Lynne Yelich

[Species at Risk Act, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are tenants on this earth, not proprietors. As such, we have a responsibility to maintain a certain level of care and respect for the way in which we treat the environment while we are here.

It has been estimated that the worldwide rate of wildlife extinction has been increasing at about 1,000 times the natural rate. Much of this increase can be attributed to human interference and lack of respect for the environment in which these species live. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we as representatives of a country which plays host to an extremely large number of wildlife species take any steps to protect species at risk of extinction.

As the bill currently stands, compensation would be assessed on a discretionary case by case basis. However, we cannot assess compensation on a discretionary basis. It is nothing less than arrogant for the government to expect the citizens of Canada to trust its judgment. We must have provisions for full compensation that are outlined in the legislation so that the amount of compensation is set out beforehand by all the elected members and not left entirely in the hands of a few bureaucrats.

Having provisions for full compensation in the legislation acts as a disciplinary device for government. It restricts random regulations, makes the government more careful in planning and assures that we respect private property. These ideals are nothing new. They are the basis of our economic system. It is therefore vital that those people or companies who experience reduced income or increased costs be fully and fairly compensated.

When things are left up to the discretion of a few people, it is hard to imagine that everyone will be treated equally. It will certainly open the door for those who feel they have not been compensated fairly to lose trust in their government. If we put strict provisions on compensation and have set amounts of compensation that are clearly outlined in the bill, it is much less likely that people will feel that they have been treated unfairly because everyone is assured of getting fair and equal treatment across the country.

It must be pointed out that the government needs to develop estimates for different compensation scenarios. We cannot just assume that every situation requiring compensation is going to be the same. The government needs to take these differing situations into account and provide guidelines for how to assess compensation in different scenarios.

This is a facet of the bill on which the government has yet to release information. It is an issue that needs to be tackled soon so as to decrease uncertainty and let the citizens of Canada know what they can expect. It makes sense and will likely decrease the chances of further problems down the road.

Although the minister's proposal includes references to compensation, the guidelines are quite restricting. For example, the proposal states that the compensation should not generally exceed the value of incentives that were made available through stewardship programs. In other words, the minister is saying the compensation would be limited based on the value of whatever initiatives were available to promote preventive action on the part of the landowner. This may sound fair; however, it is difficult to imagine how this limitation would allow compensation to cover market value losses if land were taken out of production.

Although in the past many landowners have co-operated in species recovery programs without compensation, the majority of these cases surely have involved those who can already afford to take such initiatives or people who are willing to make personal sacrifices to save endangered species. It would be naive to believe that all people would participate in these programs without receiving compensation for their personal efforts and financial losses. Therefore, with the health of endangered species in mind and in the name of putting people at the centre of legislation, all people must receive compensation at fair market value.

It is unfair to leave decisions falling into the realm of jurisdiction up to the discretion of one person. In our criminal justice system, the decision as to whether or not to convict someone of a criminal offence lies in the hands and discretion of twelve people, not one.

When a decision such as this is left up to discretion, it opens the door for one's moral, ethical and even religious dispositions to come into the mix. This is something that is sure to spark a nationwide debate.

We need strict guidelines as to when the federal government can impose its laws on the provinces so that provinces and landowners know what to expect in terms of interference from the federal level. Since Bill C-5 leaves the federal government's power completely at the discretion of the minister responsible, landowners do not know if or when the federal government can or will impose its laws on provincial lands.

Instead of working together with the provinces and property owners, the federal government is introducing uncertainty, resentment and distrust. The federal government must be responsible for ensuring that it consults and co-operates with the provinces when making these considerations.

Somewhat ironically, in a 1999 independent study commissioned by the federal government entitled “A Review of National Accord Gap Analysis”, nine out of the twelve provinces and territories scored higher than the federal government regarding wildlife conservation. In fact, the federal government scored 44% on the test whereas all of the prairie provinces scored in the top five with marks ranging from 64% in B.C. to 85% in Alberta. How can one not see the irony in this?

Under these conditions found in a study commissioned by the federal government itself, it is still insisting that federal wildlife officials be allowed to peer over the shoulder of their provincial counterparts to ensure that they are doing the job. The provinces are obviously doing a better job of wildlife conservation than the federal government. Therefore, why is it that Bill C-5 does not recognize the federal government's own shortcomings in this area but rather adopts an arrogant attitude ensuring a dominating and coercive attitude toward the provinces? Each province and territory of Canada is different in regard to the species that inhabit their part of the country.

Officials at the Government of Saskatchewan expressed concerns in a number of areas covered in Bill C-5. First, they are of the impression that Bill C-5 does not adequately allow for provinces to take an equal system approach. What is good for one species in a grasslands may not be good for another species inhabiting the same environment. Bill C-5 is fairly narrow-minded and does not adequately allow for the provinces to take a diverse and open-minded perspective toward wildlife conservation.

Second, the Government of Saskatchewan is worried that it does not have the adequate resources or the timeframe to meet all of the provincial requirements outlined in Bill C-5.

Moreover, Bill C-5 is diverging from the spirit of the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada signed in 1996 by most provincial and territorial ministers responsible for wildlife and by the federal government.

The accord lays out a variety of commitments to protect species at risk. By its terms, the governments recognize that intergovernmental co-operation is crucial to the conservation and protection of species at risk. The governments play a leadership role. Complementary federal, provincial and territorial legislation, regulations, policies and programs are essential to protect species at risk.

Co-operation between the federal and provincial governments is at the heart of the accord. However, as I have stated before, Bill C-5 does not encourage co-operation between the provincial and federal governments but rather introduces uncertainty, resentment and distress.

[Immigration, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we do not need to examine the specifics of this case to find out what went wrong with refugee policy in Canada.

What federal policy, what regulation, what law determined that a foreign sex offender deported from the United States should have been eligible for refugee status in Canada?

[Immigration, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a violent sex offender with a lengthy criminal record was deported from the United States. He was granted refugee status after slipping into Canada. This individual was deported from the United States for convictions that included sexual assault and drug trafficking, yet he received refugee status while in Toronto Police custody.

Refugee status should be for people fleeing persecution not sex offenders fleeing prosecution. How can the minister explain to Canadians that he has allowed criminal sex offenders to claim refugee status?

[Immigration, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the motion of the member for Surrey North, as amended, would read:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should make regulations under paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Immigration Act with the effect that people claiming to be refugees pursuant to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees will not be admitted for consideration of their claim from the following countries: the United States, New Zealand, Australia and all countries that are members in the European Economic Union.

For his presentation tomorrow, he would like the motion amended. The change is just in the numbers.

[Immigration, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you would find the unanimous consent of the House to amend private member's Motion No. 422 standing in the name of the member for Surrey North, changing the reference to paragraph 114(1)(s) of the Immigration Act to paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Immigration Act.

The motion was drafted when the previous act was in effect so the paragraph reference needs to be updated. The member for Surrey North is scheduled to appear before the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business tomorrow and would like to straighten this out before that meeting.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am a little confused. I would think the way the hon. member spoke that she probably would vote for it then. It sounds like she agrees that it is a very good motion.

We certainly are not exploiting. When I read that story I found it a very sad story. I do not think I was exploiting the story at all.

Stories like the one I told can be very helpful to the Canadian Police Association in very many circumstances. Does the member know how the people in Clavet found out there was somebody in their riding who had been a serious sex offender ? They found out through the StarPhoenix , our Saskatoon newspaper. They did not know the man was dangerous. He was in the community which is a small community with very trusting people.

I am very surprised and insulted that the member would even suggest that we were exploiting it.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I do not know how many kidnappings involved parents. I am assuming and only hope that parents would never have been involved in such an incident.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar.

Today I rise to speak on the very important issue of the need for an efficient and effective national sex offender registry. I approach this issue from two perspectives, the first as a member of parliament and the second as a parent whose love for my children supersedes all other emotions and often helps dictate the kind of Canada I want to be a part of. I, like most parents, work to protect my children from danger. It is our responsibility as parents to do this for our children. This is the concept in a family dynamic, but today we extend this concept to our communities.

The Canadian Alliance is proposing that a more effective national sex offender registry would lessen the impact of danger on our children's lives. The crimes of pedophiles involve our most innocent citizens, our children. There should be no hesitation by members of the House in taking swift steps to develop a more effective national sex offender registry.

Let us examine the current registry, the Canadian Police Information Centre. It is an advanced computerized information storage and retrieval facility that provides tactical information on crimes and criminals. It is the only national information sharing system linking criminal justice and law enforcement officers.

It has four searchable criteria: name, address, offence and age. This is in comparison to the Ontario sex offender registry, which has 18 searchable criteria and is updated far more regularly than the CPIC currently in use. Included in Ontario's sex registry are a photograph and many descriptives like scars and tattoos. This is valuable information when looking for and identifying suspects. Why is the national registry missing such pertinent information?

I was informed by a constituent in my riding that when an individual is removed from public premises for suspicious behaviour displayed toward children, a description of the individual is often e-mailed to other public facilities to create awareness of a potentially dangerous situation. A description may sound something like this: a 51 year old man of average height, slightly overweight, with grey hair, and beginning to bald. I ask how many people sitting here today would fit that description. Would we screen all people fitting the description? On the side of safety, one would have to, but then we have to add that precious element of time.

When a child is abducted, time is of the essence. One does not have time to stop every individual who fits a general description. Police need searchable, relevant and applicable data on a national level. We have yet to provide that for them. Statistics for kidnappings that result in murder show that 44% of victims were dead within one hour, 74% were dead within three hours and 91% were dead within 24 hours. We can imagine the parents of these children as the hours pass by and law enforcement officers are forced to work with an inadequate system.

I refer now to a community in my riding, the community of Clavet. That community has had to deal with the stress and fear of discovering a neighbour who is a convicted sex offender. The man was originally sentenced to two years less a day and three years' probation for three counts of sexual assault. Upon release he moved to and resided in the town of Clavet, just minutes from a local school.

A lot of study has been done on pedophiles, their habits, their reasons for offending and their potential to reoffend. The results of these studies are not very reassuring. It has been shown that 50% of child molesters reoffend 10 to 30 years after sentencing. The community of Clavet did not have to wait that long. The man was eventually charged again for breaking an order to stay away from children. As well, he pleaded guilty to child pornography and weapons charges.

When I go to Clavet and my constituents ask what is being done to protect them and their children, should I expect them to be satisfied that this man's name, offence, age and address will be logged onto a system that may occasionally be updated?

I would not be very satisfied receiving that answer and I am not satisfied giving that answer. Therefore I ask that the government come through on its promise to provide an effective national sex offender registry.

As a parent, I would welcome a system that would ensure that when a heinous sex crime has been committed against children, identifying the perpetrators would be an immediate process. This would allow officials to eliminate or continue investigating the said suspect.

I said earlier that time was of the essence. I now repeat this phrase while considering our work as parliamentarians. The deadline for a new or improved registry was January 30, 2002. The deadline has passed. The dragging of feet through this legislation is unacceptable. We owe our children more than that. We owe law enforcement officers more than that.

The registry would be a tool to aid law enforcement officers to protect our children. My children and my constituents' children deserve this protection.

I have spoken at great length today about how having my own children motivates me in this cause. I now want to tell the real story of one child's pain that led to the creation of the Ontario sex offender registry, Christopher's law.

Christopher's law is the legislation behind the registry created in the memory of a child who was sexually assaulted and murdered. The number one recommendation of the jury presiding over the inquest into Christopher's death was the enactment of the dangerous sexual predator law. It gained strong national support throughout Canada.

The following is the way Linda Slobodian, of the Calgary Herald , explained the background:

Every night, Jim Stephenson and his wife Anna tucked their children, Christopher and Amanda, into bed and said, “Good night, luv ya.”

“You'd get, 'Yeah,' then they'd go off to sleep,” says Stephenson.

In 1988, the Thursday before Father's Day, Stephenson approached Christopher's bed.

“He looked up and said, 'I love you, Dad.' My reaction to that was 'Good! He didn't have to wait for me to tell him that. So now we can move our relationship to another level.' That was the last thing he ever said to me.”

The next evening, Anna and the kids went to the mall. They were on their way to the mall doors to leave, when Anna and Amanda, 8, went into a shop.

They were being stalked by Joseph Fredericks, a pedophile who arrived in Brampton three weeks earlier. He was on automatic parole afforded criminals who serve two-thirds of a sentence. Had there been a registry, police would have known where he was.

The shop was small. Anna told Christopher to stand outside, precious few feet from her, with the parcels.

The courts later heard Fredericks came up behind Christopher, put a knife to his throat and said, “Pick up the bags, come with me or I'll kill you.”

“You think you streetproof children, not to accept invitations for rides, but you never expect they'll be faced with that situation,” says Stephenson.

Anna looked up, didn't see Christopher and knew something was wrong. It wasn't like him to walk away.

A lady at the barber shop said Christopher just went by with a man.

Security sealed the doors. Police arrived within minutes. Fredericks was sexually assaulting Christopher across the street in a vacant field about 100 metres from the police station.

He then forced Christopher back to a basement apartment and repeatedly assaulted him over the course of the Friday evening and into the Saturday.

“Saturday night after it was dark, he was administered some sleeping pills. His hands were tied and he was forced out of the apartment across the street into another vacant field.

I will fast forward to finish.

Fredericks told them where where the body could be found. Stephenson identified him on Father's Day.

In the Stephensons' kitchen hangs a framed print. It is a scenic picture Christopher drew for Father's Day.

“There is a stream in it and a pond and three mountains.... At the cemetery where Christopher rests, there's a monument with three piers to it. And the cemetery has a pond. Curious. You wonder...” says Stephenson softly.

A national registry would not have prevented Christopher's assault but it could have saved his life. I beg the members of the House to put power behind our words and create a registry equal to one created in Christopher's memory before we have to name our national registration after another child.

[Community Heroes, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today I speak about Canadian heroes like Vincent Northrop, who won the CCA 2001 bull riding title. He showed his community that dedication can realize a dream.

Heroes like Kelly Wormsbecker, who volunteers with the CESO in the Philippines, showed how giving created community ties throughout the world. There are organizations of heroes such as the CWL of St. Frances Xavier Church. These women ambitiously participated in a ribbon campaign against pornography and showed their community how to speak up and be heard.

It is also with sorrow that I say goodbye to heroes in my community: Gary Beckie, former U of S basketball player who succumbed to cancer at age 41. By example Gary's life showed his community that living to its fullest was living a life of service. I also say goodbye to Francis Matovich, who was a pillar in both his church and first responder volunteers. His sudden passing showed his community how precious time is and how to make every moment count.

I urge everyone to look for the heroes in their communities and when they find these people learn from them and thank them for their dedication to making our communities a better place to live.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, please record my vote as opposed.