Peter MacKay

[Sex Offender Information Registration Act, March 31st, 2003]

I sure would like to comment on that, Mr. Speaker. Sadly, I think the police are sometimes played in a very political way. We know that they were asking for a DNA registry at the time of arrest in exchange for having a system that would actually work. What they got was far less than that and it was contingent on their support for the gun registry.

They have sold their souls again a little bit to continue that support, although I know that many of the rank and file do not support the gun registry and were quite adamant about pointing that out when they were here in Ottawa last week, because they know it does not work. They know there will be no accurate, timely information available on that system. They know it targets the wrong persons. Clearly not only will criminals not register their guns, they will not give their fingerprints before they break into a house either. It has been presented to Canadians in a disingenuous, flawed and completely inaccurate way from the very beginning by the minister at that time, who is reminiscent of Otto Lang, once described by John Diefenbaker, from the member's province, as a person who walks through a cow pasture and if there are five cow patties he will step in every one. That accurately describes the previous minister of justice who introduced this legislation.

Directly to the point, the Canadian Police Association is very anxious to have a system that will work. It is very anxious to put in place a registry system that would enhance public safety and give police accurate information that they could act upon to protect the public, just as, I suggest, we should have a national registry for missing persons. For individuals who are currently missing, that system would allow us to log on to a national databank which would provide information that would help locate persons and those who are, sadly, often victimized and who have been missing for years.

There are many practical ways to address this, as opposed to a system that we know does not work, that has been a sinkhole, that has been just an absolute brierpatch of disingenuous government propaganda versus practical systems that in fact enhance public safety.

I know that this member and all members of the House want to see a genuine attempt to bring forward national databank systems that in a practical way will help protect Canadians' lives, will help protect children from sexual predators and will give information to police and allow them to do the important job that they are tasked to do. I thank the member for his question.

[Sex Offender Information Registration Act, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Mississauga for his question. I know he has a longstanding interest in this subject and in particular in protecting children.

The short answer is “be warned and beware”. A system that allows police, community service workers and individuals who have access to the registry to identify who those individuals are, and to be cognizant of the fact that they obviously have demonstrated a proclivity, having been convicted of a sexual assault against a child and incarcerated and having found their names on that registry, allows those persons tasked specifically with protecting children to know who those individuals are within the community and to take necessary steps to keep a barrier, a distance, between individuals who might be so inclined.

That information being available, obviously the member would understand that, first, the information has to be accurate, it has to be timely and available, and it has to be broad based, because if offences have occurred on the west coast or the east coast the information must be available to all communities in between.

On the member's first question, I am not trying to be chippy here but these are the types of questions he should be asking his own government in regard to why it has taken so long to get the legislation to this point. Because he is right. He is certainly correct to suggest that for years there has been an outcry for a system such as this. The Province of Ontario took the initiative, largely because of frustration, in enacting a provincial sex offender registry. It is now offering co-operation and collaboration with the federal government to see that the system is applied nationally. I would hope, and in fact I know, that the hon. member is supportive in regard to seeing that happen, and so is the opposition, but let us get it right. Let us not make the mistake that we made, sadly, with current legislation dealing with child pornography, which does not go far enough and does not close loopholes.

My fear is that this legislation in its current form opens several loopholes. Yes, it is always better to take some rather than none, but I hate the feeling of pushing a rock up a hill, getting it to the top and having it roll back on us, which is often what happens with legislation such as this.

[Sex Offender Information Registration Act, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, like you, I am very appreciative of any allotted time and I hope to make good use of it here this afternoon.

Prior to the interruption for question period I was speaking about the national sex offender registry and the need to implement it in such a way that the information would be both accurate and readily available, that is to say, that the information would be recorded in the first instance and would be available through a stand-alone system so that the information collected, for example, in British Columbia would be equally available to courts in Newfoundland or Nova Scotia. It would be coast to coast.

I know that ministers like Tim Olive, who is here today, and John Hamm, the Premier of Nova Scotia, appreciate the fact that we need to have a national system in place that will allow policing services, victims services, the courts, the justice system generally to function with information that is accurate, that allows the system to protect, which is what it is supposed to do, at its most basic level.

The harm of a sexual assault is life-lasting. I would suggest that a failed prosecution or unsuccessful investigations can exacerbate the harm caused by these heinous crimes. It can further undermine the faith in the system. Again, the importance of having a stand-alone sex offender registry to ensure that information is disseminated across the country in a timely fashion and allows police to get this information and protect the public cannot be overstated.

Seriously, flaws can occur when the full picture is not before the court. I know you, Mr. Speaker, having practised law yourself, can appreciate the importance of evidence being accurate. If a person has a previous offence and has shown a previous proclivity toward sexual aggression, that necessary information must be available.

Under the current system and under a system that is combined with the existing CPIC, I suggest there is a reasonable expectation that the information will not be available. With critical pieces of the puzzle missing, it may result in an entirely different outcome at trial or perhaps an important element at the sentencing stage of a conviction if that information is not there.

Not unlike the taking of DNA at the time of arrest, which was a shortcoming of previous legislations, I would suggest that there are inherent flaws in the current bill. When the bill is sent to the justice committee we will have the opportunity to make the necessary corrections through amendment.

Those shortcomings have been pointed out by previous members. I would call the inability to have a stand-alone system as the most serious flaw in the bill before the House. The result is, of course, that a critical bit of information, a critical piece of evidence, may not be brought forward which might result in the police not having the ability to protect a young person from a serious assault.

A national system would also allow police greater access to this information and a greater ability to protect. This is the bottom line. It is a simple, good idea that would work and would require an investment of resource. Much of that resource, I suggest, already exists.

Again, to state it clearly, we should follow the infrastructure of the gun registry, which is used to register millions of inanimate objects with a purpose that does not work and will not protect the public, and apply that to a registry of some tens of thousands of sex offenders. We could then make that information available to the police, the courts and the justice system generally. We would then see a profound impact on the protection of the public.

The United States has registries that are currently up and operating. Ontario was the first Canadian province to establish such a registry of convicted sex offenders. It has, very genuinely, put forward the presumption that we can work together in using its system as a model. It demonstrates again where the initiative and the origin of goodwill is coming from in this instance.

Far too often we have seen the federal government demonstrate an arrogant, dismissive attitude toward the provinces. We have seen it with health and certainly with justice. This is another example where the provinces have said that we should take an existing system and apply it nationally.

What on God's green earth could be more important and more fundamental than protecting children from sexual offenders? I would suggest that this should be a top priority. I am quick to point out that the government has finally brought the bill forward but there are ways in which we can improve it and, sadly, the way in which it is presented is flawed.

The technology to create a stand-alone registry is available. It must be one of the government's top priorities. We have had upgrades to the CPIC system that allow for the flagging of pardoned records of sex offenders, so clearly there are inherent protections available. We have a system that hopefully will monitor those who are currently on probation and who have conditions of parole to adhere to. Yet a national sex offender registry, set up in a comprehensive national computer system and made available to police, is what is critical to improve the way in which we deliver the services today and monitor those who are currently under conditions of the court. The community has a right to know, I would suggest, and this leads me to the important issue of retroactivity.

I support the concept of retroactivity in this instance, as do attorneys general across the country, as do many police, victims' services and individuals working in the justice system who want to see that this system is working properly.

It is not double jeopardy, as has been suggested by members of the Liberal government. It is not a double punishment for those who are currently serving time for sex offences set out specifically in the Criminal Code to suggest that information about them be made available through a protected system of this registry to police and to the community in certain instances. There are safeguards that the government is aware of, yet there is some suggestion that for heinous criminals who are currently there, having conducted themselves in an abhorrent way and abused children, making it retroactive somehow would violate their rights, that it would violate their rights to have this information made available to certain individuals who are tasked specifically with protecting children.

There is a suggestion that there would be a constitutional challenge. Of course there would. As sure as night follows day, when there is a new bill from the government there is going to be a challenge. That goes without saying. Let it happen, but let us hope that it happens quickly. I would suggest again, for emphasis, that the importance here is that the proportionality test, which is always applied when it comes to issues such as this, the balancing of the rights of the individual versus the rights of Canadians to be protected, clearly is going to be weighted in favour of protecting children. It would be saved by one, so to speak, under a charter challenge.

For those who are currently convicted of sexual offences, who are currently serving time, who had the benefit of due process and appeals that have been exhausted, I would suggest that this would not be an infringement of their rights. To not do so, to not make that information available, I would suggest, is offensive not only to common sense but also offensive to the rule of law when one considers the benefit that comes from having information about those offenders and the threat that may be posed to young children.

Clearly it is always easy to criticize, but when there are easy, practical solutions, why would we not act? Why would we not do the right thing? Again I commend the government for having brought forward this legislation, finally, and having made this a government priority, but it is clearly not enough.

In terms of the practical solutions and many of those issues that we will revisit at the justice committee, I would suggest that the government could go a long way to restoring lost public faith in efficiencies and in priorities of government by simply scrapping the long gun registry and using that infrastructure to apply to a national sex offender registry. We could tailor existing infrastructure, that is, computers, personnel and systems, in a stand-alone way that is separate from the CPIC system to effectively have a registry that would protect Canadians.

Ontario, as I mentioned, was willing to put forward a plan that would apply the system it is currently using to the federal system in the hopes of encouraging the government to adopt this.

I want to suggest as well that there are many other ways in which we can tailor the existing criminal law to help protect young people. I have a private member's bill which would expand the probation orders to allow judges to make orders to protect young persons in dwelling houses, which is where most sex offences occur, sadly, by persons known to young individuals.

In conclusion, I want to say that with the bill we have an opportunity here to do something very significant and substantive to protect children and to at the same time restore faith if the government will in fact adopt a stand-alone sex offender registry and treat these occasions with the greatest of seriousness in bringing in a registry system that will truly protect young people in the country.

[Sex Offender Information Registration Act, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to rise in the House and to address this very important matter. For once, this is a very positive bill, one aimed at protecting children. That is a major priority for Canadians.

This legislation, as has been stated several times already, is long overdue. It is one that certainly we in the Progressive Conservative Party support. We have long been calling for a stand-alone sex offender registry that would have a very practical and immediate impact on the ability of the police to protect and enhance existing systems of protection for children and for communities generally.

The implementation of the legislation will be important. It comes from an incredibly sound idea, the concept that has been in public debate for some time. The introduction of the legislation represents a departure from the government's normal routine of doing very little.

Bill C-23 would require sex offenders to be registered in a national database, which would make changes to the Criminal Code and help police investigate crimes of a sexual nature. The registration itself is of certain information relating to sex offenders and would have no doubt a positive impact on the timeliness of investigations and, more important, would add a much to the needed element of public protection.

I am glad to see we are bringing this forward at this time. Our party has long been an advocate of action of this file and on a number of occasions we have called for the immediate implementation of such a registry. It boggles the mind to think that we would be spending so much time and effort on a long gun registry, as was alluded to already, that has cost the country a billion dollars, with more millions being poured into it as recently as last week, when we would have an opportunity to bring forward such a practical response in empowering police to do their investigations to protect children.

While we agree that this is a very important step in the process, having the opportunity to debate the particulars of the legislation, there remains a number of problems that I would like to point out. In particular, clause 20, subsection 490.03(4), provides convicted sex offenders with the opportunity to have their names removed from the registry if they can prove that it would impact on their privacy or liberty.

I am very concerned, and I would not put too fine a point on the analogy, with the loophole that already exists with respect to child pornography, which in essence gives a great deal of discretion in the area of what has been described as artistic merit. This is a similar type of loophole. The clause reads:

--if the order were made, the impact on them, including on their privacy or liberty, would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society...

I find this to be such an anomaly. When it comes to protecting children from sexual offenders, how can there be any disproportionate public interest? What could possibly trump the interests of protecting children?

My fear is that with this loophole, or setting up of a loophole, for sex offenders who do not wish to have their names included, who would define the grossly disproportionate impact? Who would define the public good? Even if there is an acceptable definition that we could all agree with for each of these terms, which I doubt, who then would decide which took precedence? Obviously, it would be the courts which would result in a long antiquated process that ultimately would not protect young people.

Let us hope we get it right in the first instance. Let us hope that judges will make that proper call. Then we would know that there is an appeal process. We know that there is a review process.

I am not suggesting that the balanced approach is not the correct one. My fear is we are deliberately putting in place a loophole which will result in immediate litigation.

Unfortunately, there are other changes which I believe need to take place within the scope and parameters of the bill. The bill, if it is to live up to its intention of public protection, not the least of which will be the need for a separate and stand-alone database, will have to be revised.

Police officers, provincial attorneys general and other people working in the field will verify that the current CPIC system does not allow for a mandatory registry of information pertaining to sex offenders, contrary to what the solicitor general and previous solicitor generals have said for years. This is exactly what is needed.

What is needed and what is imperative to protect children in particular and what would be very useful is to have a stand-alone system. If we could have a stand-alone system to register guns that does not work, surely we could have a stand-alone system to protect children. When one compares the two on balance, there is no comparison. We are pushing for a stand-alone system and continue to do so.

I have talked to members of the victims' services, to police officers, to those involved in child protection, to lawyers, Steve Sullivan and to many others who are concerned about having a system that does not quite fit the bill and really creates a false sense of security.

The information provided is only as good as its accessibility and its accuracy. In fact the Auditor General, on previous occasions, has outlined the inadequacies of the present CPIC system in terms of the data that it already holds.

To make the case, the current system, which was designed in 1966 consisting of one main computer, a communications network and the local hardware and software that provides users with access, has been near collapse at times. Despite efforts to update the system, I would suggest that simply adding or piecing together another element of the system would put further strain in place. What we have seen in the past is times when CPIC has been actually inoperable and police officers have been unable to access that important information.

It was originally designed to handle 11 million transactions annually and to accommodate 1,500 points of access. In 1998 the system handled 114 million transactions, 10 times its original design volume, and it currently handles more than 15,000 points of access, serving a current 1,285 police departments and government agencies.

Just to put that in context, what we are seeing is a system that is so overloaded. What we need, I would suggest and what provincial attorneys general, police and other interested parties are calling for, is a separate stand-alone system. The Canadian Police Association, as I mentioned, the Victims Resource Centre and many other concerned citizens suggest that the system needs to be stand-alone. The government is aware of that. It needs to show some leadership in this regard. If the political will exists, it can happen and happen quickly.

I do not want to mix messages on this point, but I must bring into the debate again the issue with respect to the gun registry on which a billion dollars plus, and counting, has been spent with no correlation to public safety. That is the misnomer the government and members opposite have tried to perpetrate now for years, that there is an actual connection, a nexus, between registering the long guns and public protection This is a complete fallacy and a farce that has been exposed repeatedly.

Liberal members of caucus were told that they had to toe the party line last week and, as a result, voted for supplementary estimates and another $68 million or $69 million into this Liberal sinkhole to really demonstrate again the face saving over lifesaving element behind this.

This is not the first time it was done, of course. We have seen numerous examples, such as the EH-101 helicopter cancellation, hundreds of millions of dollars spent on faulty advertising, HRDC programs and Pearson airport cancellation, all resulting in a lack of common sense and a lack of accountability and practical responsibility when it comes to governance.

What I am getting at is that here is an opportunity to take the existing infrastructure of the gun registry, the computer systems, the personnel, the effort that has been put into this flawed system, and apply it to a sex offender registry for a practical application that would work, that would protect children and that would put it back in line with the priorities of Canadians. I strongly suggest that this would go a long way to restoring some faith.

Currently, convicted offenders may be released into the community and change their residences, or their appearances or their names to avoid discovery. We know that sex offenders prey upon those least able to defend themselves and they do so by deceit, by disguise and by subterfuge. These types of nefarious activities are done intentionally so that they might go undetected.

Clearly there is a need to have accurate information that is current and available. Without an actual sex offender registry that is timely and accurate, we are putting children's lives at risk and I do not believe that the government in any way would want to put a price tag on that.

Coupled with the information that is currently found on the CPIC system, it is impossible to sort out in such a way the police and those in the law enforcement community can access and use this information for prevention. In my view, the addition of a sex offender category on the antiquated, overloaded system is destined to fail. We know that recidivism is extremely high with sex offenders.

In the event of reoccurrence, such heinous acts of abduction and sexual assault, valuable time is lost in trying to identify the suspect who is oftentimes not known to the local police or to the community, or because of the issue of mobility or nefarious means to change an appearance or name. This is a very prevalent occurrence.

A stand alone system would provide police with an enhanced ability to protect society and carry out this critical task of enforcing a safe and orderly society. It would give police better access to information about the specific whereabouts of offenders and all previous convictions of a sexual nature that have been registered through the courts.

Sadly, not all offenders make it onto the CPIC system. When the offence has occurred, for example, in British Columbia there may be a delay in entering that information into the system. If individuals then find themselves before the courts in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, it is difficult to ensure that the information is accurate.

Colleagues from Nova Scotia, South Shore and Cumberland—Colchester and members of the Progressive Conservative Party support this initiative. Let us ensure we get it right and let us ensure, when we bring this to the justice system, there is a common sense approach taken to amend this process to ensure that it works for all Canadians.

[Iraq, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is a pattern from the Liberal government: senators, members of Parliament, cabinet ministers, press secretaries and ambassadors. The Prime Minister says that the parade of insults will stop. When?

Does the Prime Minister not understand how injurious these remarks are to our relationship with our biggest and most important trading partner? Can the Prime Minister not control his caucus, or has he chosen not to?

[Iraq, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the real question is, when will the Prime Minister show some leadership instead of crass political posturing and poll chasing?

[Iraq, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the ambassador of the United States criticized the Canadian government for abandoning the United States in its time of need. Our relationship with our closest ally, a $1 billion a day trading partner, is being allowed to disintegrate in a flurry of Liberal insults.

How did the government respond to Mr. Cellucci? Yesterday a senator was quoted in the other place as saying “Screw the Americans”. Add this to the list of long Liberal insults.

Has the Prime Minister suspended this member from caucus? Has he denounced or reprimanded him, or will the Prime Minister once again just let it slide?

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. friend's comments and he brought forward a very practical, surgical-like dissertation on this issue.

He makes a number of very important points, not the least of which is that it is clear that it is pure, unadulterated politics that is driving the continuation of pouring money into this gun registry; gun registry being the issue, not gun control because there is no nexus whatsoever to gun control.

As my friend points out, first, there is no ability for the police to rely on this information. Second, there will be no participation by the Hell's Angels or others who might be so inclined to use guns for a criminal purpose. They will not forfeit their fingerprints before entering into somebody's house.

The practical aspect is that if in fact I took one of those same laser imprints and stuck it on this chair, my colleague from South Shore could still hit me over the head with it, even if that number was registered, even if it was punched into a computer.

I ask my friend, is there any real benefit, other than to bilk more money out of taxpayers and put more emphasis on face-saving than lifesaving, to the registry?

[The Economy, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, according to recent Statistics Canada figures, the outlying regions of this country appear to be in a major demographic and economic decline. I saw this for myself during recent trips in Quebec and other parts of Canada.

Last November, the young people of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik were demanding to see the Prime Minister. Will he go to Abitibi-Témiscamingue in order to see for himself the economic problems besetting that region?

[Canadian Forces, February 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, our military has been in desperate need of new helicopters for over two decades and yesterday's accident on the HMCS Iroquois demonstrates how starving our military of resources has put Canadian's lives at risk.

At the same time a Sea King helicopter was crash landing on the deck of the Iroquois , we saw a smiling Prime Minister disembarking from his brand new Challenger.

When the government hides the $100 million price tag for two luxury Challengers from the public, where is the transparency? Where are this government's priorities?

The Liberals' legacy of waste and mismanagement results in a blatant disregard for the money and safety of others. The HRDC fiasco, Shawinigate, corrupt ad contracts, a billion dollars on a failed long gun registry, a ballooning bureaucracy and our international reputation is in decline.

Choose your Prime Minister carefully.

When we pick a Prime Minister we often pick our priorities. Life-saving helicopters or luxury jets, which would we choose?