could and would incur horrific costs proving in a court of law that they unintentionally destroyed or endangered a species or their habitat.

We heard this afternoon the member for Elk Island talk about growing up as a youngster watching his father go around a duck's nest or watching as a cultivator passed over a certain animal. The onus would now be up to the farmer to prove that it was unintentional.

In my opinion Bill C-5 is unconstitutional. It would criminalize landowners, steal their property and destroy their livelihood. For those reasons I cannot support Bill C-5, which is regrettable, because I do support protecting endangered species.

All sides of the House recognize that if we have endangered species we must bring forward legislation to protect them. However the manner in which the bill is prescribed here would do just the opposite. The bill would be more detrimental and would harm those endangered species more than it would help.

We ask that this be recognized and that members vote against the bill. A bill should be brought forward that would do the job.

[Correctional Service Canada, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have evidence quite to the contrary and I think you have been given evidence to the contrary.

An internal memorandum from senior correctional officials and accountability contract reports from two Ontario institutions contradict the solicitor general's denial. The reports clearly state that a correctional service objective is to substantially increase the number of inmates eligible for parole.

I ask the solicitor general, have federal institutions have been instructed to increase the number of parolees?

[Correctional Service Canada, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, less than an hour ago the Ontario office for victims of crime accused the solicitor general of continuing to encourage parole quotas.

In April 2000, the solicitor general assured members of the House that there was no formal plan to parole more offenders.

Why does the solicitor general measure the performance or success of Correctional Service Canada by the number of paroled offenders it can fast track out of our prisons and back onto our streets?

[Petitions, February 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the privilege to present to the House a petition signed by concerned constituents of my riding of Crowfoot. The petitioners are from communities such as Czar, Wainwright, Provost, Chauvin, Amisk and Brownfield.

These constituents are calling upon the government to set guidelines to have meaningful debate and a vote in the House of Commons, to be seconded by the Senate, as it applies to writeoffs of foreign debt, that is, of our Prime Minister almost unilaterally writing off foreign debt, and the implications that has for the Canadian taxpayer.

It is my privilege to present this petition.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the member for Langley--Abbotsford for his hard work in understanding what is needed. I failed to do that in my speech. He has travelled around through prisons and has met with different victims groups. I know his passion for doing the right thing has been very evident in the formation of this.

I will give the Liberal government some credit. I believe it understands that the sex offender recidivism rate is extremely high. It acknowledged that last year. It acknowledged that we need to do something. In 1993 it had the commitment to do it. Toughening the criminal justice system was one of the platforms on which it ran and eventually won the 1993 election.

However we have seen no commitment in the House since then. We talk about recidivism rates of 40%. In the whole equation, what the government has not factored in is the victim. It is so bent on rehabilitation and reintegration, which are imperative and foundations of corrections services, that it has forgotten about the rights of the victims.

I have met with parents from my riding and have heard about their children being been lured over the Internet by pedophiles and by sex offenders. I see the heartbreak and listen to many of them weeping. The part of the equation that the government has forgotten is the victim.

Our prisons are full of sex offenders. When they are pushed through the revolving door of our corrections services and our prison system back onto the street, because we have a reintegration principle and a high rehabilitation principle, we see families torn apart by the offenses committed against their children who fall victim to individuals who are not on a workable, working sex offender registry.

As we have heard in the House many times, the member from Langley already has brought out how outdated CPIC is and how it is not working. I am sure the solicitor general will admit that police are telling him that CPIC is not working.

The facts are that reoffending is up in the country and we need to protect society. The protection of society needs to be the guiding principle in all criminal justice. Now we have a government that is bringing in other laws in the Young Offenders Act which are highly questionable on even the equality of all before law. It leaves me wondering where the government is headed.

We need a registry. We have spoken about it for a year. We had a commitment from the government, but again we have seen no action.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I stood in the House almost a year ago in support of the Canadian Alliance motion requesting the establishment of a national sex offender registry. During that same period of time on the other side of the House the Liberal government unanimously stood in support of its commitment to set up a registry by January 30, 2002.

As of today, February 5, 2002, we do not have a national sex offender registry in this country. We do not have one because this Liberal government has failed again to meet another one of its commitments. It failed in this regard as it has failed to keep many of its 1993 red book promises.

The subject of today's motion is to have the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights prepare and bring in a bill establishing a registry given the fact that this government has failed to do so in spite of its promise and in spite of its commitment.

The motion we presented last March and which government members voted in favour of was the establishment of a national registry containing the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders. We proposed that every sex offender be required to register in person at his or her local police station at least once a year and provide any updated information, including a change in address.

This proposal is nothing new. Ontario already has such a registry. Christopher's law, or Bill C-31, received royal assent in April 2000, establishing a registry to:

enhance public safety by providing law enforcement agencies with a modern, reliable and effective electronic tool and support services to track sex offenders in our communities and to improve the investigation of crimes of a sexual nature.

I also stood in the House last March cautioning members on the other side, particularly those members who were in the House prior to 1993, to carefully consider their position on a national sex offender registry. I did so because I had a copy of an April 1993 Liberal document entitled “A Liberal Perspective on Crime and Justice Issues”.

Contained within this document were a number of recommendations put forward by the then official opposition, the Liberal Party, to do the following, and I quote, “to combat Canada's growing violent crime problem”. One of the Liberals' very own post-government recommendations was, and again I quote from that document, “to support the establishment of a national registry of convicted child abusers”.

The rationale for this recommendation, and again I will quote directly from this Liberal document, states:

Sex offenders represent almost 20 per cent of the incarcerated population and 10 per cent of the conditionally released population. These numbers are not an accurate representation as they include only those sentenced to two years or more in prison. Actual figures are much higher.

Over the past five years there has been a 20.4 per cent increase in the rate of admission of sex offenders. Evidently more and more sex offenders will be reintegrating into Canadian communities.

The document goes on, however, to state that:

Repeat sex offenders are more than twice as likely to commit further sex offences, much more likely to violate conditional release conditions and more likely than any other offenders to reoffend with a non-sexual offence. However, treatment programs for sexual offenders are sorely lacking...It is the norm, when it should be the exception, that convicted sexual offenders return to communities without any counselling or rehabilitation therapy.

Much of the information used by the Liberals to support their 1993 recommendations for establishing a sex offender registry remains the very same today. Nothing has changed.

In fact, a review of the research and the website of the statistics branch of the Correctional Service of Canada reveals that the majority of the studies done on sex offenders and recidivism rates are outdated. The statistics in most cases are more than 10 years old.

I am confident that findings today would be similar to those findings in the late 1980s and 1990s indicating that sex offenders have one of the highest recidivism rates of any criminal group, with an estimated 40% reoffending within five years of their release.

In 1990 the ministry of the solicitor general struck a working group on the management and treatment of sex offenders, “as a result of a number of factors, including the rapid growth of the federal sex offender population”. The working group reported its findings and recommendations in March 1990. These were some of the key findings.

First, offender treatment programs have shown limited results.

Second, practitioners in the field of sex offender treatment do not claim to cure sex offenders. Rather the treatment strategy is to manage the risk of reoffending.

Third, there are not enough experts to meet the demand for sex offender treatment and the limitations of treatment are recognized.

This research, which was based on research produced by the Correctional Service of Canada, clearly demonstrates why for the sake of our children we need a registry. We need to do everything within our power as parliamentarians to protect our children from repeat sex offenders.

I will read to the House a copy of a letter that was addressed to the solicitor general, copied and sent to me. Before I read it I would like to assure the House that I obtained the permission of the author, Jim Stephenson, the father of Christopher Stephenson, the Christopher in Ontario's Christopher's law, to read the letter. He said:

Anna and I both thank you for taking the time to meet with us earlier this week. As you know, our purpose in speaking with you was to explain why CPIC is incapable of providing the enforceable protection of a specific sex offender registry and why national action is essential. I regret that we were unsuccessful in that effort and you continue to take advice from your officials that legislated compliance is neither necessary nor permissible. They are wrong Minister; and I only hope that no child dies before you decide to listen to people other than those whose preoccupation is defending the status quo.

During the meeting, D/Sgt. Muise from Ontario's Office for Victims of Crime raised the additional issue of the difficulty Ontario was experiencing in trying to arrange the seemingly simple task of linking with the Federal Offender Management System. I was encouraged to note your surprise at this and your direction to--

In the letter to the solicitor general Mr. Stephenson names the official. I will just call him the official.

Mr. Stephenson went on to say:

-- [the official] of your Ministry to resolve this problem.

Following our meeting, my wife and I, together with D/Sgt. Muise further discussed the matter of a national sex offender registry with your official. We were sufficiently shocked at his conduct and remarks, in your absence, that I felt you should be apprised of them as they reflect extremely poorly on you as the Minister. Despite your previous public statement that “governments must continue to give victims more of a voice in the criminal justice system”, our own expressed desire to be included in the determination of appropriate registry format, and your acknowledgment that we would continue to work together, [your official] informed us that our involvement with the Working Group would not be possible as our presence would be “disruptive”. He further stated that the group of officials operated, to use his words, “like an old boys' club” and people like us would not be welcome.

Please be assured that our only interest in continuing these discussions is to prevent other Canadians from having to undergo the nightmare that befell our family when federal correctional officials released and then failed to supervise the repeat child rapist that abducted and murdered our son. Mr. Minister, unlike [your official] and his “colleagues”, my wife and I belong to a club of a very different sort where membership is unwilling and comes at a price that no one should have to bear. If this is the attitude of federal officials, it is small wonder that Canada lacks commitment to a National Sex Offender Registry and that public confidence in the justice system is continually questioned.

Finally Minister, I have learned that [your official's] “club” has scheduled a one-day meeting next week in the resort community of Banff, Alberta; a choice of locales I suggest speaks volumes about their priorities. I am certain that I could arrange the use of OPP facilities in Orillia where the Ontario Sex Offender Registry is housed--

What more can I say? Where is the commitment of the government? Where are its priorities? Certainly Canada is begging and calling out for a national sex offender registry. When will the solicitor general listen?

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1995, under Bill C-41, the Liberal government undermined one of the most fundamental principles of our justice system, that all Canadians are equal before the law. We see it eroding again today.

In its 1997 report on the role of victims in the justice system, the justice committee recommended a mandatory minimum victim fine surcharge for both adults and young offenders. The government chose to implement the recommendation for adults but decided not to recommend the recommendation for the young offenders.

Why should convicted young offenders not have the same obligation to the victims as does those of the adults?