Bill C-12 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act

Criminal Code

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in this House to take part in this very important debate on Bill C-12.

The bill is one which capsulates, and very much is intended to address, an extremely important issue, that being the proliferation and possession of child pornography in this country. I am very sad to say that the overwhelming feeling that I and many others, including the previous speaker, have been left with is that a huge missed opportunity is occurring within the pages of Bill C-12.

While the bill attempts to address these critical matters of protecting children in the country, it falls far short. In its final analysis, it is described as a complex and cumbersome bill that will not make it easier to prosecute sex offenders and those who, in many cases, are sexual predators in our community who perpetrate the worst kind of violence on children: sexual abuse, which is tantamount in many situations to a life sentence of turmoil, of complex physical damage, of the type of impact on a person's life from which they never recover.

The responsibility, obligation, upon members of Parliament, those in a position to address the situation, cannot be understated. Here we had a golden opportunity to do something about this egregious situation that is occurring on the streets, in small villages and towns and residences across the country.

The controversy arising in one area of child pornography that came out of the now infamous John Robin Sharpe case, which went all the way up to our Supreme Court of Canada, and the difficulty that remains surrounding the definition of an artistic merit interpretation that was left by the courts allows for a dangerous and broad interpretation of a type of child pornography of which a person might be in possession. This statement not only has allowed but has left open the door for further proliferation of child pornography by individuals like John Robin Sharpe,

There is an important distinction to be made between the types of defences that rely on an exception, if you will, to possession of certain types of materials. I want to be clear in defining that. The courts spoke of essentially three exceptions, artistic merit being one of them, which I personally and many members of the Conservative Party oppose. It also made way for educational, scientific or medical purposes. What we are talking about clearly is anatomy charts, instructional videos for educational purposes that depict a child in a certain fashion.

All of those defences lumped in with artistic merit were, in essence, boiled down by the courts to a single defence of public good. That broad interpretation is what is so dangerous. The former justice minister in the wake of this decision came before the justice committee and essentially admitted that the broader definition of public good defence was still very much one which would leave open the possibility of a person possessing child pornography. He said, and I am quoting from his testimony at the justice committee:

Artistic merit still exists in the sense that a piece of art will have to essentially go through the new defence of public good and through the two stages. Of course, the first question is always this. Does it serve the public good?

That might be the first test, but that second broad category of artistic merit leaves open the possibility that an individual can possess or perpetrate or proliferate child pornography. A zero tolerance definition is needed. No one in any way, shape or form in this country should be encouraged or permitted to possess child pornography, full stop. Yet the bill leaves open that very real possibility. That is the Liberal answer to the John Robin Sharpe case.

I am fearful that any backing away or watering down of a definition such as this will leave that danger out there for young people in this country. There is no excuse for not completely eradicating the flexibility that was left open by the Supreme Court.

That is not to say there are no other elements of the bill that do at least attempt to go further in securing the lives and the safety of children, and I will touch on that in a moment. The fundamental question in this debate must centre around the harm that could be caused to those who are most vulnerable, mainly children.

Underlying this theme, we must give thought to the role of the court in the context of judicial policy making as it pertains to the supremacy of Parliament. We must show how this new legislation would eradicate child pornography in Canada within the context of the artistic merit defence. Bill C-12 comes up short. The legislation does not go far enough. It does not subject the country to the type of ironclad protections that should be available when it comes to protecting children.

One of the often used defences when we see cases like this is that if we were to bring forward amendments in legislation to shut down any further interpretation there could be a constitutional challenge. Well, as sure as night follows day, in a matter like this there will be a constitutional challenge. If we get caught up in the constitutional constipation that we see constantly from the government, we will leave a lot of people vulnerable. On an issue as fundamental as the protection of children that is unacceptable.

The government is letting down the country when it comes to leaving open interpretations such as artistic merit for child pornography. There is an inherent danger in society as a whole when we fail to recognize the detrimental effects of child pornography at a very basic level.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does provide sufficient protection for freedom of thought and expression, and surely a common sense interpretation has to follow, but what constitutes a reasonable limit is central to the debate, the so-called Oakes test that applies when it comes to a clash of constitutional rights protected by the charter.

The existing defences of child pornography are outlined in Bill C-12. Artistic merit is grouped in with educational, scientific or medical purposes. That is misleading and unacceptable. They are reduced to the public good definition. I have already referred to the justice minister's admission that the public good is still a wide open interpretation.

In the R. v Sharpe case, the Supreme Court also briefly considered the defence of public good. The court found that the public good has been interpreted as “necessary or advantageous...the pursuit of science, literature, or art, or other objects of general interest”.

What on God's green Earth does that mean? What are the general interests of somebody so sick as to go out and depict children in a sexual fashion?

The court went on to say:

It might be argued that the public good is served by possession of materials that promote expressive or psychological well-being or enhance one's sexual identity in ways that do not involve harm to others.

Explicitly, child pornography harms children. The making of it, the depiction of children in a sexual fashion, harms children, harms society and tears the social fabric.

The court went on to say:

In some cases this might eliminate some of the more problematic applications of s. 163.1(4). For example, it might in certain cases foreclose the law's application to visual works created and privately held by one person alone, or to private recordings by adolescents of their lawful sexual activity. Nevertheless, the public good defence might not answer all concerns as to the law's breadth. Absent evidence of public good in the particular case, a person might still be convicted for possession of material that directly engages the value of self-fulfilment and presents little or no risk of harm to children. Thus, while the public good defence might prevent troubling applications of the law in certain cases, it would not do so in all.

That admission by the court underlines the problem of leaving the door even slightly open.

We must speak with clarity and strength on the issue. We must call for the elimination of all defences that would justify the criminal possession of child pornography and call for legislation that would criminalize possession of child pornography. Of course the criminal possession of that material would not apply to those in the justice system who have it for the purpose associated with prosecution, for research or for studying the effects of exposure to child pornography, which is consistent with the court's definition of educational and scientific material.

However I would underline again, for emphasis, the fact that through the bill the minister has left the matter open to interpretation by the courts, strikes at the very heart of what we are tasked with in this place.

The intent of the bill should be, first and foremost, to protect children from all forms of exploitation, all forms of child pornography and all forms of sexual exploitation that, in many cases, documented, scientific, anecdotal and otherwise, lead to further abuse. That is something that we should be moving with quickness and with clarity to eradicate.

Definitions of public good that are as vague as the resulting case law, in this case entrenched by the bill, would not leave courts with the sufficient objectivity to decide what is and what is not pornographic.

I would argue strenuously, having appeared in numerous courts, that common sense would prevail and that the judges, given the opportunity to judge on its merits what constitutes child pornography, would find in every case, having run the gamut, that child pornography can be easily identified, and the purpose for which it is being used is the only defence. Allowing that definition of artistic merit to remain in the bill would open a very dangerous element to that interpretation.

I ask rhetorically why the minister would want to leave that interpretation there. Why did the minister and the government wait so long to act? Why did we have to wait, in this instance, for the court to make that ruling?

I know there will be a legion of lawyers lining up to use this defence and I know it will make its way through the courts again. If this bill becomes law, as a result of the flawed drafting that I see, it will very likely wind up back before this place again, so why would we not do it right the first time? Is that not really the goal here, to be efficient, to streamline legislation, to do it right in the first instance?

As my colleague from Lakeland has indicated, that does not appear to be the way the government operates. It is always about waiting to see what the courts will do, or waiting to see what the polls crystallize around, and somehow keeping the political angle first and foremost in its mind. That is not the way a government should operate, particularly on an issue as fundamental as protecting children.

This is an occasion where the government should act with strength, with leadership and with vision on something so fundamental that goes to the very bedrock of our society, protecting our most vulnerable citizens, the children of Canada.

We are left with flawed legislation that could be fixed easily by removing this artistic merit loophole. My colleague from Surrey Central gave a very comprehensive and fact based speech in the House of Commons this morning. He spoke of the need to put resources into policing, the need to help some of the social services that are there, not only to help with the aftermath of violence and sexual exploitation, but to help prevent it. In the cases of policing, he spoke of the shocking figures that exist in some communities where they do not have enough resources for their police.

It is also a telling comment to know that the police do not support this bill. The police forces in Canada have found the bill wanting for some of the same reasons outlined by myself and my colleague from Surrey. They clearly recognize, as do others, the shortcomings.

Similarly, child advocacy groups have found the bill wanting. They recognize that the bill would give no greater legal protection, nor would it assist in the prosecution of these cases.

The bill should be about accountability and about taking steps to hold people to account when these atrocities occur, but further than that, it should also be about deterrence, about setting an example and about holding a person to account. Putting in place mandatory maximum sentences or raising the maximum sentence does not do that because there is no commensurate requirement for judges to follow that sentencing scheme.

It sounds very impressive when we say that the maximum sentence will be jacked up, but there is no requirement in the bill for a judge to follow that recommendation. Mandatory minimums, on the other hand, would. They put in place a minimum sentence.

I would suggest that when it comes to child sexual exploitation there is need for incarceration and for deterrents. Public protection should be first and foremost in the bill.

On the issue of protecting children, I think we could get unanimity in this place if we were to recognize our responsibility to address anything that allows us to further protect society. I am therefore absolutely astounded that this legislation has left open this artistic loophole.

If we were to step outside this bubble, this political world in which we live, and if we were talk to average Canadians, I think we would find that they too are stunned to find that we have missed an opportunity to protect our children. Why has the Liberal government failed to protect all children? Why did it not bring in a more strident and efficient bill? I cannot answer that question and it is a question that I find extremely troubling.

The interpretation of what constitutes child pornography is something with which the courts are wrestling. Works of a nature that exploit children go against the very fabric of what is acceptable and what is moral in a just society. There can be no denial that there is a direct correlation between the machinations and fascinations of some demented individuals that would harm children and what is actually carried out or perpetrated. Why risk the potential danger when the collective will of the people would see any sort of material that would fall into that definition stricken from existence?

In handing down the Sharpe decision in the first instance, Justice Shaw effectively broadened the interpretation that was there for the current exemption of that defence. Although the Supreme Court wrestled with it, it did not sufficiently close that definition.

While it seems that the minister's lawyers have weighted the rights of the individual and the rights of the child, which is a clash I would say that should be certainly decided in favour of the child, we are once again left with a very mediocre attempt to correct what the Canadian public clearly recognizes is a serious problem. Yet the government is unprepared to step up to that challenge.

By being unwilling to protect the rights of children, and by extension their families, I suggest the government might at the very least have taken the opportunity to present in the upcoming budget steps that would allow for the support of families, the support of policing units and the support of social services, and by that I mean certainly elevating the transfer payments that are there and fixing the fiscal imbalance.

The Conservative Party has been very supportive of past and present laws that protect children, the law enforcement community, victims groups and child advocacy groups that are constantly tasked and struggling with a lack of resources and the overwhelming and, sadly, the increasing numbers of cases that involve children.

This is a sad day when we have legislation as fundamental, as critical as this and the opportunity seems to be slipping through our fingers. I ask rhetorically, why would the government present a flawed legislation on something as fundamental as this? Why do we not just do it right in the first instance? Let us fix the bill because we cannot support it in this flawed state.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely true that such heinous crimes have been increasing in our communities.

In the city of Surrey, many children have been kidnapped. There are some famous cases where the kids have been even murdered. I do not want to name those children to respect the privacy of the families. It is certainly very painful to see that happen.

The city of Surrey is considered, unfortunately, the auto theft capital of North America. Break and enters, gang violence, drug related violence and organized crime related violence have been escalating.

One root cause is the government has not been giving enough resources to the law enforcement agencies. Today there are 4,200 fewer RCMP officers on our streets and highways than there were when the Liberals came to power in 1993. Moreover, last year the Canadian Police Association said that the RCMP needs an immediate infusion of $250 million into the system.

The Canadian per capita average indicates that British Columbia would need 691 more police officers. In Surrey there is one police officer per 893 residents. In Vancouver there is one police officer per 400 people. On a per capita basis, we have just half the police officers.

There are 75 vacancies in the RCMP in the city of Surrey alone. Those positions have been vacant for a very long time. Why? One underlying reason is that the Liberal government is not giving our law enforcement agencies enough resources.

In addition to having fewer police officers, they have the highest number of files per police officer. In Surrey, RCMP officers each handle on average 126 files. We know what the result is from starving the RCMP of resources, officers and vehicles to patrol the streets. Naturally the response time after 911 calls is longer. Naturally there is a shortage of police officers on the street. Therefore crime is on the rise.

We need to take action. I have been calling upon the weak and arrogant Liberal government time and again to do something about it. The Liberals have not done anything. With Bill C-12, the Liberals had another opportunity to make the legislation tougher to protect our children and they have failed.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

Contrary to yesterday's assertion by the justice minister, the official opposition cares about protecting children from sexual predators. That is why we are firmly opposed to Bill C-12. We want legislation that makes the perverts who prey upon our innocent children fearful.

Unfortunately, Bill C-12 fails in that regard. This bill has been endorsed by none other than Mr. John Robin Sharpe, the very man who was found guilty of possession of as many as 400 images of children whom prosecutors contended were being exploited sexually.

In March 2002 Sharpe's conviction concerning the images was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, he was ultimately acquitted of related charges that had been filed against him in connection with the stories he had written, specifically because those writings were deemed to have artistic merit. Mr. Sharpe feels that this bill is so poorly crafted that even he could use it to his advantage in the courts.

To quote the nation's most notorious child pornographer, “The interesting thing about the child sex laws is that they may offer some unintended opportunities for the defence”. Mr. Sharpe asserts that the federal proposal is a panic reaction to his two successes in challenging the current legislation in court. He further writes, “I am fairly confident that given good legal counsel, and a by-the-book judge who bases his decisions on the wording of the law...I and my stories would again be acquitted under the proposed measures”.

The problem with this bill lies in the proposed public good defence. Mr. Sharpe is not alone when he claims that the proposal is too vague to survive court challenges. Many legal experts agree with him. Judges who interpret and apply the law do not consider the many fine speeches delivered in this chamber. They simply look at the words of the laws that we pass in this place.

What does public good really mean? The government has failed to make that clear. What if, as Mr. Sharpe suggests, a judge finds it in the public good to allow possession of child pornography if it prevents convicted child molesters from reoffending again? That certainly is within the realm of possibility.

If Parliament passes this bill, a person would be found guilty of a child pornography offence when the material or act in question does not serve the public good or where the risk of harm outweighs any public benefit. Since the Sharpe case, Conservatives have called again and again on the federal government to eliminate the artistic merit defence, but replacing it with a public good defence is not the solution. We must eliminate all defences that justify the criminal possession of child pornography.

The Liberals need to get their priorities straight. They have brought forward many pieces of legislation, but none of them protect children against child pornography. For years I have been demanding a stop to the sexual exploitation of children, but the Liberals clearly lack the political will to fix that problem for our society.

In fact, during the Liberal government's tenure, family values have been continually eroded. We can talk about any single issue that relates to family values. Those family values have been eroding under the Liberals, whether it is the definition of marriage, protecting children from child pornography, raising the age of consent, taxation laws with respect to single parent families, or giving law enforcement agencies enough resources and laws with teeth.

On every single front, the Liberal government has let families down. It always forgets that the stronger the family, the stronger the community and the stronger our great nation would be. The foundation of this great country is the family, not the social welfare system. We have to strengthen our families. We have to protect children and other vulnerable people.

Canadians want laws with teeth. That is one thing we can do in this chamber. At least we could make laws with teeth and not have just a slap on the wrist or a revolving door criminal justice system. We cannot do that anymore. Why can the Liberals not see that we want deterrents in place, not some sort of motivation for criminal behaviour?

Bill C-12, which we are debating today, will increase maximum sentences or maximum penalties for offences that harm children. I agree, but that is not good enough. How many times has government introduced legislation that increases maximum sentences? What is the good of increasing maximum sentences if the courts will not apply the full force of the laws we already have in place? Increasing penalties is meaningless if the courts do not impose the sentences.

We know from experience that when maximum sentences are raised there is no corresponding pattern in the actual sentencing practices. What is needed? Mandatory minimum sentences. We need truth in sentencing. We need no conditional sentences for child predators. We need minimum mandatory sentences instead of the maximum sentences so that the judges can implement them.

Bill C-12 creates a new category of sexual exploitation that protects people aged 14 to 18. Courts would focus not on consent but on whether the relationship is exploitative based on age difference, control exerted and other circumstances. Again, that is not good enough. It is already against the law for a person in a position of trust or authority, or with whom a young person is in a relation of dependency, to be sexually involved with that young person. It is already in the law. It is unclear how adding such people will add legal protection for young children.

What the Liberals should have done instead was increase the age of consent for any sexual activity. A major shortcoming of the bill is that it fails to raise the age of consent for sexual activity between children and adults. I fail to see the rationale for permitting adults to engage in any sexual activity with children. The government should raise the age of consent, currently set out in section 150.1 of the Criminal Code, from 14 to 16 at least, if not 18.

In Surrey, we are all too familiar with the problem of prostitution. Studies have found that 70% to 80% of Canadian prostitutes enter the trade as children. In particular at that age, the recruitment process for the sex trade in Canada preys on young girls and boys and specifically targets those who are at the current age of consent, that is, 14. According to the Children of the Street Society, the majority of parents who call asking for help from the police have children who are 14 years old and are being recruited into the sex trade by the pimps.

I ask the Liberals, do they think that 50 year old men should be able to target 14 year old runaways for sex, give them a sexually transmitted disease and get them pregnant? What response will Liberals give at the doorstep during the upcoming campaign? I would be very interested to hear from the government members who lack the political will to protect our children from these sex predators.

The results of dozens of studies show the effect of adult sexual contact with children. There is a huge risk of clinical depression, suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, and extreme promiscuity and involvement in prostitution. It is vitally important that we do not confuse physical maturation with psychological maturation. The “age of majority” is a term used by lawyers to protect the offender and to describe the time in life after which a person is legally no longer considered a child. In essence, it is an arbitrary time when a child becomes an adult in the eyes of the law.

Why is it that we as a society feel that children are ill-prepared to drive, to drink, even to vote or marry or drop out of school or even watch violent movies, but we feel they are totally ready to decide for themselves with whom they should have sex? It is a pity to have this societal social evil. This makes absolutely no sense.

Raising the age of sexual consent would definitely put us more in line with other western nations. We know that in Denmark, France and Sweden the age of consent for sexual activity is 15. In Australia, Finland, Germany, Holland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and even the United Kingdom, the age of consent for sexual activity is 16. In Canada, we still have that age of 14. It is time for the Liberals to prohibit adults from having sex with children under the age of 16. This age of 14 is not a good thing for society.

The need to protect innocent and vulnerable children from pimps and other sexual predators is a matter of highest priority. It should not be on the back burner of the government's priorities. How many Canadians are aware that a 14 year old can move into a conjugal relationship with a 50 year old? There is nothing the parents can do, at least legally, to put a stop to such an exploitative relationship. Persons at 14 and 15 years of age lack the mental and emotional maturity to cope with the psychological effects of engaging in sexual activity with older persons.

A survey last summer found that 80% of Canadians, eight out of ten people, believe the age of sexual consent should be raised to 16. So why does the age of consent remain at 14?

I know that the Liberal government is governing the country with polls. It has been looking at the polls for the definition of marriage and now is looking at the polls for when to call the election, but why does it not see this same poll, in which 80% of Canadians demand from this weak and arrogant Liberal government that the age for sexual activity be raised from 14 to at least 16? Why are we depriving parents of the ability to protect their children from sexual exploitation? It is a very important issue. It cannot be ignored.

I talked about minimum mandatory sentences. They are a root cause of the criminal justice system not being effective. Let us take marijuana cultivation as an example. According to a British Columbia police study, on average it takes seven convictions before a person will serve jail time for cultivation of cannabis. In neighbouring Washington State, first time offenders get an automatic three month sentence. Needless to say, we have considerably more grow ops in British Columbia, particularly in my constituency, than they do south of the border.

But what does the government do? It introduces legislation that would increase maximum sentences for larger grow operations. What about the minimum sentences? Minimum sentences are what Canadians need. They send a message to the criminal element in society that we are serious about preventing crime, whether it is child pornography, drugs or any other violent crime.

It is very important that we look into these issues seriously. I talked about Surrey. We know that last year a massive RCMP probe, code-named Project Snowball, tracked more than 2,000 Canadians, including over 406 in British Columbia, suspected of possessing and distributing sexually explicit pictures of children. Out of those 406 identified in British Columbia, 23 were from Surrey.

A quick survey of local Surrey newspapers reveals many cases of adults sexually exploiting children. For instance, there is 32 year old Stephen Smith, who was charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual exploitation involving two underage boys he had met on the Internet. Dale Nault, a 34 year old, also from Surrey, was charged with three counts of sexual assault involving a 14 year old boy he met over the Internet and with one count of possession of child pornography.

In all these cases, the government failed to protect the children. I know that my time is almost up, but I would like to say that if the Liberals were serious about protecting our children and making our streets safe for all Canadians, they would strengthen our laws by introducing maximum sentences and ensuring that sentences handed out are actually served. They would give law enforcement agencies the resources they need to fight crime instead of wasting money on a useless gun registry.

Rather than registering sex offenders, the government has been wasting billions of dollars registering guns of law-abiding citizens. We need a comprehensive sex offender registry, tougher sentences for pedophiles, elimination of all legal loopholes for child pornography, a streamlining of the administrative process for convicting sex offenders and the prohibition of all adult-child sexual contact.

In closing, I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding: “and that the committee report back no later than April 5, 2004.”

Justice

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, if Bill C-12 passes, we will have one of the strongest pieces of child protection legislation of any democracy in the world, which includes stronger child pornography provisions, a special category to protect against sexual exploitation, tougher sentencing provisions and measures to protect children.

I want to ask the opposition--

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, known pedophile Robin Sharpe has stated publicly that Bill C-12 would actually be of benefit to him.

Now the opposition in response is intentionally putting up roadblocks to the passage of Bill C-12.

Would the Minister of Justice tell the House whether Sharpe is right? Would Bill C-12 benefit him?

Criminal Code

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it very positive to rise today to speak about this issue, an issue that I have followed since I came to Parliament 10 years ago. It is also an issue that I had a lot to do with when I was a police officer on the streets of Calgary.

In regard to the exploitation of children, I have experienced the pain of parents who have had children exploited in one form or another. When we talk about pornographic images, let us get down to where the rubber hits the road, that is, every time a child's pornographic picture is shown as an image it is again victimizing that child, time and time again. I think that many in the House forget this fact.

Where is the line drawn when it comes to collecting pornography? That is another issue that we have not defined very clearly in the House.

Let us get to the point. We have a new government on the other side, or that is what they keep telling us anyway. One would think that at least the new government would use this Parliament to make some legitimate changes in legislation over and above this bill, because it was actually developed by the old government. What is the difference between the old and the new? I think it is obvious to all that there is no difference.

I had hoped that a new government would put some teeth into the bill and would put the protection of children ahead of the so-called public good argument or artistic merit argument of pedophiles. It did not. I guess I was only dreaming. It turns out that this is the same bill with the same faults, which will lead to the same problems for police, for judges and ultimately for Canada's children as well as those who most want to protect children, that is, parents.

The government made a reference to the protection of children in the throne speech. I think we can all remember that. Obviously all that reference merits is this ineffective bill. In fact, the bill is a distraction so that Canadians will not think about the failure of the government to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation.

Over the past three years, the government has had an opportunity to respond to the threats to our children. John Robin Sharpe was found in possession of pornographic photos of children. He challenged his charges. In 2001, a B.C. court dropped a bomb on parents, police and concerned citizens across the country when it said that in some cases even violent child pornography was legal, citing artistic merit at that time. Since that time, this has been thrown into this public good argument.

Organizations like the Canadian Justice Foundation and Mad Mothers Against Pedophiles, with our party, waited for the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause if necessary. It was called on. We demanded not only the protection of children from sexual predators, but it would trump kiddie porn. We had a glimmer of hope when the government announced the new bill in the last session. When the so-called new government, which is really a warmed over old government, put the protection of children in the throne speech, there was a possible breath of fresh air in the thinking that something would change.

As it turns out, our hopes were false hopes. The bill does not protect children. The bill will at best maintain the status quo and at worst it will mean that child porn and sex with minors are issues that will become fixtures in the Canadian agenda.

The bill was designed by someone who either does not understand the courts and does not understand law enforcement or who does understand both and does not intend to protect our children at all.

For years now we have been calling on the government to raise the age of sexual consent. In fact, today in the House I reintroduced my private member's bill, which seeks to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. Every time the issue comes up, the government uses the lame excuse that if it raises the age of consent that might criminalize the sexual activity of young people close in age. Everyone knows this is nonsense.

As my colleague from Provencher has argued in the House, all the government needs to do is establish a peer exemption for sexually active younger teens. In fact, that is precedent in our courts today: peer exemption. The government chose instead to create a category of sexual exploitation aimed at protecting children between the ages of 14 and 18.

That is an interesting category. Our party's senior justice critic has comments about that. I have a lot of respect for our senior justice critic, unlike those in the NDP, because this man sat in the courtrooms of our country handling cases like this time and again. He knows and understands where things go in the courts. He has watched those who have been victimized. He has seen the broken families as a result of the issues we are speaking of that are in our courts today.

This is what our senior justice critic has recorded:

Bill C-12 fails to raise the age of consent for sexual contact between children and adults. Instead, the bill creates the category of “exploitative relationships” aimed at protecting people between the ages of 14 and 18. In determining whether a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, a judge must consider--

Here again he is drawing on his knowledge of the court.

--the age difference between the accused and the young person, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.

That is what the court has to decide. That is what the prosecutor has to argue. That is what the defence and the accused will be about in the courts of the land.

I will continue the quote:

This category is a vague provision that fails to create the certainty of protection that children require. It will not serve as a real deterrent and will simply result in longer trials and more litigation.

As a former police officer, I fully agree with our senior justice critic in understanding the courts, the defence and the arguments that will be presented. In other words, our courts are going to become a platform for the abuser, the accused, to get his message out. He has a doctrine that he wants to put out to the people of this country and now he will have the courts to argue his case. The relationship of the abuser or so-called abuser and the victimized child will be placed in the public domain. I think that is criminal in itself.

It will be up to the court to determine whether or not a relationship is exploitive. Clearly, in making a determination, a judge must take into consideration the age difference between the accused and the young person, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person. This will ultimately tie up our courts, and regrettably, will not guarantee our children the protection they desperately need.

I am talking about our present court system. It is already against the law for someone in a position of trust or authority, or in a relationship of dependency, to be sexually involved with a young person between the ages of 14 and 18. I do not see how this provision is going to help a lot, apart from providing more opportunities, because it would be in the legislation, for the accused and the defence to argue more about the relationship. I find that absolutely unacceptable.

The bill could have dealt with the age of sexual consent, but rather than simply raising the age of consent from 14 to 16, the bill would allow adults to have sex with 14 and 15 year olds unless the adult was in a position of authority. That is the intent of the government.

Parents of 14 year olds, whom I spoke to, shook their heads over that particular clause. Police forces across Canada shudder at what it means. They are already having a difficult time processing what they have under the present legislation.

Child pornography has skyrocketed. It has exploded since the use of the Internet has been employed by pedophiles and pornographers. Police departments across the nation are developing specialized units that just handle this kind of an offence.

In fact, they cannot keep up because the Internet knows no boundaries and no particular country. It is broadly global and these images float about everywhere. It does not matter in what part of the world one is in, one can tap in to them.

The strategies, even for police to sit down and analyze the issue of child pornography, and that is what we are talking about here, are becoming difficult for enforcement agencies worldwide. They need resources to do it.

There is so much in the proposed legislation and the court precedents over pornography that it is difficult for enforcement agencies to wade through it all to prepare a case for court. The present legislation just convolutes the matter even more. It makes it even more difficult.

I have not heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice that the government has a plan regarding resources, or is developing a program or initiative that would deal with the issue of pornography.

Everybody has the opportunity to just go out and do it, do what they see through their own eyes as the way they want to portray pornography. At the same time, enforcement agencies are crying for assistance. That is where we are at.

This clause is not only of no use to the police but will have the perverse effect of dissuading police from even investigating cases of sex with 14 year olds or following up on pornographic images of such. Why? Because proving a position of power is vague, almost meaningless and requires all kinds of legal interpretation. It is totally open to challenge, not to mention that it is senseless.

The fact is that some 40 year old can exploit a 14 year old. Images can be taken of that and distributed under what basis? Artistic thought and merit or public good. The argument will go on and on. It will go on in our courtrooms and those will be the platforms from which the pornographers will operate. They will make their gains in the courts because they would be given that opportunity through the legislation that is offered here.

Instead of going to the public, the moms and dads and the grandmas and grandpas out there, this matter has been turned over, unfortunately, to the lawyers and the courts. The same courts that ruled that John Robin Sharpe was an artist. Under this law, an old man will have every right to have sex with a 14 year old he finds on the street. The images can be collected and distributed on the Internet. The courts will have a tough time trying to track that down in order to deal with it.

Believe me, just like John Robin Sharpe, all the pornographers and perverts will study the law. I sat in on a court case in British Columbia watching another notorious exploiter of children, Mr. Toft. He sat by his lawyer, and between the two of them they argued the case in court like they were both coming from the legal side of things to have his charges worked through the court. He was not in the docket as an accused but sat right beside his lawyer. Go figure.

This law would actually create an enormous opportunity for child pornographers. It would allow an exception to the ban on child porn where pornographers could demonstrate some public good. As we have seen with John Robin Sharpe and his buddies at the Civil Liberties Association, there is no shortage of people to challenge the law. It will be a heyday for them.

Today we should be prepared that challenges will thrust the most hateful child porn out into the public arena and make celebrities of its authors. That is what is on the road here. We are not talking about artistic views held by the member for Palliser, but the manipulators in our society who will go after our children. There are lots of them out there.

The Liberals could have used the notwithstanding clause to send John Robin Sharpe to prison and be done with it. Instead, they made him a poster boy for legalized pedophilia. This law is all shaped around what he has stated in public. The Liberals had a choice.

It is up to concerned Canadian parents and parliamentarians in the House to guard our children more carefully than ever. We cannot depend on the government across the way because this legislation is, in its viewpoint, its offer to help protect our children. Unfortunately, it has failed miserably.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I am tempted to say here we go again on what used to be known as Bill C-20 and now is known as Bill C-12.

The bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to help safeguard children and other vulnerable persons from sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect and also to enhance the protection of victims and witnesses in criminal justice proceedings.

The bill was introduced and read the first time in December 2002. It was debated at second reading in January and February last year before heading off to the justice committee from whence it has now returned.

The bill has five major components that I would like to review. First, it proposes to strengthen the child pornography provisions by expanding the scope of some existing sentences; the maximum available penalty would be increased from 5 to 10 years imprisonment.

Second, it proposes to increase the protection of young people against sexual exploitation.

Third, it proposes the creation of new offences relating to voyeurism and the viewing or recording of others in situations where there is reasonable expectation of privacy against electronic peeping Toms who resort to tiny cameras and other high tech tools for their and others' sordid gratification.

Fourth, it proposes to increase penalties following conviction for offences committed against children under the age of 16 years, as well as abuse and neglect, which includes failing to respond to the necessities of life and abandonment. I am pleased to see that the maximum penalty has been increased from two to five years.

Fifth, it proposes to facilitate testimony by child victims as witnesses and other vulnerable persons and would ensure that the child witnesses are indeed competent.

Let me say loudly and clearly that I support fully the sections that I have just referred to that deal with sexual exploitation of our young people. It is crucial, as others have noted in this debate, that our society has proper mechanisms to protect children from sexual exploitation, especially by those in positions of trust.

The stronger penalties, for example, against voyeurism, are important because the Criminal Code will be updated to nab these electronic peeping Toms and prosecute them to the full extent of the law.

The New Democratic Party supports the sections that help children to be witnesses. This section makes it easier and less traumatic for children to testify at criminal trials, and I strongly support doubling the sentences for offences against children.

I believe to the core of my being that it is the role of Parliament and our criminal justice system to protect all children from all forms of sexual exploitation.

Like my colleague, the MP for Dartmouth, who is so well respected on all sides of the House and who has taken the lead on this bill, I have two children and I would see any form of sexual assault against either of them to be horrific as are all cases of sexual abuse and exploitation against all minors.

However the member of Parliament for Dartmouth, besides being a first rate mother and a first rate parliamentarian, is also a first rate playwright. She has stated, and I concur, that a growing number of Canadians and other organizations have a real concern with the exclusion of part 7 of the proposed bill because it drops the artistic merit defence as well as deleting the defence of an educational, scientific or medical purpose.

By doing so, it leaves only the defence of the public good. At face value, some people may think, and we have heard it in the House this afternoon, that defence of the public good would also include the two deleted defences. The public good is defined in the bill as something that is necessary or advantageous to the administration of justice or the pursuit of science, medicine, education or art. A story or drawing that passes muster under that public good definition is, however, still not home free because the court must then decide whether the harm to society outweighs the benefits.

This, as the Globe and Mail pointed out in an editorial last month, is treacherous territory. Any work of fiction involving the portrayal of a child in illegal sexual activity could be deemed pornographic.

These concerns were all raised when the bill was at committee, but the government is obviously not prepared to budge. The concern that I and other members of our caucus have is that the government has caved into the politics of fear.

Let me be absolutely clear, and I say this directly to the justice critic for the Conservative Party. I support, fully and completely, longer sentences for anyone in this country who creates sado-masochistic pornography that depicts children as sexual objects. Individuals who are involved in these criminal activities will, as a result of these changes, now go to prison for longer periods of time. I approve and applaud wholeheartedly these stiffer sentences.

The difficulty for me and others is that under this proposed revision, any work of fiction involving the portrayal of a child in illegal sexual activity could well be deemed to be pornographic. For example, The Tin Drum , a highly moral work by Gunter Grass, might run afoul of this new legislation, as could Vladimir Nabokov Lolita , a classic literary work, be in danger.

In the past, the Supreme Court has included artistic merit as a plausible defence but the fear is that the law, as it is presently drafted without the artistic merit clause, could criminalize the imagination and I have difficulty with that.

This is not some esoteric argument by the member for Dartmouth or myself. Besides the Globe and Mail , it has elicited the attention of the Ottawa Citizen, civil liberty groups, writers and the artistic community.

Yesterday in Toronto the Canadian Conference of the Arts and the Writers' Union of Canada held a public forum on their concerns about Bill C-12. They did not stand alone. Joining them were: Canadian Museums' Association; Canadian Artists' Representation; Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois; Canadian Civil Liberties Association; B.C. Civil Liberties Association; Union des artistes; PEN Canada; Canadian Library Association; Literary Translators' Association of Canada; Corporation des bibliothécaires professionnels du Québec; Association des auteures et auteurs de l'Ontario français; Ligue des droits et libertés; Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec; Société Civile des Auteurs Multimédia; Société des Auteurs de Radio, Télévision et Cinéma; Conseil des livres et des périodiques; and Société des auteurs et compositeurs dramatiques.

The following were their specific concerns on this bill. First, artists from all disciplines who create works with themes involving persons under 18 and sexuality, risk having their expressions criminalized.

Second, artists whose work contains such themes would be deemed to be guilty until they can prove themselves innocent of the charge; in other words, reverse onus.

Third, the concept of public good would replace artistic merit. This is a subjective concept that, according to the Supreme Court, has not been clearly defined.

Fourth, under the proposed new law, artists would have to prove objectively in court that (a) they produce their work for the purpose of public good, and (b) their work does not exceed the limit of what constitutes public good.

Fifth and final, an expansive interpretation of sexual purpose and voyeurism will infringe on new and existing artistic works, including literature, visual and media art film and theatre.

The CCA concluded that the bill was poorly crafted and proposed reframing the legislation to protect children while allowing bona fide artists the freedom to create. It argues that retaining the defence of artistic merit in the Criminal Code will serve all the people of Canada, both youth and elders.

It is saying that the elimination of the artistic merit defence will not have any effect on the government's purpose of eradicating sexual abuse of minors, nor will it prevent child pornography. It will serve only to create confusion and punish artists whose work, created in good faith, could be deemed in contravention of the new legislation.

Nor does the CCA believe the term “public good” used in the legislation has been defined adequately and therefore it believes the defence under the public good is an unacceptable substitute for the defence of artistic merit.

Let me come back to the reverse onus clause. This will require an artist to prove that his or her work is not pornographic instead of requiring the Crown to prove otherwise. Clearly this is totally contrary to our judicial system that holds every citizen as presumed innocent until proven guilty. Under this legislation, under the reverse onus clause, someone who is innocent would have to prove it first.

The House needs to be reminded that we are debating this legislation largely because of one individual, John Robin Sharpe. In the court decision regarding Mr. Sharpe, he was convicted of possession of photographs of boys engaged in sexual acts and poses, but he was acquitted on possession of child pornography stories that he had written because two out of three literary experts concluded that his stories had artistic merit.

What does Mr. Sharpe think of the proposed legislation? Just like the writers, artists, editorial writers and New Democrats, he says that the bill is poorly crafted, but he goes on to say that it is so poorly crafted, he could probably use it to his advantage in court. He said:

I am fairly confident that given good legal counsel, and a conservative, by-the-book judge who bases his decisions on the wording of the law...that I and my stories would again be acquitted under the proposed measures.

Legal experts tend to agree with Robin Sharpe, saying that the public good defence is too vague to survive court challenges. The Supreme Court upheld the federal legislation in the Sharpe case, but stressed there had to be generous leeway for artistic merit, and he was acquitted on some counts, not merely because of artistic merit but because the court concluded that his stories did not advocate or counsel pedophilia. In short, the court ruled on the side of free expression.

It is difficult, and it ought to be difficult, to criminalize expression. Of course Parliament has a duty. Children have to be protected, and that we are very clear about. However, at the same time we cannot be seen to be encroaching on freedom of speech or the right to know with some precision what is allowable and what is forbidden.

The Ottawa Citizen , in a recent editorial entitled “Making matters worse”, stated that Bill C-12 would violate both of these principles. It went on to say that no matter how well intentioned the law was, it should not pass. The editorial stated:

The government has not produced solid, empirical evidence that viewing or reading works of the imagination prompts pedophiles to molest real children. Without that evidence, there's no reason to believe this law will make children any safer.

Paul Rapoport from the School of Arts at McMaster University writes that when it comes to visual media especially, “all nudity is sex, all sex is porn, and if minors are involved, find somebody to lock up and throw away the key”.

That description certainly encompasses some members of the Conservative Party who have spoken on this bill in debate in spite of the fact that the most common child in art, according to Mr. Rapoport, is named Jesus.

I was in debate on the artistic merit defence last year, and in responding to another MP, I said this:

--if it has not specifically hurt a minor in the production of it, if it is created by people's visual imaginations and if the main purpose of it is not simply about pornography and sexual exploitation, then under the laws people do have a right to their own imaginations and thoughts, however perverse the member and I might think they are.

This quote made it into a lot of Canadian Alliance householders. We killed a lot of trees over this one, as I guess they tried to portray me as being soft on child pornography. I am not soft on child pornography. However, I must say that I am also encouraged by the editorial boards of major newspapers, civil libertarian groups, writers and artists who have expressed similar concerns about where we are headed with this bill. Specifically, hear the conclusion of the Ottawa Citizen editorial:

The only solution is a law that criminalizes pornography involving real children, but excludes all works of the imagination. This would protect children just as well as the law now before Parliament. But it would also respect free speech and provide a bright, clear line between what is illegal and what is not.

Of course there is a circular argument in all of this that deserves to be named as well. We have the Conservative Party, and especially its justice critic, railing constantly against judicial activism. However, by arguing for a narrower and narrower interpretation of child pornography and one that excludes both artistic merit and defence of the public good, the courts and judges will have no choice but to say that it is so narrow that it violates the Charter of Rights.

The judges and courts will strike this down and the justice critic for the Conservative Party will mount his pet hobby horse about judicial activism. In fact I am convinced that the other place, when it looks at this bill, will find it a deficient piece of legislation and demand that changes be made here before it passes.

The list of people and organizations who see flaws in the bill is long and it is getting longer. As I indicated, it legitimate artists, writers, the Canadian Conference of the Arts, some police, civil libertarians, the Canadian Bar Association and major newspapers.

Sergeant Gillespie of the Toronto police said:

Police would simply appreciate laws that are very clear and that will allow us to make better informed decisions at the time we are required to make them.

The Canadian Bar Association said, “While we appreciate the intent”, referring to the defence of public good, “the amendment may not achieve its goal”.

Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association recommends that the law be narrowed so that it applies only to material, the making of which is held out to involve the lawful abuse of a real child; not an imaginary child, a real child.

Strengthening the provisions of child pornography, doubling penalties and increasing protections of youth against sexual predators and sexual exploitation is important, and I support it fully. This must be done while protecting free speech and imagination.

I was raised in a time when the words to a pop song of the day went, “Brother, you can't go to jail for what you're thinking”. These words should be as true today and tomorrow as they were yesterday. Without reinstating the artistic merit in this bill, I will reluctantly and sadly find myself voting against Bill C-12.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House is extremely important, which is why the work done by the Bloc Quebecois was particularly thorough. It is common knowledge in this House and outside these walls that we are used to being diligent, strict and very serious about our parliamentary work. This was especially true for Bill C-12.

This is a bill that could have been even better in my view. It could have been improved, but the government unfortunately refused many of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. We proposed seven amendments at committee and only one was accepted. That is unfortunate because this bill could have been even more effective legislation in the cases we want to handle with Bill C-12. That said, the Bloc Quebecois will nonetheless support Bill C-12.

Bill C-12 amends the Criminal Code to add a new category to the offence of the sexual exploitation of young persons. It makes additional amendments to further protect children from sexual exploitation; to increase the maximum penalty for child sexual offences, for failing to provide the necessaries of life and for abandoning a child; to make child abuse an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing; to amend and clarify the applicable test and criteria that need to be met for the use of testimonial aids, for excluding the public, for imposing a publication ban, for using video recorded evidence or for appointing counsel for self-represented accused to conduct a cross-examination of witnesses; to create an offence for voyeurism and the distribution of voyeuristic material; and to amend the child pornography provisions with respect to the type of written material that constitutes child pornography, and with respect to the child pornography defences.

As members know, this enactment also amends the Canada Evidence Act to abolish the requirement for a competency hearing for children under 14 years of age.

This bill addresses the issue of consent to sexual relations, and this is where I will start.

Currently, in Canada, rules regarding sexual consent in the Criminal Code can be summarized in four points. First, the consent of a person under the age of fourteen is not a defence to a charge of a sexual nature. We can, therefore, deduce that a person 14 years or older is capable of giving such consent.

Second, there is an exception to this rule. The consent of a complainant can be a defence if the latter is between 12 and 14 years of age or if the accused is between 12 and 16 years of age, if the accused is not more than two years older than the complainant or, finally, if the accused is not in a situation of trust or authority over the complainant.

Third, a person in a situation of trust or authority cannot sexually interfere with a person between the ages of 14 and 17, even if the minor consents.

Finally, it is important to note that, naturally, child prostitution is illegal in Canada.

These provisions of the Criminal Code were strongly criticized, mainly by the party that preceded the Conservative Party of Canada, the Canadian Alliance, which wanted to raise the age of sexual consent to 16. One of the arguments in favour of raising the age of consent was that Canada was at risk of becoming a sex tourism destination since sexual relations with minors 14 years and older are not illegal here.

The Bloc Quebecois has always opposed any increase in the age of consent. In our opinion, while it may not be desirable for young people 14 and 15 years old to have sexual relations, the provisions referring to this age reflect what society is prepared to tolerate.

We have also spoken out more than once about the double talk of the reform-alliance-conservative members. In the debate on young offenders, they argued that adolescents 14 or 15 years of age were mature enough to be held criminally responsible for their actions, but in this debate on the age of sexual consent, they are arguing that the same 14 or 15 year olds are not mature enough to consent. Go figure that one out.

With Bill C-12, the Minister of Justice is proposing amendments to the provisions relating to consent to sexual relations. In fact, the Minister of Justice is creating a new provision relating to exploitation. From now on, an adult cannot have sexual relations with a minor if exploitation is involved.

The criteria used to determine the existence of an exploitative relationship are the age difference between the accused and the young person, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.

This was amended after consideration in committee. The adolescent's age was added to the criteria for determining exploitation. This new criterion in no way changes the position we held at first reading. We still have certain reservations about this new mechanism.

First of all, we feel it creates legal uncertainty. An adult involved in sexual relations with a minor will never be able to be absolutely certain that he or she is not committing a criminal offence, because the Criminal Code provisions leave a very wide latitude for the presiding judge's interpretation of the law.

Furthermore, a parent who disapproves of a minor child's choices in terms of love will still be able to lodge a complaint with the police, even if the reasons behind such a complaint are not those provided for by the legislator. This could add to judicial uncertainty.

The second point addressed by the bill is voyeurism. As you know, Mr. Speaker, since you are technologically up to date, technological progress in recent years has made it necessary to amend legislation in order to face these new realities. For example, digital cameras that transmit live images through the Internet have raised the issue of possible abuse, such as the clandestine observation and recording of people for sexual purposes, or when such an observation or recording is a flagrant violation of privacy.

Therefore, the bill proposes adding two new offences to the Criminal Code and provides for a maximum of five years in prison for all acts of voyeurism. Three specific instances will be criminal offences, all having to do with deliberately observing or recording another person in circumstances in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

That would be the case when the observation or recording is for sexual purposes, when the person being observed or recorded is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude or to be engaged in sexual activity, in a bedroom, for example, and when the person being observed or recorded is nude and engaged in sexual activity and the purpose is to observe or record a person in such a situation or engaging in such an activity.

The second offence concerns the distribution of material that one knows has been produced through an act of voyeurism. This offence is described in clause 6 of the bill in the following way:

Every one commits an offence who, knowing that a recording was obtained by the commission of an offence under subsection (1), prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, sells, ...or makes available the recording, or has the recording in his or her possession for the purpose of printing, publishing, distributing, circulating, selling or... making it available.

During the committee's study of this offence, I proposed an amendment that the committee accepted, forbidding the use of such recordings in advertising. This amendment would make clause 6 of the bill more complete and more effective.

Finally, copies of a recording obtained by the offence of voyeurism for the purpose of sale or distribution could be seized or confiscated. The courts could also order deletion of any voyeuristic material from a computer.

We feel that the legislative provisions relating to voyeurism were made necessary by the proliferation of surveillance cameras and the rapidity of distributing images taken by such cameras, via the Internet for instance.

Consequently, we are in favour of these provisions, especially since they were improved through the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.

The third issue addressed in this bill is child pornography. It is, of course, the most talked about.

If there is one thing on which we have to agree, it is the fact that nothing is more precious in our society than the safety and security of our children.

Knowing that the end does not justify the means, we have to be careful in what we choose to do to protect our children. Nevertheless, it is all about striking the right balance, and we must keep in mind that the ultimate goal is to protect our children, who are the most vulnerable people in our society.

The new provisions on child pornography proposed in Bill C-12 address two different aspects. First, there is the definition of child pornography. The present definition of child pornography applies only to material that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a child. Bill C-12 would expand that definition to include any material that describes prohibited sexual activity with a child where the written description of the activity is the dominant characteristic of the material and is done for a sexual purpose.

This new provision reads as follows:

—any written material the dominantcharacteristic of which is the description,for a sexual purpose—

This is important.

—of sexual activity witha person under the age of eighteen years thatwould be an offence under this Act.

I know that many artists raised certain fears about this new provision. In my opinion, it specifically states that it must be done for a sexual purpose in order to be considered child pornography. This should alleviate their fears, which are legitimate, especially as the public good defence—I will come back to this in a moment—also provides artists with very good means of defence. These are legitimate.

We believe that this new provision is cause for concern. First, it is important to specify that possessing child pornography is already a crime carrying a five year jail term. However, this new provision states that written material describing sexual activity with the person under 18 years of age for a sexual purpose is child pornography.

Consequently, this would mean that anyone who, in their private diary, describes their sexual fantasies—some twisted, no doubt—is committing a criminal offence and can be sentenced to five years in prison, even if they do not show what they have written to anyone and even if no child has been involved in any way whatsoever in the creation of the written material.

At first, these provisions struck us as too broad and tantamount in a way to making thoughts a crime. It was pointed out to us that these provisions must be interpreted in light of the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in Sharpe. Under that ruling, two types of material must be excluded from the definition of child pornography: first, documents or representations that the accused alone created and retains solely for personal use and, second, visual recordings created by the accused or in which he is represented, which do not depict any illegal sexual activity and which the accused retains solely for personal use.

We find it hard to understand and we have said so many times in previous speeches and in committee why the Minister of Justice did not incorporate these exceptions into the Criminal Code. In fact, their absence will have the effect of creating legal uncertainty, because the Criminal Code will provide, even for an informed reader, a very imprecise definition of child pornography.

Through Bill C-12, the Department of Justice is also creating a public good defence. On the face of it, this new mechanism seemed reasonable, but needed to be specified further. That is why we put forward an amendment in committee to clarify the concept of public good. This was done following repeated requests by the Bloc and many witnesses who appeared before the committee calling for the concept of public good to be specified.

Two clauses were added after clause 6. They read as follows:

For the purposes of subsection (6), acts or material that serve the public good include acts or material that are necessary or advantageous to the administration of justice or the pursuit of science, medicine, education or art.

For the purposes of this section, it is a question of law whether any written material or visual representation advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

This provides artists with a public good defence. It provides a defence to those who had concerns. Some scientists were also concerned. We have specified that, for the pursuit of medicine or research, this was an appropriate defence for possession of child pornography.

Although these amendments are not totally the same as what the Bloc Quebecois had brought forward, we are nevertheless pleased with the amendments the government came up with, because their very substance is in keeping with what we proposed in committee.

The fourth change proposed in Bill C-12 is to increase the maximum sentences for offences committed against children. Under the government's reform proposals, the penalties for offences that harm children would be increased. The maximal penalty for sexual exploitation would double from five years to ten. The maximum penalty for abandonment of a child or failure to provide the necessities of life to a child would more than double from two to five years. The abuse of a child in the commission of any Criminal Code offence would also have to be considered as an aggravating factor by the court and could result in a tougher sentence.

We are in favour in these new provisions. That being said, the Bloc moved a number of amendments in committee to create a minimal sentence for child abuse. Unfortunately, none of these amendments were passed, although they were supported by members of the Conservative Party, at the time the Canadian Alliance, and even members of the Liberal Party.

I think it is high time for members of this House to look into minimal sentences for those who abuse our children, the most vulnerable members of our society. I hope we will have an opportunity to act soon.

Last, the fifth issue has to do with facilitating child witness and victim testimony. Here is how the department explains the reforms proposed to facilitate the testimony of children who are vulnerable witnesses or victims:

Several reforms will help ensure that participating in the criminal justice system is less traumatic for the victim or witness. Current Criminal Code provisions would be expanded to allow all witnesses under 18 to benefit from testimonial aids in any criminal proceeding (not only those involving sexual and other specified offences). These aids include providing testimony from behind a screen or by closed-circuit television or having a support person accompany the young witness. Current provisions generally require the Crown to establish the need for a testimonial aid. Given the potential trauma of the courtroom experience for young witnesses, the proposed reforms acknowledge the need for the aid.

For all testimonial aids, the judge retains the discretion to deny the aid or protection where its use would interfere with the proper administration of justice. In addition, the facilities to permit the use of a screen or closed circuit TV must be available in the courtroom before the judge can permit their use. Fundamental rights for the accused are fully respected under the proposed amendments.

The reforms would also allow children under 14 to give their evidence when they are able to understand and respond to questions.

We in the Bloc Quebecois support these provisions.

In conclusion, we support Bill C-12. We would have liked to have seen more openness on the part of the government to the amendments we proposed, including those relating to minimal sentencing for people sexually exploiting our children, doing harm to these beloved and so vulnerable beings who deserve the attention and protection of the members of this House.

I wish to announce that I will continue to work to get this House to address the issue more thoroughly. I trust that at that time I shall have the support of all members of this House so that the pedophiles who are victimizing our children will be punished severely. Often child victims are marked for life.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to speak to this subject today. We have done it numerous times in the past. I certainly want to add our comments and those of my constituents to the debate.

I have to disagree with some of the comments we have just heard from across the floor. I do not think this is a great day for the protection of children in Canada. Until we have legislation in place that sends a clear message that anybody who fools around with our children will face the full consequence of the law, we have failed to do our jobs here. I do not think the bill does that and I will point out a number of reasons why I think that.

The member across the way referred to a motion that was brought to the House by my colleague from Wild Rose. I want to mention him in my comments today because, as we all know, he has made the issue of preying on our children one of his top priorities as he goes through his political and personal life. I support his endeavours. The motion that he brought forward in the House back on October 28 read:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should protect our children from further sexual exploitation by immediately eliminating from child pornography laws all defences for possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children.

The motion was supported at that time, but there are still defences in this law for the possession of child pornography. That is one of the flaws we find in it.

The Conservative Party of Canada has problems with four main areas of the bill. The first one is it does not eliminate all defences for the criminal possession of child pornography. The second one is it does not raise the age of consent for adult-child sexual contact from 14 up to 16, and even some would suggest, 18. It is the lowest in the western world and that is not something I believe Canadians are proud of. It fails to institute mandatory sentences for child sexual assault, as has been done in the U.K.

There is a lot of debate and discussion here on raising the maximum sentences. However, raising maximum sentences that are never given is not a deterrent to the people who prey on our children. We should be raising minimum sentences and making sure that anybody who is convicted of exploiting our children is dealt with in a very severe manner.

The other one is the one dealing with evidence. I am working on a private member's bill that would change the way evidence could be presented in these cases. I have been doing some research on that. It is a very complex issue. It is not only in the Criminal Code but it also expands into other areas.

That is something that needs to be looked at. The people who fight child pornography in this country are bogged down by the amount of material they have to catalogue and bring to court. Certainly the accused has a right to know what the prosecution has in its possession and what it will be bringing forward. We have to be reasonable in the kind of cataloguing and evidence that has to be brought in these cases. That is something we really need to look at.

One of the real issues is that one of the most notorious pedophiles in Canada likes this bill. That should send a darn clear message that the government is on the wrong track in bringing the bill forward. He thinks that some of the provisions in the bill on giving evidence would be good for pedophiles. They would be able to bring forward young people to testify and they would enjoy that type of thing when it came to the court.

When somebody who enjoys this type of material sees merit in the bill because it will add to whatever they do to get enjoyment out of this type of material, and when he publicly states on his website that he thinks this is a good bill, then we really need to have a hard look at what we are doing. We need to make sure that we eliminate anything that pedophiles think will be to their advantage when they get to court on some of these issues.

There is controversy regarding the artistic merit defence. Changing it to the public good defence would leave a giant loophole in the law. I believe that some of the pedophiles in this country will see that as an advantageous tool that they will be able to use in their defence.

We have to eliminate any defence for people convicted of possession of child pornography. What possible public good could there be in images of children being abused? I cannot see what the government had in mind when it included a public good clause in the legislation. Images depicting children being abused in any way should not be allowed as art or for any other reason, such as research. Every time somebody looks at one of those images, the child goes through the whole process of abuse one more time.

That is a loophole in Bill C-12 and it needs to be taken out of the legislation. It should be changed before the bill is put into law. There is no reason to go forward with this and then come back years later and change it then. We feel very strongly about that. We need to make sure that aspect of the legislation is changed before it is put into law.

A poll was done a year or so ago and 80% of Canadians supported raising the age of consent for sexual activity. With 80% of Canadians onside, one would think the government would have paid heed to that but it did not.

A person as young as 14 years can be sexually exploited by an adult legally. There is a lot of talk about the issue of whether the sex is consensual, but we are talking about child-adult sex. If the age of consent could be raised to at least 16, that would protect thousands more children from people who choose to prey on them. That is an issue that needs to be dealt with. When that many Canadians are in support of it, any government should pay attention.

People have said that we cannot stop sex between teenagers, but that is not the issue; that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about child-adult sex. That is what we need to focus on. When these conditions, or what I call loopholes, that for some reason this should be allowed, are put into law, it is the same issue as artistic merit or public good being left in the bill. There is no reason to do it.

We are talking about children. We are talking about the most vulnerable people in our society. If we as legislators cannot come up with laws that will protect them to the ultimate degree because they cannot protect themselves, then we have not done our jobs. We need to have the strongest possible legislation in place.

Why would we as a nation be lagging behind the rest of the western world when it comes to these issues? It just does not make any sense. It makes us want to step back and wonder exactly what the minister was thinking when he developed the bill and why the government is pushing it through in its present state. Why can we as Canadians not be leaders instead of followers? Why can we not have the strongest legislation in place to protect children?

Canada has become known as a haven for pedophiles. The availability of the Internet to those types of people, the way they can dispense information rapidly and in such high volume requires us to have systems in place to stop it. Every time a market is created or there is a need for something like this, then another child has been abused. We have to stop the end use of it so it filters back and stops the creation of it.

The member who spoke previously made a lot of comments and put a lot of credence in the fact that maximum sentences were being increased. That does not do the job. Minimum sentences have to be increased so that the message is clear and unavoidable. People who prey on our children or hurt a child in Canada will pay the ultimate price. They will pay it upfront and a deterrent will be put in place to stop them from doing it again. If it is a maximum sentence that is never imposed by the courts, then what is the point of doing it?

There is the issue of support for our police departments. Many of us have met with police forces across the country. Some of the stories they tell us are horrific and they are things that stay in your mind. We cannot possibly understand how someone could do to children some of the things that are done.

We have to give the police the resources they need to protect children in Canada. To say that this is a great day for children, I completely disagree with that for many reasons. The fact that our police forces are so overworked and under-resourced in this area is one of them.

Every time another task force is created, there is a lot of hoopla in the media about it, but there are no more police officers given. It is just another task force that has to be shared by the present forces. We must increase the numbers of policemen on the ground and increase their ability to pursue these people and stop them from trading in this vile information.

There were some policemen on Parliament Hill a year or two ago. I witnessed what they had to say. While they were speaking to us, they hooked up a computer and went online. I am not sure how chat rooms work, but before the meeting was over, they had put up something that indicated there was an underage person being manipulated by an adult and those who wanted to take part could tune in. Before the meeting was over, the police had two or three hits from people from who knows where that were interested. That is how fast and how effective the Internet is for those people who promote that type of thing. It was quite a lesson to many of us as to how easily these things can happen.

The Toronto police force indicated that it had 2,300 names of suspected pedophiles in Canada and only 5% of them had been addressed. This in itself is a damning statistic, that we have actual names of people and we do not have the resources to go out and hold them to task or enough manpower to investigate what is going on and put a stop to it. The cases are many. The issues are huge.

I want to get back to the John Robin Sharpe case. I firmly believe that when people such as Mr. Sharpe come forward and indicate that they support the bill and they feel that there are aspects in it that they would find appealing and would convince society to become more tolerant of pedophiles, then we are really on the wrong track. We must make sure that any bill that is put forward does not fall into the hands of pedophiles, allowing them to ply their trade and prey on our children.

There a couple of other points I would like to make along these lines. There is the aspect of Canadians that have been involved. Thousands of Canadians have petitioned Parliament to take away all the defences for child pornography and to increase the resources that are available to the police to fight this issue. We have to listen to these people. They are going to a lot of effort. They are very involved and very knowledgeable on what is going on. They know the numbers of children that have been preyed upon. They have a huge concern.

When we see that many Canadians engaged in an issue, then the government should pay attention. The government should look at what they are suggesting and try to implement it into law. We have not seen that here. The loopholes that have been left are many and they need to be addressed.

Before I close I would like to move an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefore:

“Bill C-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, be not now read a third time but referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for the purpose of reconsidering all of its clauses with the view to eliminate loopholes identified by 'the nation's most notorious child pornographer', Robin Sharpe.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today for the third reading of Bill C-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act.

Today is an important day for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, it is an important day for Canada's children. Support on this day for Bill C-12 will bring us one step closer to realizing an objective that I believe is shared by all hon. members, namely, better protection of our children against all forms of abuse, neglect and sexual exploitation.

Today is also an important day for another reason. Today is the day when I hope that all hon. members will unite to say to Canadians, with one voice that is both strong and clear, that our children are the priority. We can do something today to move this priority even better and give effect to just that voice. This is the day that we do move from talk to action. This is what Canadians demand and this is what Canada's children deserve.

Bill C-12 proposes reforms in five key areas: first, strengthening the provisions against child pornography; second, protecting youth against sexual exploitation; third, increasing the maximum penalties for specific offences committed against children; fourth, facilitating the testimony of child victims and witnesses and other vulnerable persons; and finally, modernizing the criminal law through the creation of the offence of voyeurism.

Regrettably, child pornography is an issue that is well-known to members and to all Canadians. Although Canada's criminal laws against child pornography are already among the toughest anywhere, Bill C-12 proposes to further strengthen these laws by directly responding to concerns flowing from the child pornography case involving John Robin Sharpe.

How does Bill C-12 respond to these concerns? Hon. members will recall that Mr. Sharpe was convicted of possession of child pornographic photographs. He was, however, acquitted on the charge of possession of written materials for the purpose of distribution or sale. Even though the court found that these written materials consisted primarily of descriptions of adult male-boy sexual acts of abuse and torture and described them as “morally repugnant”, Mr. Sharpe was acquitted of this charge because these stories did not meet the existing definition of written child pornography, that is, they did not advocate or counsel unlawful sexual activity with children.

Why then do we need to have this bill? I would like hon. members to consider this. Bill C-12 directly responds to the concerns of this case and proposes to broaden the existing definition of written child pornography. It proposes to prohibit written materials, such as those offered by Mr. Sharpe, that describe unlawful sexual activity with children where these written descriptions are the dominant characteristics of the material and they are written for a sexual purpose.

The government, in Bill C-12, clearly recognizes the very real risk of harm that these materials pose to our children and our society. We must not allow our children to be portrayed as a class of objects for sexual exploitation. I urge all hon. members to join with me in condemning such materials.

The alternative basis for Mr. Sharpe's acquittal on the written materials was that the materials would have been protected by the defence of artistic merit. The existing defence of artistic merit is easily satisfied by answering one, and one question alone: Does the work in question, objectively viewed, have some artistic merit? For example, does a written story show some accepted literary techniques or style? If it does, that is the end of the inquiry and the defence of artistic merit is available to the accused.

Canadians have clearly said no to this one step test. Again, the government has listened and Bill C-12 proposes a different test that draws from the wisdom of the Supreme Court of Canada. Bill C-12 proposes only one defence: the defence of public good, which involves a two step inquiry.

Does the material or act serve the public good? If not, there would be no defence. If it does, then an additional second question must be asked. Does it go beyond what serves the public good? In other words, if the risk of harm to society posed by such material or act outweighs the benefit that it offers to society, no defence would be available even if it had artistic, educational, scientific, medical or other value.

I appreciate that although the public good defence is one that is known to our courts, it may not be well understood by some, potentially including some in this chamber. Again, the government has heard and has responded further to these concerns.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights amended Bill C-12 to accept the government's clarification of the public good defence, including its legal interpretation. As amended, Bill C-12 now defines the public good as including acts or material that are necessary or advantageous to the administration of justice or the pursuit of science, medicine, education or art.

This new, inclusive definition closely models the language of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sharpe case, thereby strengthening subsequent reliance upon this judgment to assist with the interpretation and application of the public good defence.

On October 28, 2003, the House unanimously passed a motion calling on the government to eliminate all child pornography defences for “possession of child pornography which allow[s] for the exploitation of children”. Bill C-12 delivers this and more.

During the course of that important debate, there was, I believe, a general acceptance that the law needs to protect certain persons who are working to catch child pornographers. For example, police and crown prosecutors who possess child pornography or provide it to other law enforcement officers for purposes related to the investigation and prosecution of child pornography cases should be provided with a defence for such possession and dissemination. Possession of child pornography by psychiatrists for educational or treatment related purposes was also recognized as something that should be protected.

This is exactly what Bill C-12 does. It recognizes that such acts clearly serve the public good and that the benefit they offer Canadian society clearly outweighs any risk of harm. Such acts do not exploit children.

The Canadian Professional Police Association, which is the national voice for 54,000 police serving across Canada, told the justice committee that they “welcome” the child pornography changes proposed by Bill C-12. They have also said that, from a practical perspective, the public good defence proposed by Bill C-12 will not impede police investigation of child pornography. This is because for most cases there is never any debate about the images. The graphic and explicit depictions of sexual abuse of young children by adults are clearly child pornography.

It is also important to note that while it is the job of the police to assess whether material constitutes child pornography as defined by the Criminal Code, it is not the police who determine whether an accused can avail himself or herself of a defence. That is a matter determined in a courtroom by those present on that day. Again, the public good defence does not impede police investigation of child pornography cases.

I urge all members to give effect to these important changes and to support these proposed child pornography reforms today, as have the police.

The government also recognizes that we must do more to better protect youth against sexual exploitation by those who would prey on their vulnerability in other ways.

Canada's criminal laws already prohibit all sexual activity with any young person below the age of consent, ranging from sexual touching, such as a kiss, to sexual intercourse. The age of consent is 18 where the relationship is exploitative, such as where it involves prostitution or child pornography or where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency.

Where none of these circumstances exist, the age of consent is 14, but--and it is important to be clear about this--any non-consensual sexual activity, regardless of age, is a sexual assault.

I understand that some persons believe that the best way to protect young persons against sexual exploitation is to raise the age of consent to 16 or 18 years. The government believes, however, that the real issue is about how to protect young persons from the exploitative conduct of others and is not about their consent to such conduct. There is a difference here.

One reason that is often given in support of raising the age of consent is that young persons, especially those who are 14 or 15 years old, are not mature enough to fully understand the consequences of consenting to engage in sexual activity. For some, young persons are too immature to be able to consent to any sexual activity, even with persons close in age. Others believe that young persons are too immature to consent to sexual activity with someone who is four, five or more years older.

Consider how the existing criminal law treats and recognizes the developing maturity and capacity of young persons. We have to go back. The age of criminal responsibility is 12 years. The age at which a young person may be subject to an adult sentence for committing a serious violent offence is 14 years. The age of consent to sexual activity is 14 years. The age of consent to sexual activity that is exploitative of the young person is 18 years.

While it is true that society uses other non-criminal measures to regulate other aspects of young persons' conduct, it would be completely inapt to compare, for example, the regulation of when a young person is allowed to drive to the criminalization of a young person's engagement in consensual, non-exploitative sexual activity. The government does not accept that normal, consensual teenaged sexual activity should be criminalized.

There is no consensus on this issue, whether among the public, at the level of federal, provincial or territorial ministers responsible for justice, or even among the witnesses who appeared before the justice committee on Bill C-12. Nonetheless, there is consensus on the need to better protect youth against sexual exploitation. Bill C-12 proposes this and more. It proposes better protection not only for 14 year olds and 15 year olds, but also for 16 year olds and 17 year olds, and it protects these young persons against sexual exploitation by others who are considerably older than they are, as well as against sexual exploitation by peers. It is the relationship, not just the age.

Some concerns were expressed by witnesses appearing before the justice committee that Bill C-12 as initially introduced did not adequately address a specific type of exploitative sexual relationship involving, for example, a 14 year old or 15 year old young person and a 40 year old or 50 year old adult.

The justice committee amended Bill C-12 to accept the government's amendment to more clearly describe the intention of Bill C-12 in this regard. It now states that the court may infer that a sexual relationship is exploitative, having regard to the nature and circumstances of that particular relationship. An additional fourth factor has also been added to the list of factors to be considered, namely, the age of the young person. This more clearly indicates that the court should consider this factor as well as the age differential between the young person and the older person.

Concerns have been expressed by some that existing sentencing provisions for offences against children do not adequately reflect the serious nature of committing any offence against a child.

Again, Bill C-12 responds to these concerns. It proposes to make the abuse of any child an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. It also proposes to increase the maximum penalties for child specific sexual offences. The maximum penalty on summary conviction for sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation would be tripled from 6 months to 18 months, reforms that have been welcomed by the Canadian Bar Association among others.

Bill C-12 would also double the maximum penalty for sexual exploitation of a young person from five to ten years when proceeded by indictment. The maximum penalties for failure to provide the necessaries of life and for abandonment of a child would also be increased to 18 months on a summary conviction and from two to five years on indictment for both offences.

Bill C-12 also proposes important reforms to facilitate the testimony of child victims or witnesses and other vulnerable witnesses. Although this part of the bill has received less attention than other parts, it largely has been well received. I know that in my own riding this is the part of the bill that is stressed to me the most, because we have those on the ground workers seeing the need for better protection for those who have been victims once and do not need to be re-victimized in a courtroom.

Most witnesses find the courtroom to be unfamiliar and unfriendly territory. For child witnesses it can be quite traumatizing. The criminal justice system has undergone numerous reforms since the late 1980s to make it more sensitive and responsive to the needs of these victims and witnesses.

These earlier reforms included making available such testimonial aids as a screen, a support person, closed circuit television, the exclusion of the public from the courtroom, publication bans, the use of videotaped evidence of the victim, and the appointment of counsel to conduct the cross-examination of a young victim or witness on behalf of a self-represented accused.

Bill C-12 proposes reforms that will clarify and apply a uniform test for the use of testimonial aids in three distinct categories of cases: first, cases involving a child victim or witness under the age of 18 years or a victim or witness with a disability; second, cases involving victims of criminal harassment; and third, cases involving other vulnerable adult victims and witnesses.

Bill C-12 would make testimonial aids available on application for all child witnesses and witnesses with a disability, unless they interfere with the proper administration of justice. For victims of criminal harassment and where the accused is self-represented, Bill C-12 would enable the Crown to apply for the appointment of counsel to conduct the cross-examination of the victim. The court would be required to order it unless doing so would interfere with the proper administration of justice.

This proposed amendment recognizes that a victim of criminal harassment or stalking, as it is sometimes called, should not have to endure further harassment by a self-represented accused person.

In cases involving any other adult victim or witness, the Crown can apply for the use of any testimonial aid or the appointment of counsel to conduct the cross-examination of the witness for the self-represented accused. In these cases, the court would order the use of the testimonial aid only if, having regard to the surrounding circumstances, including the nature of the offence and any relationship between the victim and the accused, the victim would not be able to provide a full and candid account without the testimonial aid.

Bill C-12 also proposes to modernize the publication ban provisions that can be imposed to protect the identity of the victim or witness or to ensure trial fairness. Bill C-12 would be amended to prohibit publication, broadcast or dissemination in any manner, including by the Internet.

In addition, Bill C-12 proposes amendments to the Canada Evidence Act that would eliminate the current requirement to conduct an inquiry into the ability of a child under the age of 14 years to understand the concept of an oath or affirmation and to provide testimony. In practice, the inconsistent and often rigorous conduct of these inquiries can result in increased trauma to the child witnesses as well as the loss of valuable testimony from child witnesses for reasons unrelated to the ability of a child to provide reliable testimony.

I have much more to say, but I understand that I am running out of time. I understand that it is easy to do politics around all legislation in the House, and I would just ask the hon. members to consider the real benefit of the aids that are in the bill and that we need now, not years down the road, in our courtrooms. The bill is so very important.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, be read the third time and passed.

Justice

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reply to this because this has nothing to do with what the opposite member is putting on the floor here. In fact, we have allowed, through our Bill C-12, the former Bill C-20, to go and add more power to the defence and the prosecution of these very damaging assaults on children through exploitation.

I hope the members opposite join the government in adding to the protection so cases like this can be properly judged in our courtrooms to protect children.

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this child protection bill is another Liberal nightmare. Our laws pertaining to the protection of children need to be certain, not ambiguous, not mushy like Bill C-12. If the government were truly interested in protecting children, it would remove the loopholes that allow the likes of John Robin Sharpe to tie up our courts with frivolous and degrading arguments.

Why does the minister not go back to the drawing board, scrap the public good loophole and raise the age of sexual consent to end it all?

Business of the House

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin at the end, to be completely logical.

These are Senate matters. They do not concern the House in any concrete way. I would need to know what the Senate was going to decide before I could answer the question.

Also, regarding new bills, I am assuming that a bill that is good for the people is a bill that is good for the people, whether or not it existed previously. That is what we are working on. I hope to have the cooperation of our colleagues across the way to continue this process.

As to the plans for the coming week, as you know, this afternoon, we will continue debate on the opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will begin debate at third reading of Bill C-18, an act respecting equalization and authorizing the Minister of Finance to make certain payments related to health, including transfer payments of $2 billion to the provinces. Then, we will consider Bill C-10, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, followed by Bill C-15, an act to implement treaties and administrative arrangements on the international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences, and finally Bill C-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

On Tuesday, March 9, at 10 a.m., the Secretary General of the United Nations will address both houses of Parliament in the House of Commons. As you know, all parties have agreed that the Wednesday schedule will apply that Tuesday, in order to leave the morning free in honour of the Secretary General.

Finally, Thursday, March 11 will also be an allotted day.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-12. The question is on Motion No. 2.