Bill C-2 (Historical)

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

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
(a) amend the child pornography provisions with respect to the type of written and audio material that constitutes child pornography, and with respect to the child pornography offences, defences and penalties;
(b) add a new category to the offence of sexual exploitation of young persons and make additional amendments to further protect children from sexual exploitation;
(c) increase the maximum penalty for child sexual offences, for failing to provide the necessaries of life and for abandoning a child;
(d) make child abuse an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing and direct the courts to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence in sentencing for offences involving abuse of a child;
(e) 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 certain witnesses; and
(f) create an offence of voyeurism and the distribution of voyeuristic material.
This enactment also amends the Canada Evidence Act to abolish the requirement for a competency hearing for children under 14 years of age.

Criminal Code

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

moved that Bill C-219, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual exploitation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to represent the good people of Perth—Wellington in this place.

It is an honour to rise in the House this afternoon to begin second reading debate of my private member's bill, known in this Parliament as Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual exploitation).

As I stated when I introduced the bill at first reading, it is a direct result of the advocacy, comments and concerns of the people of Perth—Wellington.

In early 2018, an incident occurred in which a person employed to work with persons with disabilities, who was also a children's entertainer, was convicted of a serious sexual crime against a person living with disabilities. My constituents were outraged by the lenient sentence of a monetary fine and probation, and called for a resolution to the flaw in the Criminal Code.

In a perfect world, I would have liked to have done so much more through the bill to better support Canadians living with disabilities. Far too often I hear from constituents who live with disabilities that they have fallen through the cracks: those who experience challenges in accessing government programs; those who face challenges with housing; and those who encounter barriers in employment. However, as hon. members know, with the limitations of Private Members' Business, it would not be possible to achieve all these goals through legislation without a royal recommendation.

In his 1913 autobiography, Theodore Roosevelt includes this quotation, “Do what you can, with what you've got, where you are ”. I am here today in the House doing what I can with the legislative resources available to me to try in this way to better protect Canadians living with disabilities.

I originally introduced the legislation in the previous Parliament, in January 2019, as Bill C-424. However, as members know, the Standing Orders on Private Members' Business were a barrier to moving the bill forward at the time and it died on the Order Paper when the 42nd Parliament was dissolved.

During the 2019 election, the proposals contained in my bill were included as part of the Conservative Party's election platform, and I personally made the commitment to my constituents that if I were to be re-elected, I would bring back this legislation to the House. Today, I am fulfilling that commitment to the constituents of Perth—Wellington.

Shortly after I tabled the bill for the second time in February 2020, another case involving sexual exploitation reached the news. This case involved a young person. The former chief of police of Bridgewater, Nova Scotia was sentenced to a 15-month imprisonment following an October 2019 conviction for sexually exploiting a 17-year-old girl. In this instance, the offender was also convicted of sexual assault, however, this caused a legal issue as it was questioned as to whether the court could convict a guilty person of two criminal offences for the same incident. In this case, the conviction of sexual exploitation was entered and the conviction of sexual assault was stayed.

As a sexual exploitation charge is often accompanied by a sexual assault charge, Bill C-219 would provide the additional benefit of ensuring only fair sentences are available when such controversies occur. Furthermore, Bill C-219 proposes to provide courts with the ability to impose harsher sentences in instances when only a charge of sexual exploitation is made. One example of the convictions of sexual exploitation but not sexual assault occurred last year, also in Nova Scotia, in which a religious leader was convicted of sexually exploiting a 17-year-old young person.

The second proposal contained within Bill C-219 was also inspired by the incident that occurred in my riding. If passed, the bill will require courts to consider the fact that a victim is a person living physical or mental disability as an aggravating circumstance when sentencing a person convicted under section 286.1(1) or 286.1(2) of the Criminal Code. This would fill an unfortunate void currently existing in the Criminal Code.

Persons living with disabilities are more vulnerable to this kind of exploitation due to a number of factors, including the capacity to give consent. What is more, in many cases, the offender is known to the victim and is often someone the victim must rely upon for care or other personal or financial support. This addition to the Criminal Code would ensure courts always take into account this vulnerability.

It is a sad truth, but as legislators we must be willing to admit that sexual exploitation is a problem in our country and we must strengthen our laws to better protect the most vulnerable in our communities.

Research and statistics have time and time again shown us that young people and persons living with disabilities are more often than not the victims of sexual and other types of crime.

According to Statistics Canada's report “Victims of Police-reported violent crime in Canada, 2016”, “When controlling for population, the rate of victimization was highest among youth aged 16 to 17 and young adults aged 18 to 24.” The report further explains, “Overall, 8% of police-reported victims were victims of sexual offences. However, these offences were much more prevalent among child and youth victims that came to the attention of police.” The report goes on to state that 34%, more than one-third of female victims of sexual offences, were aged only 12 to 17 years old.

According to Statistics Canada’s Report Violent Victimization of Women with Disabilities, “according to both self-reported and police-reported data, the large majority of victims are women...This trend is also evident when looking at the population with a disability” who are victims of self-reported sexual assault “as nearly nine in ten (88%) victims...were women.” The report also states that Canadians with a disability, 30% of incidents, were more likely to be victimized in their own home compared to victims who did not have disability. This serves to highlight the sad reality that even in their home, people with a disability are at an increased vulnerability.

According to the Department of Justice Research and Statistics Division, “Sexual assault is a gendered crime; women are victimized at a higher rate…than men... As with other violent victimization…young people aged 15-24 years have the highest rate of sexual assault (71 incidents per 1,000 population).”

Sexual exploitation is a disturbing crime because it involves an imbalance and an abuse of power. Often it involves some sort of authority figure in a position of trust. That is why for years the Criminal Code includes the following description in its section on sexual exploitation “Every person...who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person” or “who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency. ” Furthermore, in the sexual exploitation of someone with a person with a disability, it reads similarly, “Every person who is in a position of trust or authority towards a person with a mental or physical disability or who is a person with whom a person with a mental or physical disability is in a relationship of dependency.”

This makes the specific crime of sexual exploitation all the more concerning. It requires a person in a position of power to take advantage of that power for their own appalling purposes. There is no excuse and there is no justification for these kinds of acts. These crimes occur when a person actively choses to use their position to harm an innocent victim.

Last month I had the honour to meet virtually with representatives of Boost Child & Youth Advocacy Centre, an organization that provides services to victims of these types of crimes from Toronto to Barrie to Peterborough. They talk about how difficult it is for victims of vulnerable populations in the justice system.

We need to ensure they are respected and supported. We need to ensure when victims come forward, they feel they are taken seriously. We need to ensure victims of these types of crimes have faith in the system and believe the devastating acts committed against them will not go unpunished.

I recognize that introducing legislation that proposes to increase sentences may not be consistent with the direction of the current government, which has often taken the position that some mandatory minimums are not appropriate. I would like to address that issue.

Charter challenges on mandatory minimum sentences are determinations if the sentence is “grossly disproportionate”. This is not the case with this bill. Given the abuse of power and the long-term impacts on victims, it should be clear to all of us that a one-year minimum sentence for sexual exploitation of a person under 18 years of age or a person with a disability is proportionate to the serious crime.

Sex crimes are different from other crimes. This has been recognized by successive governments for decades, including by the current Liberal government. The current mandatory minimum sentence of 90 days for sexual exploitation of a young person has been in place since the current Liberal government came to office and they have chosen to keep that in place. In fact, when the government introduced Bill C-22, their own backgrounder explicitly stated they were not proposing to remove mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offences and listed them among other serious violent offences in which strict sentences remain in place.

Furthermore, when the justice minister spoke in the House, he clearly stated that sexual offences committed against children were committed by serious criminals and should be treated seriously. The same should be true of sexual offences committed against persons living with disabilities.

It would be beneficial for Parliament, the elected branch of government, to explicitly include in the Criminal Code a higher sentence for these crimes for the purpose of protecting vulnerable Canadians. Criminal laws serve to protect vulnerable people and serve a valid purpose. They are a legitimate part of fostering a safe society and they serve the public good.

The last number of months, under the challenges of COVID-19, many Canadians have been distressed to hear increasing reports of sexual crimes.

On July 13, 2020, a CBC news headline stated, “Child sex exploitation is on the rise in Canada during the pandemic.” The article states, “Cybertip.ca said...saw an 81 per cent spike over April, May and June in reports from youth who had been sexually exploited, and reports of people trying to sexually abuse children.”

A Global News report last month stated that a man from outside of Edmonton was arrested and charged with multiple counts of exploitation, among other charges.

A March 20, CBC news headlined stated, “Reports of sexual violations against children double in P.E.I.”

I encourage all members of all parties to come together to support this bill. In fact, there is precedence for all-party co-operation regarding changes to these sections of the Criminal Code.

Prior to 2005, the maximum sentence for sexual exploitation of a young person as an indictable offence was only five years, and no minimum sentence was provided. This changed in the 38th Parliament, when the then Liberal minority government passed Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code, protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act, which was sponsored by then justice minister Irwin Cotler. That bill increased the maximum sentence for sexual exploitation of a young person to 10 years, and introduced a minimum sentence of 14 days.

The bill also added to the Criminal Code a list of factors regarding the nature and circumstances of the relations to be established to determine how the relationship is exploitative. As Minister Cotler told the justice committee at the time, the purposes of the bill were ”to provide greater protection to youth against sexual exploitation from persons who would prey on their vulnerability.”

This bill was not only supported by all parties, but its passage was accelerated by all-party agreement and the use of a unanimous consent motion.

Then, on May 1, 2008, the Criminal Code was amended again, through another bill also named Bill C-2, this time to change the definition of a young person and to provide additional protections. This bill, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, was sponsored by the then justice minister Rob Nicholson and passed quickly through the House of Commons with all-party support and co-operation.

I would note the support of that bill included the current Minister of Transport, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the government House leader, the chief government whip, and the Liberals members for Ottawa South, Halifax West, Humber River—Black Creek, Lac-Saint-Louis and Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

Young people and persons living with disabilities need to be protected. It is incumbent on us to pass this bill, because it is a targeted bill to correct two specific flaws in the Criminal Code. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to ensure the Criminal Code provides appropriate sentences for disturbing crimes so vulnerable Canadians are not at risk. There is no excuse for these crimes.

I urge all my fellow members to support this important bill.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House tonight to speak to Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

It is often said that the test of a just society is how it treats the most vulnerable of its citizens. Among the most vulnerable are those who cannot always speak up for themselves, namely, our children. In that spirit, the Liberal Party remains steadfastly committed to supporting the protection of children and concrete measures aimed at the prevention of sexual offences against children, as well as appropriate punitive sanctions against those who commit such heinous acts.

Bill C-26 includes no direct measures aimed at preventing sexual offences against children, nor measures to ensure the treatment, rehabilitation, or reintegration of sex offenders. All too often in the debate on these important matters, the opposition is painted as “being soft on crime”. The reality is we need to be a lot smarter on crime. Unfortunately, Bill C-26 just is not a smart bill. In fact, by increasing mandatory minimums, the bill reduces judicial discretion and may result in charter challenges. As parliamentarians, we must ensure that the laws we pass will be effective in reducing the incidence of sexual violence against kids and not merely a symbolic expression likely to be overturned when first implemented.

The last Liberal government made child protection a priority and its first bill, Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, was assented to in 2005. That legislation proposed amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act to provide further protection for children against abuse and sexual exploitation by broadening the definition of child pornography, prohibiting the advertising of child pornography, increasing maximum sentencing for certain offences related to child pornography, and creating new sexual exploitation offences.

Moreover, the Liberal legislation sought to facilitate testimony by child victims and witnesses by better enabling the use of testimonial aids, including screens, closed-circuit television, and support persons for all child victims and witnesses under the age of 18 years. The reforms also allowed children under 14 to give their evidence if they were able to understand and respond to questions. Such measures were far more concrete in securing the protection of the vulnerable than what we see in Bill C-26. The offences therein captured new behaviour unaddressed by the Criminal Code and also made improvements to the trial process. By contrast, Bill C-26, by and large, only increases penalties that were themselves recently increased, with no evidentiary basis to suggest that the current regime is not working, and without any effort of reducing the incidences of crimes against children.

Perhaps it is worth emphasizing this point another way. Penalties only come into play after an offence has occurred: a child has been victimized, his or her abuser has been apprehended, and the trial process has been completed, with a guilty verdict returned. By addressing only the penalty these criminals receive, we ignore all of the other elements at play. We fail to consider whether the police have adequate resources and tools to apprehend abusers. We fail to address issues at trial that might prevent important evidence from being adduced. In other words, by addressing the end of the process, we ignore the very beginning, which ought to be our goal: reducing incidents in the first place.

Perhaps the biggest concern with Bill C-26 is that the mandatory minimum penalties lack an evidentiary basis. If one goes back to the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, one will find that many of these offences had their minimum penalties increased just two short years ago. It begs the question: If these penalties needed to be increased to the lengths in Bill C-26, why did the Conservative government not do so two years ago? Herein lies the problem. With the law amended in 2012, someone imprisoned under the provisions would likely still be serving prison time less than two years later, particularly given the imposition of a mandatory minimum. Thus, we have no idea if Bill C-10's changes were sufficient.

We also have no indication that the changes in Bill C-26 will be beneficial in any way. If anything, we have evidence to the contrary given the constitutional problems of mandatory minimums. Liberals oppose mandatory minimum penalties as a matter of principle and policy. The evidence simply does not support them. Studies show that they are ineffective in deterring behaviour and, indeed, create more problems than they solve.

Indeed, the whole premise that increasing the sentence will somehow cause would-be offenders to change their minds is absurd. When one considers what that entails, it means we seriously think criminals are looking up the Criminal Code online and deciding, based on the number of years indicated in hard-to-read legal provisions, whether they should go forth and do something. This is just not how the world works, and the Conservatives need to wake up to this reality.

It is not only Liberals who oppose mandatory minimums. The former MP for Ottawa West, David Daubney, a Progressive Conservative MP who retired only recently as director of criminal law policy in the Department of Justice after a distinguished career there, was quoted as saying on the way out the door, “The policy is based on fear—fear of criminals and fear of people who are different. I do not think these harsh views are deeply held”. He went on to say at the same time, because he was subject to so much pressure inside the department, that “somebody has to take the risk of talking”.

By imposing mandatory minimums, the government ignores several decades' worth of overwhelming evidence from around the world that longer jail terms do not deter crime and in fact may have the opposite effect: in 1990, a study for the justice department found that:

The evidence shows that long periods served in prison increase the chance that the offender will offend again.

In 1999, research commissioned by the Solicitor General concluded that:

To argue for expanding the use of imprisonment in order to deter criminal behaviour is without any empirical support.

A Massachusetts report from 2004 called mandatory minimums:

...a recipe for recidivism rather than a recipe for effective risk reduction.

Making matters worse, mandatory minimums lead to prison overcrowding. One of the reasons mandatory minimums increase recidivism is that when more people are imprisoned for longer periods of time, prisons become overcrowded and less conducive to rehabilitation.

The Office of the Correctional Investigator has warned the government, documenting an increase in the number of inmates of nearly 7% between March 2010 and March 2012, predicting continued growth in the prison population as the full impact of Conservative policies are felt. The practice of double-bunking is used to accommodate this increase, housing two inmates in a cell designed for one. That practice has grown substantially. In 2004, 6.3% of inmates were double-bunked; by 2012, under the Conservatives, the number had grown to over 17%.

As studies demonstrate repeatedly, mandatory minimums discriminate against aboriginal Canadians and other minorities. The growth of the prison population includes a significant rise in the percentage of aboriginal inmates.

Indeed, mandatory minimums disproportionately impact vulnerable minorities, especially aboriginal Canadians, who have less access to legal counsel and are generally treated more severely by the justice system. For example, aboriginal defendants are often charged with a more serious offence than non-aboriginal defendants who commit the same act. Aboriginal people are already dramatically overrepresented in Canadian prisons, and mandatory minimum sentences exacerbate the problem.

Here is the point: the crime rate among aboriginal Canadians could be reduced much more effectively by education and poverty reduction than by increased incarceration.

Perhaps most importantly, these mandatory minimums are an unjustified attack on judicial discretion. One of the arguments in favour of mandatory minimums is that they remove discretion from judges who are supposedly “soft on crime”; however, there is no evidence, not a shred, to suggest that sentences imposed by judges are unjustifiably light. Serious offenders receive serious sentences already; mandatory minimums serve only to remove discretion from judges in exceptional cases where leniency might be appropriate.

Furthermore, these mandatory minimums do not truly eliminate discussion at all. Rather, they transfer it from judges, whose decisions are public and subject to appeal, to police officers and prosecutors. If a crown attorney feels that the mandatory minimum prescribed by the law would be too severe, he or she might decide to charge for a lesser offence. Such prosecutorial decisions are made behind closed doors, and no appeals process exists to challenge them.

In short, these mandatory minimums waste taxpayer dollars. They invite expensive constitutional challenges on the grounds that they violate section 7, the right to life, liberty and security of the person, or section 9, the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, or section 12, the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Already several of these sentences enacted by the Conservatives have been struck down. Other challenges are currently before the courts. They clog up the court system and require the government to spend millions of taxpayer dollars defending laws that were constitutionally suspect from the outset. This is in the face of the legal responsibility of the minister to ensure that legislation brought to the floor of this House is constitutional.

I will wrap up--

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague would simply wish for me to repeat part of what I said in my speech, which is that Liberals have supported mandatory minimum sentences in the past. It is no longer a Liberal Party policy. They have been shown to be ineffective. The evidence indicates that they are not effective. We believe that mandatory minimum sentences should be the exception and not the rule. However, they have become the rule and not the exception. I thought perhaps that was clear enough in my speech. That is certainly where we stand.

My colleague would know as well that the Liberal government of Paul Martin, in 2005, as their first piece of legislation, introduced Bill C-2 on Criminal Code amendments to protect the vulnerable, including strengthening child pornography laws, creating new offences against the sexual exploitation of youth, increasing penalties for child-specific offences, facilitating the testimony of child victims, and other measures.

There is no question that the Liberal Party has been consistent in its stand with respect to the measures necessary to protect the most vulnerable. With respect to mandatory minimums, it is well past time they became the exception and not the rule.

Safer Internet Day

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today the Government of Canada recognizes Safer Internet Day in announcing the renewal of the national strategy for the protection of children from sexual exploitation on the Internet. Today's announcement signals our government's ongoing commitment to help keep our children safe.

On February 28, 2008, Parliament passed Bill C-2, which increased the age of consent for sexual activity from 14 to 16 years of age to better protect youth against adult sexual predators. Our government also invested $6 million per year, provided through budget 2007, to strengthen existing initiatives to combat exploitation and trafficking of children.

We will continue to work with the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and the RCMP's National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre to eliminate online child exploitation. This government is committed to raising awareness about the abuse of children and to the investigation and pursuit of those who engage in exploitation--

Criminal Code

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to again address the issue of Bill C-22, the age of protection, age of consent legislation. It is the second time I have been able to speak in this debate. I believe this is very important legislation. It is important to many people in my community of Burnaby—Douglas and across the country.

There are many different positions on this. There seems to be some unanimity in this place. There is an emerging consensus that the legislation will pass. However, I believe there are important opinions and understandings of sexual expression, the age of consent, what is appropriate sexual expression and relational models, that need to be part of this debate.

I am one person who does not support the legislation because of some of the serious flaws I see in it. At the same time, recognizing there are other opinions, I believe people have taken this issue seriously and we have had a serious debate on this matter, both here in this chamber and in committee. I have read most of the transcripts of the presentations at the committee.

The NDP caucus has also had the opportunity to discuss the legislation as well. Even in this caucus there is a diversity of opinion on this legislation. However, I do not think anyone wants to diminish the importance of it.

It is important that we take all possible precautions to ensure there is not exploitation, particularly of young people in our society. We all want to ensure that we have the best and most appropriate tools at our disposal to ensure young people are not exploited. How we do that, I think there can be some discussion and debate about. I want to take the opportunity today to talk about this attempt to do that.

For many of us this is a very personal issue and we come to it with various personal experiences. Some of us may come to the debate because of a concern we had of a young person who was involved in a relationship with someone much older. Others come from other kinds of experience to this debate.

As a gay man, I have a particular experience of a time when in Canada my sexual expression was criminal. It was illegal to engage in homosexual activity, to engage in a gay or lesbian relationship. I grew up in that period in the 1960s when it was criminally sanctioned. That was not an easy time for me as a young person coming to terms with my own sexuality. It was not an easy time to go through all that learning about what it meant to be a full human person, what it meant to experience one's sexual self at a time where any expression of my understanding of my sexuality could have resulted in criminal sanction. That is totally outside the issue of the age of consent. It was just plain illegal to do that.

That was a very difficult time, not to mention the social sanctions that were also present around being gay or lesbian at that time, or the ordinary difficulties that any young person might have in expressing their concerns, or their experiences or their questions about sexuality. It is difficult enough as it is. As young people, it is hard to have those kinds of discussions with people who care about us and with people who we look to for information. That is hugely difficult and remains through most of our society. However, on top of all of that, it was illegal. It was a crime to engage in that activity.

It was very difficult to come to terms with who I was as a person and who I was as a sexual person when there were those social and criminal sanctions. I do not really want to wish that on anyone else. I do not want to wish that circumstance of a criminal sanction around the time when we are learning about our sexual expression and learning about what it means to be a sexual person. Criminal sanction is a huge burden to place on anyone going through that period of time.

There are still social sanctions around relationships where there is an age difference. There are still difficulties for young people to raise their questions about expressing their sexuality, the meaning of their sexuality, dealing with health issues or problems in any relationship, let alone one where there might be an age difference. We are complicating that even further by adding a new criminal sanction around expression of sexuality for our youth.

I say this recognizing that we have very good legislation on the books now. We have a good law on the age of consent in Canada that essentially had sections of it amended in 1987 under a previous Conservative government and minister of justice, who went on to become the governor general, Ramon Hnatyshyn. The law very clearly stated that between the ages of 14 and 18 any circumstance of exploitation, the misuse of trust, dependency and authority was a sanction that protected a young person in that age group. The legislation was very clear.

I was working on the Hill at the time. I remember there was widespread support for the legislation. People saw that this was an important way to elucidate the places where harm could come to someone, the ways in which a relationship, particularly a sexual one, could be exploited. That law went a considerable way to outline that.

At the time I worked for a member of Parliament, who defended the issue. Because of his outspokenness, it generated lots of phone calls to the office where I worked. I had conversations with many people about the law. I think people understood that the law went out of its way to protect young people from exploitation and did so in many ways.

What is more, in the previous Parliament improvements were made with Bill C-2. It was made more explicit. Issues of prostitution, pornography and luring on the Internet were explicitly dealt with in the amendments to the age of consent legislation, which were debated and passed in the 38th Parliament. Those amendments went some way to making it very clear. It took something that was already good and made it crystal clear in some very key areas, which many people have justified and serious concerns about in the ways in which young people are exploited.

It is very clear about a pimp who is pimping a person of that age group. It already was, but it made it explicitly clear. Similarly, it is very clear with regard to using a young person to produce pornography. On the whole exercise of luring someone on the Internet, the law is very clear now.

The only effect of this legislation is to criminalize consensual sexual relationships of 15 and 16 year olds outside of a certain five year age gap parameter, and that is my concern.

We have very clear legislation that outlines the problem areas in relationships with young people, as I have just explained. The current legislation goes out of its way to be very clear about how a young person can be exploited in that kind of relationship. All we are dealing with are relationships that are consensual, where a young person gives consent to be in that relationship.

We may not like the fact that 14 or 15 year olds are in relationships with who is 6 or 10 years older, or perhaps even older than that, and we may have reasons to be concerned about it. However, I put it to members of the House. I do not completely understand how criminalizing those relationships is going to add to the ability to solve whatever problems may exist in those relationships or how dragging the people involved in those relationships before the courts is necessarily going to address any of the current concerns we might have.

Why should young people involved in those kinds of relationship have to see their partners dragged before the court because of a relationship they consider to be consensual, but we consider detrimental, even though we can not prove it with the existing laws? How does that solve the problem. I think it creates more problems for the people in that relationship, particularly the young people. That is one concern I have about the legislation.

I have other concerns too. When we criminalize sexual activity, we will drive people underground. We will make it more difficult for young people to raise questions with somebody who may have advice to offer them about the course of their relationship when they have a problem, particularly if the people they are involved with are older than the five year limit.

We will make it more difficult for a young person involved in that kind of relationship to seek treatment for a sexually transmitted disease, for instance. This is a very serious issue that many sexual health educators across the country have raised. They have said that this is a serious problem with the kind of legislation we have before us.

I am very concerned that this kind of change in the legislation will drive behaviour underground. It will make it more difficult to assist people who are in these relationships, particularly young people where there might be exploitation or other problems that need to be addressed. That is another key reason why I cannot support the legislation.

There has been a lot of discussion about this legislation. The NDP debated this at our convention last September. The party referred it to its federal council. The federal council did approve a party position on it. I want to read the resolution that was passed. It says:

WHEREAS the Conservative government plans to increase the basic age of consent for sexual activity to sixteen (6) years of age; and

WHEREAS Bill C-2, passed into law in 2005, already prohibits any exploitative sexual relationship with a person under 18; and

WHEREAS there is no evidence to indicate that the proposed legislation will protect young people from predators; and

WHEREAS youth are significantly less likely to seek sexual health information or advice if their activities fall outside of the law; and

WHEREAS an increase in the age of consent is opposed by the Canadian AIDS Society, EGALE Canada, The Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario and others,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Convention direct Caucus not to vote for the Conservative legislation to increase the basic age of consent for sexual activity to sixteen years of age; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NDP Federal Caucus work to ensure that the Age of Consent for anal sex be consistent with that for all other types of sexual activities.

We have a very clear party position about this kind of legislation, after considerable debate within the NDP. It is important to point out that it was a very careful debate within our party and we heard from a lot of people.

We also heard very clearly from the youth wing of the NDP that it was were opposed to the legislation. Young people took a very active part in that debate, calling for our opposition as New Democrats to this legislation. That is an important consideration.

As well, we have court decisions saying that the anal intercourse provisions of the Criminal Code violate the charter because they are unconstitutional. While we have those kinds of decisions, the government failed to integrate them into the legislation when it brought it in. That also indicates one of the important flaws with the bill.

For many years, this has been called in this place. In fact, back in 1987, I believe an all party committee of the House wrote a report called “Equality for All”. One of the recommendations of that report was that there be a uniform age of consent for sexual activity, no matter what that sexual activity. That has been a long-standing recommendation that came from an all party committee of this place, and it is still to be implemented here.

It belies the bias of the government. It could indicate that there is an anti-sex bias in this kind of legislation. The failure to deal with an important constitutional issue and the whole question of uniformity of the age of consent legislation is a very serious problem with the bill. It is another reason why I will not support it.

I am glad that my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, has tabled private member's legislation to deal with that particular aspect of the bill. However, I think if this had been a serious attempt to deal with the problems of the age of consent legislation in Canada, that provision would have been part of this legislation, or at least the amendments that were proposed at committee by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and others to add that provision to the legislation would have been accepted and we would have that before us today, but sadly, we do not.

I am also concerned that the legislation is becoming increasingly complex. The existing legislation that is in force now in Canada can be explained effectively. I actually wish that that legislation were taught in our schools. I wish there would be some attempt to inform young people. It probably should be taught in other places so that people come to an understanding of what the requirements are for an appropriate relationship, of what it means to be in a position of trust or authority in a relationship, what it means to be exploited sexually in a relationship, so that we could have frank discussions on that. The existing legislation is an excellent tool.

Back in 1987 when the law was changed to what we have today, the Department of Justice produced an excellent resource about the age of consent legislation. I personally, through the constituency office that I worked in, gave away probably thousands of copies of that booklet. It was such a helpful resource for people trying to understand the issue of the age of consent laws, trying to understand the importance of relationships, what they meant and how a relationship could be conducted appropriately. I am sad that that resource is long out of print because I think it did go some way to helping people understand what it would be to have an appropriate relationship.

I want to point to testimony that was offered by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the president, Mr. Jason Gratl, at the committee that was looking at the legislation. It is important to note the issues that that group raised. They saw the legislation before us today, Bill C-22, as a fundamental shift from the way Canada has chosen to deal with issues of harm to young people and of social policy.

I just want to quote from what Mr. Gratl said to the committee looking at the legislation. He said:

I'll begin with a general comment expressing our concern that Bill C-22 represents a fundamental shift of policy and attitude towards sexuality. In 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Butler decision dealing with the definition of obscenity, signalled a fundamental shift from the legislation of morality to the legislation of harm. From that point forward, the legislature and the courts were to look for specific types of harm, not necessarily scientifically measurable types of harm, but analytically discoverable harm, such as attitudinal harm--changes in people's attitudes toward each other that are fundamentally anti-social, psychological harm to individuals.

The idea was to rationally connect appreciable types of harm to the type of legislative endeavour underway. To our mind, that commitment to legislating against harm rather than legislating morality is endangered or imperiled by the approach this committee currently seems to be taking.

The existing protections for young people are adequate, in our submission. Sexual predators who exist in the world need to be taken account of, and much has already been done to ensure that those sexual predators are controlled, punished, deterred, and so forth, by the existing criminal law. The committee is well familiar with the crime of exploitation, as well as the restraints placed on persons in positions of trust, power, and authority to refrain from sexual contact with minors. Those go a long way to ensuring that young people are protected.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association raises an important point about how this legislation departs, from a recent tradition at least, of legislating against specific harms rather than against morality in general. The direction of this legislation in that broad sense is also one that I find difficult.

Other organizations such as the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, formerly known as Planned Parenthood, that do a lot of sexuality education across the country, have said that we need to be putting more resources into educating people and young people about sexuality. They said that we need to put more resources into sexuality and relationship education and that would go some way toward dealing with those kinds of problems. They do not support the current legislation. They see the difficulties it causes for health education and for ensuring that young people are able to make mature and responsible decisions about sexual expression. This legislation would complicate that.

We need to get on with promoting the excellent legislation that is currently on the books, with teaching the law that we have currently on the books. I believe that would help all of us make better decisions about relationships, make better decisions about our sexual relationships. I will not be able to support the legislation as it currently stands.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code of Canada regarding the age of protection.

This issue has been the subject of many private members' bills and proposed government legislation over many years and many studies by the Department of Justice.

It has also been the subject of much community interest, many white ribbon campaigns in strong support for raising the age of consent to 16 years of age while others have even advocated raising the age to 18.

Over the years the subject has generated numerous constituent letters, as well as press and editorial commentary in my riding of Welland. These representations have been heard and will be reflected in my support of the bill.

Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding age of protection, amends the Criminal Code to raise the age from 14 to 16 years at which time a person can consent to non-exploitive sexual activity. The existing age of consent of 18 years for exploitive sexual activity will be maintained. This applies to sexual activity involving prostitution, pornography or where there is a relationship of trust, authority, dependency or any other situation that is otherwise exploitive of a young person.

Bill C-22 creates an exception with respect to an accused who engages in sexual activity with a 14 or 15 year old and who is less than five years older than the youth. It also creates an exception for transitional purposes for an accused who is married to a youth or who is the common law partner of a youth and is expecting a child with the youth and the sexual activity was not otherwise prohibited before the act comes into force. The bill maintains an existing close in age exception that exists for 12 or 13 year olds who engage in sexual activity with a peer who is less than two years older, provided the relationship is not exploitative.

The history of the age of consent has evolved considerably in the past century in that the existing Criminal Code prohibitions against sexual conduct with young people bears little resemblance to those that were in place as recently as 20 years ago.

Historically in Canada, the age of consent was 12 until 1890 when it was raised to 14. At no time has it ever been set higher than 14 in Canada. At one time Canadian criminal law did provide very qualified protection from sexual exploitation for females over 14. Between 1886 and 1988 there were several incarnations of a provision banning intercourse with a girl over 12 and under 16 who was of “previously chaste character”. This qualified protection for girls, not boys, applied only to intercourse and no other form of sexual contact.

In 1988 the qualified protection was revoked in favour of new offences called “sexual interference” and “invitation to sexual touching” that prohibit adults from engaging in virtually any kind of sexual contact with other boys or girls under the age of 14, irrespective of consent.

Introduced at the same time the offence of sexual exploitation also made it an offence for an adult to have any such contact with boys and girls over 14 but under 18 where a relationship of trust or authority exists between the adult and the child. This also means that child pornography includes any youth under the age of 18 regardless of consent.

The 1988 changes implemented more equitable, broad-sweeping protection for all young people regardless of gender, type of offence or the complainant's sexual history.

As time and further reflection have passed, an additional protection for youth has been advanced. In a previous Parliament, the Government of Canada tabled Bill C-2, the child protection act. As I do support raising the age of consent from 14 to 16, I was disappointed that Bill C-2 at that time did not do this, although I understand there was no consensus or agreement from the provinces which is required for this issue to move forward.

In its place the government proposed a new category of sexual exploitation that did not consider whether or not the young person, covering youth between 14 and 18 years of age, consented to sexual activity, but examined the relationship and motives of the accused.

The argument was that this provision should effectively prohibit any exploitive sexual activity between an adult and youth under the age of 18. I do think that this was a good provision and strikes at the heart of the intention of people who want to raise the age to 18. The call to increase the age of consent to 18 was all about protecting young people between the ages of 14 and 18 from exploitation and the new provision says that regardless of whether or not consent was given by the young person. I feel this is key. The nature of the power of dynamic in the relationship would be scrutinized by the court.

The current bill is not without its critics. One criticism of the bill that has been raised by those who generally support it is that the five year age exemption is too large. Rather than allowing a five year age gap, three years should be more than enough.

Some other supporters of the bill have proposed that the age of consent be set at 18. This would eliminate the anomaly of 16 year olds who can legally consent to have sex yet be unable to vote, serve in the military, smoke or drink. Many have argued that most teenagers do not have the maturity to handle the responsibilities that come with sex, such as practising safe sex and using reliable birth control. A more appropriate age of consent, they argue, would be 18, when one legally becomes an adult.

It is interesting to note that the most common age of consent in the United States seems to be either 16 or 18. Sixteen is the age of consent in Australia, Belgium, Hong Kong, Finland, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Singapore, the Ukraine and the U.K. Canada is now coming in line with these other countries.

Bill C-22 also addresses Criminal Code provisions regarding luring a child. Section 172.1 of the Criminal Code creates the offence of using a computer system to lure children for the purpose of committing certain sexual offences. The section lists various sexual offences, which depend upon the age of the child. The offence is committed if the child is under the particular age specified or if the accused believes the child to be under that age.

Subsection 172.1(3) sets up a rebuttable presumption that the accused believed the child was under the relevant age if there is evidence the child was represented to the accused as being under that age. There is no defence that the accused believed the child was over the relevant age unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the child.

New paragraph 172.1(1)(b) will make 16 the relevant age for the offence of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 151, which is sexual interference, section 152, which is invitation to sexual touching, subsection 160(3), which is bestiality in the presence of a young person, or subsection 173(2), which is exposure to a young person. These offences are being added to a list that previously consisted only of section 280, which is abduction of a person under the age of 14.

The relevant age for all four of the added offences will be raised from 14 to 16. Thus, the use of a computer system to facilitate the commission of these offences when the complainant is less than 16 is being made an offence.

Since 16 will now be the relevant age, paragraph 172.1(1)(c) is amended to remove reference to the age of 14 for offences under sections 151 and 152 and subsections 160(3) and 173(2). Henceforth, luring someone under the age of 14 by means of a computer system will be an offence only if it is done to facilitate the commission of an offence under section 280(1), which is, again, the abduction of a person under 16.

Members of our police forces welcome Bill C-22 for the very message it sends. They see a fair number of people between the ages of 14 and 16 being manipulated by older predators. Any new tools the police can use to stop predators are most welcome.

The bill will also change the way police investigate child pornography, underage prostitution and Internet luring. There will be a new group of kids being protected and a new group of pedophiles being charged.

Protecting our children, however, goes beyond a simple and arbitrary increase of the age of consent to sexual activity. It means addressing the broader issues of the safety and well-being of our children. Our objective is to develop and maintain effective, comprehensive measures to support provincial and territorial measures to improve public safety for children and to protect children from serious injury and even death at the hands of adults.

The achievement of this objective rests in a collaborative effort by the provinces, the territories and the Government of Canada. While the provision of services to children who are in need of protection is the responsibility of the provinces and territories, the assurance that appropriate offences and penalties are available for serious harm done to children remains the responsibility of the Government of Canada. By targeting extreme forms of harm through the Criminal Code, the Government of Canada will provide strong support for provincial and territorial initiatives to protect children.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-22, which has as its principal design to increase the age of consent for sexual relations from age 14 to age 16.

The critics of the bill have characterized it in a number of ways: social engineering run amok; the attempt on the part of the legislature and on the part of the state to enter into the bedrooms of the nation, once again; to discriminate against our youth; and an attempt to impose morality, which is the one that we hear most often, by those individuals in our society who believe youth of ages 14 and 15 should not engage in sexual relations.

If we study the history of the legislation and, in particular, a number of the private members' bills, there is some validity to that last charge with regard to those prior bills. It is not valid with regard to this legislation.

Because it is to some degree an issue of conscience, we as a party will treat the bill as one that will not be whipped, that individual members of our party will vote according to their values and their conscience.

I will be voting in favour of the legislation. If we go to the essence of the legislation, it is says that at this time in our history as a country, as a society, it is appropriate in order to protect our youth of the ages of 14 and 15 from being exploited by predators. The best mechanism for doing that is this legislation.

It has two significant components. We are raising the age from 14 to 16 in terms of consent to sexual activity. We are also putting in what is known in legal terminology as a near age defence, and this is absolutely crucial.

The near age defence will allow individuals, couples, to have sexual relations where the age gap between the two persons is no more than five years. That will not constitute criminal activity. If it is beyond five years, then it will be criminal activity and will call for the sanctions that are provided for in the statute and in the Criminal Code more generally.

To give a quick history, the age of consent originally in Canada until the early 1900s was 12. I know this comes as a shock to a lot of people. We got that age from England, as we took its statutes and as our jurisprudence broadened itself, and we drew the age 12 into Canada. It stayed there until the early 1900s when it was raised to age 14.

There was more tinkering with the legislation and then fairly substantial was work done on the age of consent through the late seventies, into the eighties and early nineties.

The approach at that time was to look at the relationship and to pass legislation that said in effect that this relationship, because it is inherently exploitive, would be illegal. As an example, if the relationship was one of authority to one of subservience, that was exploitive by its very nature and therefore illegal. Therefore, a number of sections were passed during that period of time.

Interestingly, in the legislation we dealt with in the last Parliament, Bill C-2, which was really the child pornography legislation, we took a fair amount of evidence on the age of consent.

What came out from the prosecutors and police who had to pursue the exploitive type of crimes was that the sections were grossly ineffective in dealing with that type of exploitation and in particular with the 14 year olds and 15 year olds. The charges are rarely laid any more because we simply cannot get convictions. That was the word we got from the prosecutors and it is backed up by strong statistics in that regard.

There is a bit more history in terms of legislative attempts. The Reform, the Alliance, even the Conservative members of Parliament primarily but not exclusively have brought forward legislation over the last 10 to 15 years to increase the age of consent. Without exception they did not put in any near age defence. We have to appreciate what we are talking about in terms of numbers.

In the last few years there are roughly 815,000 youth in that 14 year old and 15 year old category. The estimate is that approximately 125,000 of them are engaging in various forms of sexual relations. They would be caught by this legislation. Roughly 2,500 to 3,000 are or have been in relationships where the age gap was greater than five years, moving on from six and above. Those are the numbers.

The legislation that we saw coming before the House in private members' bills would have had the effect of criminalizing some of our youth. We have to appreciate in the legislation that simply raising the age from 14 to 16, would have had the effect of criminalizing 125,000 of our youth. Both parties to the relationship would have been engaged in criminal activity because one of the parties was having sexual relations with somebody who was under 16. That was a real problem and one that I have to say those parties in their various positions did not appreciate.

I finally convinced the former justice minister from Manitoba, who is now the President of the Treasury Board, to move an amendment to Bill C-2. We did it jointly. The amendment would have had the effect of raising the age with the five year near age defence. It took some convincing. I think his staff was fairly instrumental in convincing him but that is a bit of an aside.

I am making this point because I want to take a shot at the Liberals. When the amendment came before the justice committee in the last Parliament, the Liberals and the Bloc both voted against it and the amendment went down. It never got to the House. When I heard the Liberal member from Montreal ranting about delay, the reality is this particular piece of legislation could have been incorporated into Bill C-2. The attempt was made and it would have been in effect now for the better part of two years.

If there is any delay, it certainly lies in the lap of the Liberals and the Bloc for not supporting the amendment at that time. Interestingly, two years later, I think because of a great deal of political pressure, they finally have come on side.

There are still some problems with this legislation. We have heard that today. I am going to quickly go through it. I moved amendments on each one of these in committee, two of which were ruled out of order, one of which the Liberals had also moved. That dealt with the section that is clearly discriminatory, so found by a number of our courts including two courts of appeal, in Ontario and Quebec.

With regard to the discriminatory nature of section 159, which prohibits anal intercourse under the age of 18, male or female, that has been struck down repeatedly. Neither the Liberal Party in the 13 years when it was in power nor the Conservative government currently has seen fit to move to amend the code and take that section out. By the way, I introduced a private member's bill yesterday on this. In any case, it was ruled out of order in terms of amending Bill C-22.

There is another amendment that I moved. We heard a good deal of evidence about the concern of the legislation deterring young people in the age category of 14 years and 15 years from coming forward to get health care if they suspect they have a sexually transmitted disease because their partner may be five or more years older than they are. What I was trying to do in that amendment was to provide a protection within the Canada Evidence Act.

An example is if an individual came forward and said that he or she had a disease and needed treatment. Because provincial legislation requires the doctor or counsellor who is treating the individual to report that the other individual, the older person, has that disease, the younger person may decide that he or she is not going to give out that information and therefore will not get treatment or counselling.

The legislative amendment I proposed to the Canada Evidence Act was to provide people with the privilege that if they gave that kind of information, it could not be used against them or their partner in any subsequent criminal prosecution. Again, that was ruled out of order. I have prepared the amendment by way of a private member's bill, which I will be tabling in the House probably next week.

The final amendment I made was with respect to what I saw as a jurisdictional conflict between the federal government and the provincial government having to do with marriage where the age gap is greater than five years. There are jurisdictions that allow judges, along with parents and guardians, and/or ministers, usually attorneys general, to allow an individual who is younger than the stated age in the legislation, which generally is 16 to 18 across the country, to marry, usually when the couple is expecting a child.

If a judge allowed the marriage to go ahead even though the age gap was greater, the police and the prosecutors could bring that couple back, and the senior person in the relationship could end up being charged with a criminal offence. The judge would have to decide whether to convict that person. There is that anomaly.

I moved an amendment which was accepted by the committee. If a couple has the authority to get married even though the age gap is greater than five years, there is that kind of authority from the provincial government so that it would not be an infringement of this section of the Criminal Code.

In conclusion, this piece of legislation is not based on the imposition of a particular set of morals. It is about protecting our children.

Around the globe roughly 60% of the population lives in jurisdictions where the age of sexual consent is 16 or older. There is no clear pattern. We cannot say that some countries are more liberal or that others are more conservative; it does not seem to follow any pattern.

My analysis of it from some of the countries I have looked at is that we simply base it on facts, not on morality, and we say that at this time in our society we require this type of protection for our youth. That is what we have done here. It is appropriate that we have done so. As I have said earlier, I will be supporting this bill when it comes to its final vote.

Broadcasting Act

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to again speak to Bill C-327, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts).

This would amend the Broadcasting Act to grant the CRTC the power to make regulations respecting the broadcasting of violent scenes. I commend my colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, for raising this issue.

I do not plan on supporting the legislation but it certainly concerns a serious matter and it can only benefit Canadian society that violence be examined and debated here in the House of Commons.

As the father of four children, I certainly share my colleague's concerns about the levels of violence broadcast on television to young children. My children are older now, but violence on television is certainly an issue I had to deal with while they were growing up.

However, I am not sure the legislation is now necessary. The objective of Bill C-327 is consistent with the current regulatory practice of the CRTC and self-governing standards from both public and private sector broadcasters.

The CRTC already sets out policy and rules that govern violence on television and, more important, are a mandatory condition of a licence for all broadcasters. Moreover, there is an established and enforced requirement that does not allow violent television programming to air before 9 p.m. eastern time.

Viewer advisories referencing unsuitable programming for children are communicated through voice and print before programs. This is encouraging news but we must not be complacent and must be ever vigilant to ensure that images our children are exposed to are healthy.

On the subject of violence, the government has so far done very little to counter my constituents' concerns about violence in our midst and criminal justice issues in particular. My position on criminal justice is that an effective and comprehensive approach to crime is one that deals with every aspect of fighting crime, preventing crime, catching criminals, convicting criminals through competent and quick administration, and rehabilitating criminals.

I am committed to appointing more judges, putting more police officers on the street and more prosecutors in the courts, protecting the most vulnerable, including children and seniors, and giving our youth more opportunities to succeed.

This is where the Liberal justice plan comes into play. The Liberal offer was originally made last October as an attempt to get effective criminal justice legislation passed through Parliament as quickly as possible with the goal to protect Canadian communities.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government has again rejected Liberal efforts to fast-track a number of its own justice bills. This is a bizarre and puzzling decision on the part of the government.

The Liberal opposition has tried three times in the last six months to expedite a number of government bills dealing with justice issues and the Conservatives have failed to collaborate with us. My question is simple: Why does the Conservative government not cooperate with Liberals to get its own criminal justice legislation passed? After all, I recognize the importance of effective criminal justice legislation.

As a member from the GTA, I know all too well the number of firearm offences that have occurred in my area. Thankfully, gun-related deaths have subsided and I applaud the efforts that have been made by stakeholders in the city, at all levels, in reducing the number of gun crimes.

The work is not yet done and the government could certainly help by collaborating with the opposition to pass important and effective criminal justice legislation.

While I am speaking to these issues, it is important to note that the present Liberal justice plan is in addition to the important justice initiatives that were taken while the Liberals were in power. This is something that the Conservatives do not seem to want to recognize but they should give credit where it is due.

First, Canada's first comprehensive national security policy, a strategic framework and action plan designed to ensure that the government can prepare for and respond to security threats while still maintaining Canadian values of openness, diversity and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms.

Second, the creation of a national sex offender registry to protect Canadians from violent sex offenders.

Third, further protection of our children through Bill C-2 from the 38th Parliament. This bill would have strengthened prohibitions against child pornography by broadening the definition of child pornography to include audio formats as well as written material. It would have also increased the maximum penalty for child sexual offences.

Still on the subject of violence, there is another matter the government should start taking seriously. I am amazed that the government has not introduced animal cruelty legislation to the House. The only animal cruelty legislation we have seen is from Liberal parliamentarians.

I commend my Liberal colleagues for introducing private member's bills on this subject. It seems that only the opposition is concerned about this very serious issue. We have seen a whole array of justice bills introduced by the government. Why has animal cruelty not been one of them?

Different governments have attempted over the years to pass this kind of legislation but the Conservative government has not taken it seriously. The government owes an explanation to Canadians as to why it has not introduced legislation to better protect our animals, over which we have an important responsibility.

Those are the issues my constituents are concerned about and they expect to see action from the government. Instead, they see criminal justice legislation stalled and, in the case of animal cruelty, ignored by the government.

I commend my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for bringing forth legislation dealing with violence. The bill is not necessary as I am satisfied that there are already sufficient safeguards to protect our children.

The real onus lies with the government. There are a number of things that it can do to immediately make our communities safer. I have been pleased to outline some of these thing today, and they include working with the opposition to get effective criminal justice legislation passed, as well as immediately introducing an animal cruelty bill as a piece of government legislation. I look forward to continuing to follow these debates.

[Steve Sullivan, President, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to be before the committee on this bill. It's one that, Mr. Chair, you and I have discussed in the past in your own attempts to pass similar legislation, which we supported. We supported as well the measures in Bill C-2, which this committee dealt with a couple of years ago and which I think provided added protection for children up to the age of 18, with more discretion, obviously, than this bill.

I won't say very much. It's rare that we come to a committee when everyone seems to agree, at least on the principles of the bill. There's not a whole lot for us to say.

I think I'll echo what Mr. Gillespie said about the issue of the Internet and the discussions that go on within those chat rooms between people who would seek to exploit children.

About the lower age of consent, I was at a conference recently with investigators and crown prosecutors who deal with these kinds of situations, and this was a topic of discussion. One of the investigators gave us a demonstration. He went into a chat room, posing as a girl who was 13. We could tell the number of men who wanted to initiate a discussion with that officer by the pings. It was just ping, ping, ping—one ping after another. It was quite disturbing to see. This was one o'clock in the afternoon, and to see that many people out there, many of whom would, I think, seek to exploit that child—

The officer talked as well about how, when they initiate discussions, some of these individuals will try to keep the discussion going with that child until they reach the age of 14. That was a concern as well. I think this bill will add a tool to the repertoire of law enforcement and will better protect children. It's important to keep the focus on the motivations of the adult and not on the consent of the young person. This is focusing on individuals who seek to exploit children for their own purposes.

I'll just briefly mention one other issue. We've recently testified before some your colleagues on the access to information committee, which is reviewing PIPEDA, the privacy legislation. We're trying to get the debate about privacy—in that case the privacy of Internet subscribers—expanded to include the need to protect the privacy of these children, whose images are being traded on the Internet like baseball cards. We have to begin to deal with the realization that we have young people who have access to Webcams, who are being manipulated by older individuals to share their photos. We need to begin to protect those privacy rights as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Nichole Downer, Programs Consultant, Canadian AIDS Society]

Thank you very much for this opportunity to present to you today.

We recognize that a lot of our points have been presented. Being the last group, we would like to take the opportunity to reinforce several themes that are evident in the presentations today.

The Canadian AIDS Society is a national coalition of over 125 community-based AIDS service organizations across Canada. We are dedicated to strengthening the response to HIV/AIDS across all sectors of society and to enriching the lives of people in communities living with HIV/AIDS.

As an organization dedicated to decreasing HIV/AIDS infection rates, we are concerned about the pending legislation to increase the age of consent for sexual activity from 14 to 16 years of age. Furthermore, the proposed amendments do not address an existing law prohibiting anal intercourse for individuals under the age of 18.

The Canadian AIDS Society believes the law should not discriminate by type of sexual activity. First, there are already protections in place under Bill C-2, protection of children and other vulnerable persons. Passed by Parliament in July 2005, Bill C-2 created new protections for youths under 18 years of age against exploitative sexual activity. The Canadian AIDS Society supports this bill. Bill C-2 takes into account the nature and circumstance of the relationship, including the age of the young person, the difference in age between the youth and the other person, how the relationship evolves, and the degree of control or influence exercised over a youth under 18.

Second, increasing the age of consent could result in youths being more secretive. The Canadian AIDS Society is concerned that increasing the age of consent could result in youths being more secretive about their sexual practices and in youths not seeking out the information they need. This will place youths at an increased risk of contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

Almost one-quarter of students in grade 9 feel embarrassed about seeing a physician or a nurse if they suspect they may have an STI. Raising the age of consent could have the negative impact of further decreasing the number of youths accessing the information from health providers if they are under the age of 16. This is problematic, as research in Canada has shown that the average age of first sexual intercourse is 14.1 for boys and 14.5 for girls.

A study in Britain showed that youths are unlikely to seek information about contraception and sex if they are under the age of consent, because of worries about law and confidentiality. The studies show that youths under the legal age of consent in Britain were six times more likely than those over the legal age of consent to give the fear of being too young as the reason they did not seek out sexual health information.

Regardless of the age of consent, youths will continue to have sex, and we need to make sure they have the information they need. As we know the average age of first sexual intercourse is under 16 in Canada, raising the age of consent could result in many youths engaging in their first sexual intercourse while being fearful of accessing the information they need.

Not enough research has been done in this area to alleviate the fears that raising the age of consent could have detrimental effects on the sexual health practices of youth. Therefore, it would be irresponsible to raise the age of consent without knowing the full effects of this action. The Canadian AIDS Society supports more research being done in this area.

Third, the close-in-age exemption is not a solution. The close-in-age exemption has been used as a solution to fears that Bill C-22 will criminalize youth sexual behaviour. We do not believe this is an adequate solution.

While we understand the rationale behind the creation of a close-in-age exemption and that this exemption would be increased to five years under Bill C-22, the bill places unnecessary restrictions on youth, while not addressing the reality of sexual abuse. Given that all exploitative activity is currently illegal involving people under 18, this law makes the situation for youths unnecessarily complex.

Most youths, and even adults, do not have the legal expertise to know about the criteria and exemption, or to be able to determine if their relationship meets them. It is very likely that this exemption will be misunderstood or forgotten, and the age of consent will generally be understood to be 16 years of age. Many young people would assume their relationships are illegal and not seek the information and help they need.

Using age as a factor to determine sexual exploitation does not address the reality of sexual abuse. In cases of sexual coercion, a person is no less abused if the perpetrator falls within a five-year peer group. This legislation is focusing on the wrong group of people. Criminalizing the sexual behaviour of youths will do nothing to stop exploitative activity. As all exploitation of persons under the age of 18 is currently illegal under Bill C-2, more resources need to be devoted to pursuing cases involving sexual exploitation and abuse.

Fourth, the focus should be on comprehensive HIV/AIDS and sexual health education. School was reported as the main source of information about HIV/AIDS by 67% of males and 58% of females in grade 11. However, 27% of grade 7 and 14% of grade 9 and grade 11 students had not received any instructions on HIV/AIDS education over the past two years.

The Canadian AIDS Society is concerned that if the age of consent is raised from 14 to 16 years of age, prevention and education in schools will not be available for youths under the age of 16, decreasing further the amount of information provided to them. Research evidence has shown that in the long term, prevention messages are more effective when they're delivered early, and they are effective at reducing risky sexual behaviour. We also know there were 212,000 high school dropouts in Canada in 2004-05. The legal minimum school leaving age is 16 in most provinces in Canada. Therefore, not delivering sexual health education in schools before the age of 16 would mean that many youths are not receiving critical prevention messages.

The Canadian AIDS Society believes the government should be focusing its efforts on promoting consistent, comprehensive HIV/AIDS and sexual health education across Canada. The best way to protect and support youths is to ensure that educational services are available to inform them about their rights and options, and about the risks and benefits of engaging in sexual activity. Educating youths to make informed choices that are right for them is better addressed through parental guidance and comprehensive sexual health education than it is by using the Criminal Code.

Fifth, the age of consent should be universal and not discriminate by type of sexual activity. According to the Criminal Code, the age of consent for anal sex is 18, while the age of consent for vaginal intercourse is currently 14. Section 159 of Canada's Criminal Code states that people who engage in anal intercourse are guilty of either an indictable offence, risking being given a prison term of ten years or being found guilty of a summary offence.

The unequal treatment of anal sex has been found unconstitutional in the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the Court of Appeal of Quebec, the B.C. Court of Appeal, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, and the Federal Court of Canada, yet the federal government refuses to recognize its unequal treatment and change the law. The Court of Appeal for Ontario recognized the potential for harm when the age of consent is higher by striking down the age of consent of 18 for anal intercourse.

In the ruling, the judge stated:

Health risks ought to be dealt with by the health care system. Ironically, one of the bizarre effects of a provision criminalizing consensual anal intercourse for adolescents is that the health education they should be receiving to protect them from avoidable harm may be curtailed, since it may be interpreted as counselling young people about a form of sexual conduct the law prohibits them from participating in. Hence, the Criminal Code provision ostensibly crafted to prevent adolescents from harm may itself, by inhibiting education about health risks associated with that behaviour, contribute to the harm it seeks to reduce.

The Canadian AIDS Society hopes you will reconsider increasing the age of consent based on the issues raised above. The solution to protecting youths from sexual exploitation is not found by placing restrictions on them. Bill C-22 has the potential to affect the health and well-being of youths. It is irresponsible to enact Bill C-22 without solid evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, our recommendations are that more resources be devoted to pursuing cases of sexual exploitation and abuse; that more research be conducted into the impact the age of consent has on providing sexual health education and youth confidence in accessing health professionals; that section 159 of the Criminal Code be removed and the law regarding anal sex be made consistent with the law on vaginal intercourse. Should Bill C-22 be passed, plain-language information on the new law and what it means needs to be communicated to youths, particularly around the close-in-age exemption.

Thank you.

Criminal Code

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not resist getting up because the member went on for quite a while about how well the Criminal Code works in this country's justice system. He knows very well that there are tens of thousands of victims who would not necessarily agree with that and of course thousands of supporters of these victims who certainly would not agree.

The member is a lawyer. I bring that up to him every once in a while in committee because he likes to talk in legal tongues quite often, and it makes it a little difficult for those of us who are not lawyers to understand quite what he is saying. I almost gathered from his speech that he was saying the Conservatives are going back to good Liberal law with Bill C-35, and I thought it was rather strange that a lawyer would suddenly want to be a comedian.

Going back to good Liberal law? I have been here 13 years. I have seen good Liberal law in action. I have seen Liberals bring forward omnibus bills, which he said should be brought forward, in order to deal with all the legislation, omnibus bills, for example, like Bill C-2, which was an act to protect children. That was the purpose of it.

Yet in regard to that omnibus bill, although there are many aspects of it I wanted to support, I could not, because the Liberals kept insisting that child pornography might have something like a public good or a useful purpose. It was in the legislation. How can we go from an omnibus bill that would address such an evil thing as child pornography to that kind of terminology when the bill contained some things that were pretty good?

It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever that the Liberals would dare bring forward an omnibus bill that would allow child pornography. What has happened in 13 years is that child pornography has now become a $1 billion industry. There are great arrests going on now, but this should have been prevented 13 years ago when that Liberal government had a chance.

I do not need any lectures from that member or anybody on that side because I have seen them in action for 13 years. They do not take their justice system seriously. They do not take protecting society seriously or they would not have come up with some of the garbage I saw throughout those years. I think the member would humble himself a wee bit instead of talking about going back to good Liberal law. He should think about it.

[Steve Sullivan, President, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee, for allowing us to come today to talk about issues related to your review of PIPEDA. I don't think we'll be very long in our opening remarks. Our issues are pretty specific. We just really want to raise those for you, and we'll be happy to try to answer any questions.

Very briefly, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime is a national non-profit advocacy group for victims. We work with victims from across the country in providing direct advocacy services. We also try to raise issues with all levels of government, advocate on behalf of victims to promote their rights and their interests, and promote laws to better protect them. It's that latter role that I'm here in today, to try to promote some amendments and raise some awareness on issues that we think require some attention to better protect children, in this case, from Internet child sexual exploitation.

I should mention that we are funded by the Canadian Police Association. We have been sponsored by the police association since 1993, so we have had a lot of interaction with various law enforcement officers across the country. Some of those are investigators who work directly with these issues.

Contrary to a lot of public opinion, I think what law enforcement unfortunately faces on a day-to-day basis in dealing with these issues is not children frolicking on beaches or pictures of kids running around in their underwear; it is the rape and torture of children, sometimes babies, by men, and often their fathers or uncles. Those images are kept and put on the Internet for anyone and everyone to see. They are traded like baseball cards. There are thousands of images of children all around the world. Last week, we saw a huge bust resulting from Australia that has had impacts in many countries, Canada included.

One of the issues we want to speak to today is what the impact of PIPEDA is on law enforcement's efforts to try to address these issues. In our interaction with the members of the Canadian Police Association that we deal with from time to time, and also in following media reports, it seems there is some confusion with regard to the PIPEDA legislation and whether or not Internet service providers can or should provide information to law enforcement regarding subscriber information, like people's names and addresses. It's our position, very succinctly, that ISPs should frankly not have discretion to share that information with law enforcement efforts. At the very least, with this legislation, we need to make it clear that ISPs can and should share information.

We have provided a brief. I apologize for not getting it to you sooner so that it could be translated, but we have left copies with the clerk.

The issue of child pornography has been raised in various committees over the last couple of years. We sent a brief to all members of Parliament six or seven years ago about child pornography, along with some recommendations that we had made at that time. Some of them have been implemented, like the creation of a luring offence and the creation of a national tip line, which is now in operation and had I think 6,000 tips in the first year of operations alone.

Various other committees have heard from experts who have far more expertise in this area than us. I just want to read a very quick quote from OPP Detective Inspector Angie Howe, who spoke to a Senate committee in 2005 on Bill C-2, which had a variety of different measures, some of them regarding child pornography. What she said then was:

The images are getting more violent and the children in the photos are getting younger. As recently as one year ago, we did not often see pictures with babies, where now it is normal to see babies in many collections that we find. There is even a highly sought-after series on the Internet of a newborn baby being violated. She still has her umbilical cord attached; she is that young.

I say that not to shock you or disgust you—although I suspect you are disgusted—but just to really get the message across of what it is law enforcement is fighting.

In our efforts to raise these issues, we have heard of the notion of Big Brother and that law enforcement wants access to all this information. What they're doing every single day is sitting in front of a computer, sifting through tens of thousand of images. One accused person could have 10,000 images of children being raped and tortured. That's what law enforcement is dealing with, and those are the children we come here today to try to speak for.

You're dealing with PIPEDA, which is an act relating to privacy. Can you imagine any greater violation of your privacy than having the most awful images of you captured for anyone and everyone to see? Unfortunately, no one is speaking for those children. No one is talking about their privacy rights.

We have a Privacy Commissioner who I'm sure does an absolutely fabulous job on a variety of issues, but as far as I know, she has not once spoken for those children. Later, I'll refer to a letter she wrote to us about the PIPEDA legislation and what the discretion really is for ISPs.

In the letter, she says that ISPs may look at this on a case-by-case basis—frankly, a case-by-case basis is not good enough for us anyway—but nowhere did she talk about what her office is doing to raise the interests of those children. No one is speaking for them, and that's one of the reasons why we came here today. We're here to try to lend a voice to their concerns and their issues. What's being been done to protect their privacy rights? We have to balance that with the privacy rights of Internet users, but part of the equation has to be the privacy interests of those children.

The issue for us has been raised in the media by law enforcement and in a couple of court cases. It's with respect to subsection 7(3) of the legislation, which sets out the provisions where an organization may disclose personal information. The first condition, as you will see, is with a warrant. Obviously, if police go get a warrant, then the ISP has to comply.

There is, unfortunately, some confusion with the second stipulation, which refers to a response to a request by a government institution that has lawful authority to obtain the personal information for the purpose of enforcing a law, carrying out an investigation, or gathering intelligence. It's that issue of “lawful authority” I think that has led to some confusion, and our basic suggestion to you is to clarify that.

There was a case in Ontario in which Toronto police were investigating someone. They sent a letter of request for information, pursuant to a child exploitation investigation, to Bell Canada. Bell Canada cooperated with that and provided information to the police, but this was challenged in court. At that time, the court said that the section I referred to does not establish what “lawful authority” is. The court went on to say that really, in that court's mind, a warrant was needed. Fortunately, that decision was overturned by a higher court. And just for your information, the search led to the discovery of a large child pornography collection.

But that's the issue that this committee should task itself with. What is lawful authority? If law enforcement were here to speak to this—and I would encourage you to actually have some of the investigators come to talk about their experiences with PIPEDA—I think what you will find is that a lot of the larger ISPs tend to cooperate with law enforcement even if they don't get warrants but just have letters of authorization. Not all of them do, though. For some ISPs, use of PIPEDA is left to their interpretation. We're asking for your committee to clarify that or recommend that it be clarified.

People ask why police don't just get warrants. One of your previous witnesses, I think from the industry department, referred to the speed with which these things sometimes happen. At the time, I think the chair actually asked a question about a case from St. Thomas, where there was live abuse going on with a child. Sometimes there just isn't time to go get a warrant.

The other thing, from our perspective, is that police don't need a warrant. What we're talking about is someone's name and address, which they can get off a licence plate. They don't need a warrant to get your name and address if they see you speeding away from the scene of a crime or failing to stop. Are we really going to give better protection or more enforcement for people who fail to stop than we are for those who might be abusing children?

In some jurisdictions, some pawn shops are required to have information about customers who come in and sell merchandise. That information can be used to track back stolen property. Is stolen property really more important than our children?

That's the basic thrust of our testimony here today. Again, we're not experts in law enforcement, but these are the concerns that law enforcement have expressed both publicly and to us, if you look at some of the media reports. Just last week, over this bust, you'll note that the head of the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, from the RCMP here in Ottawa, said we have to rely on ISPs to help us. Frankly, we don't think there should be any discretion for ISPs to help law enforcement, certainly in these cases. At the minimum, though, we would ask this committee to clarify subsection 7(3).

We would also ask that some consideration be given to perhaps amending the statement of principles of the legislation, to make it clear that the legislation was never intended to negate or interfere with the moral and ethical duties of companies. Companies will often complain about the costs of these things, about what it costs them to cooperate with law enforcement. It's our argument that we all have a duty to cooperate with law enforcement. We're seeing now, in British Columbia, twelve citizens potentially giving a year of their life to jury duty. We all have to do that. There are consequences and there are costs for us to do that.

We work with women who are abused by partners, who testify in court and put themselves sometimes at great risk to assist with the enforcement of the law. We're all part of the solution here, and I think it's incumbent upon ISPs to step up and do their part.

I can speak a little more to the cost issue if that's something you want me to speak to.

The last issue I would raise is whether this committee could use its influence to encourage the Privacy Commissioner to take a more active role in protecting the privacy interests of children.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Carole Morency]

That is post the enactment of Bill C-2.

[Carole Morency]

No, and in particular following the reforms that were enacted as part of the former Bill C-2, raising the sexual exploitation offence from five to ten years at the maximum, it is consistent.

[Jonathan Rudin]

Thank you.

Again, I apologize for my lateness. I also apologize on behalf of Marisha Roman, our vice-president, who was with me last month in Ottawa. She very much wanted to be here today as well, but she came down with the flu this morning, had to leave work, and was not able to make it.

We are very pleased to be appearing here again before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Since our last appearance before you was just a month ago, we'll dispense with the background information on our organization, as we trust it's relatively fresh in your mind. We first want to thank the members of the committee for its consideration of our submissions regarding Bill C-9.

We're here today to discuss Bill C-10, a bill that amends the Criminal Code. Prior to commenting specifically on these amendments, we feel it's important to address what is, for us, the disturbing trend of the increasing reliance on minimum sentences in the Criminal Code.

This trend did not begin with the current government. Bill C-2, passed in the last Parliament, added minimum sentences to 11 sexual offences. In some cases, the minimum sentences were as low as 14 days. It appears that often the only explanation for the imposition of a minimum sentence is to prevent judges from considering a conditional sentence. Minimum sentences of 14 to 90 days cannot seriously be justified for their ability to deter crime or to lead to a change in behaviour of offenders while incarcerated.

In our discussion before the justice committee last month, we spoke about the ability that judges have to craft conditional sentences that can address the root causes of offending behaviour without sacrificing community safety. In fact, a well-crafted conditional sentence will lead to increased community safety. Unfortunately, increased reliance on minimum sentences means there is less room for conditional sentences.

We would like to raise four specific concerns with respect to Bill C-10 and make one suggested amendment. Our concerns are: one, we believe the manner in which the bill deals with hybrid offences is unconstitutional; two, too many minimum sentences start with penitentiary terms; three, there is no reason to believe that minimum sentences deter crime; and four, the bill will increase aboriginal overrepresentation in prison. Our suggested amendment is that the bill allow for a judge to avoid the imposition of a minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances.

We will start with our concerns.

At our last appearance before the committee, we noted that one of the problems with Bill C-9 was that it gave the Crown the ability to decide whether an offender could receive a conditional sentence, based on whether the Crown proceeded summarily or by indictment. This problem is even more acute in Bill C-10. A number of offences in Bill C-10 are hybrid offences. There are no minimums if the Crown proceeds summarily. There are minimums if the Crown proceeds by indictment. In some cases, these minimums start at three years' imprisonment.

For example, a first-time offender charged with unauthorized possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon that is loaded or near ammunition will, if the Crown proceeds summarily, have all sentencing options available. On the other hand, if the Crown, in its sole discretion, chooses to prosecute by indictment, the minimum sentence is three years' imprisonment.

Such an arrangement places a great deal of unchecked power in the hands of the Crown. It also raises very serious concerns that the section violates the protection against cruel and unusual punishment found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We will participate in any constitutional challenge against these provisions of Bill C-10.

Secondly, we are concerned by the increased number of minimum sentences that start at three years' imprisonment. While there are some individuals who, for public safety, must be sentenced to penitentiary time, this bill casts the net too wide. Members of this committee should be under no illusion that a three-year sentence will lead to positive change in the lives of offenders. Information we have received from Correctional Service Canada in Ontario indicates that individuals sentenced to two- to three-year sentences will receive no substantive programming at all in penitentiary prior to their release.

This bill will result in some individuals with little or no prior involvement with the criminal justice system going directly to the penitentiary. Being incarcerated with the most dangerous offenders in Canada will give these people the opportunity to learn new skills, but not, unfortunately, the skills we would want them to learn.

We have to be realistic about what happens to people when they go to penitentiary. In most cases, they come out worse than when they went in.

Third, at the heart of this bill is the belief that minimum sentences deter people from crime. Since much of this bill is concerned with increasing the minimum sentences for offences where minimum sentences already exist, the assumption must be that higher minimum sentences deter people even more. The fundamental problem with this theory is that there is no evidence to support it. Studies by the eminent British criminologists Andrew Ashworth and Andrew von Hirsch both concluded that deterrence in the criminal justice system comes from the probability of detection rather than consideration of potential punishment.

The penalty for first degree murder is life imprisonment without parole for 25 years, yet despite this most severe mandatory minimum sentence, gun violence and gun death were quite prominent last year. If a 25-year mandatory minimum did not deter the most serious of gun crimes, why should we expect that shorter minimums would accomplish the task?

Our final concern with the bill relates to aboriginal overrepresentation. It must always be kept in mind that reliance on deterrence as a theory for punishment has a significant impact on aboriginal people. As we noted last month, despite making up only 3% of the Canadian population, aboriginal people comprise 22% of those in Canadian prisons. Aboriginal people know better than anyone else that doing the crime means doing the time, yet rates of aboriginal over-incarceration continue to rise. In large part, this is because much of aboriginal offending is not calculated organized crime, but rather an unthinking response to immediate pressures. Addictions, interpersonal violence, a sense of hopelessness, and the legacy of government practices such as residential school and mass adoptions all play a large role in explaining why aboriginal people commit crime. This does not excuse the behaviour, but we need to understand that the threat of minimum sentences will do nothing to address the root causes of aboriginal offending. It will merely lead to more aboriginal people being sent to jail for longer and longer periods of time.

Why should Canadians care that our jails are becoming increasingly the preserve of aboriginal people? After all, if aboriginal people commit crimes, why should they be exempt from jail, the most serious sanction the criminal justice system provides?

To answer these questions it's helpful to return again to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Gladue. When discussing aboriginal overrepresentation, the court said:

These findings cry out for recognition of the magnitude and gravity of the problem, and for responses to alleviate it. The figures are stark and reflect what may fairly be termed a crisis in the Canadian criminal justice system. The drastic overrepresentation of aboriginal peoples within both the Canadian prison population and the criminal justice system reveals a sad and pressing social problem.

Aboriginal overrepresentation speaks to the failure of the criminal justice system to address the root causes of aboriginal offending. The result of paragraph 718.2(e) and the Gladue decision has not been that aboriginal people have stopped going to jail.

Both paragraph 718.2(e) and Gladue speak of the need for restraint in the use of incarceration for everyone. In fact, it has been non-aboriginal people who have been the primary beneficiaries of these initiatives. A study by Julian Roberts and Ron Melchers showed that from 1997 to 2001 the rate of aboriginal incarceration rose by 3% while the rate of non-aboriginal incarceration decreased by 27%. Similar results have been found in examining the impact of sentencing changes in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Despite specific admonitions in legislation, the judges need to look for alternatives for aboriginal offenders. It is non-aboriginal people who are seeing the greatest decline in incarceration rates.

Please rest assured that we are not urging that more non-aboriginal people be jailed, but it is vital that you be aware that the impact of moves to make the criminal justice system more punitive will fall disproportionately on aboriginal people.

Jail has proven itself to be singularly incapable of resolving the social problems that are at the root of aboriginal offending. More jail will be similarly ineffective.

These concerns lead to our proposed amendments to the legislation. We suggest that the bill give judges an option to not impose a minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances. Such a provision will go a long way to meeting objections that the law is unconstitutional and would allow judges to consider other sentencing provisions, such as contained in paragraph 718.2(e) of the code, in situations where to impose a minimum sentence would be clearly unjust in the circumstances.

For almost 20 years, royal commissions, judicial inquiries, parliamentary committees, and decisions at all levels of courts in Canada have urged that the problems of aboriginal overrepresentation be addressed. For every small step forward, we confront great obstacles pushing us back. Sadly, Bill C-10 is another example of a serious step back.

We urge this committee to move away from increasing reliance on minimum sentences. If we are serious about wanting to make our communities safer, we need to do more than lock people up. We need to ensure that there are programs in place in the community to address the root causes of criminal behaviour. We need to have programs in place in correctional facilities to do the same.

Thank you very much.

[John Muise]

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the current mandatory minimum of four years for a conviction involving a firearm and commented specifically on the wanton and reckless disregard displayed as a result of the use of a firearm by the offender.

In addition, it is important to note that for those offences where the mandatory minimum sentences increased on the second, third, and subsequent offences, in terms of this bill it is only in relation to the specific offences included in the proposed legislation. So this government bill does not include any other crimes. It is about a continuation of the unlawful possession and use of firearms. In other words, it is about those offenders, particularly repeat offenders, who make the choice to possess, acquire, and use firearms illegally.

If indeed our culture here in Canada is about the proper licensing, storage, and possession of firearms, surely the same strict standards should be brought to bear on those who choose to brandish firearms for a criminal purpose. If you want to safeguard Canadians, we would suggest that you can't have one without the other.

Although we suspect that commentators on the other side of this debate feel otherwise, we would go so far as to say that, if crafted appropriately—and we think this bill is—mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment are generally consistent with the fundamental principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Sections 718 and 718.1 of the Criminal Code—you talked about them earlier—set out the principles of sentencing that must be followed by the court. The court is allowed significant latitude when deciding how to balance what are often very disparate principles. Although many judges know intuitively what the balance is, over the years Parliament, from time to time, has weighed in with a variety of sentencing, parole, and post-sentence order amendments in response to concerns expressed by the community about public safety and justice in particular.

It is entirely appropriate for Parliament to provide specific statutory direction ultimately to the court. Most recently, it has done so with respect to mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences committed against children, in Bill C-2, and previously for certain serious firearm offences. The community expresses its revulsion to certain kinds of crimes, usually violent ones, and if parliamentarians are listening, they respond in an appropriate way. We think this enhancement of the current mandatory minimum sentence provisions is precisely that.

What about the impact of mandatory minimum sentences on crime? As the legislative summary from the Library of Parliament that was made available makes clear, the studies to date have mixed results in terms of the impact of mandatory minimum sentences and increased rates of incarceration and the deterrent effect and impact on recidivism rates. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, as they say.

Rather than focus on whether these proposed amendments have a deterrent effect or not—and I would echo Chief Blair and Attorney General Bryant's comments on the deterrent impact—it is our position that targeting the most violent repeat offenders, and that's what people are who use firearms or possess firearms for an unlawful purpose, and locking them up for sustained periods of time will have a direct effect on the crime rate. It is an undeniable reality that a disproportionately small number of offenders are responsible for a disproportionately large number of offences. This axiom applies to repeat offenders who use firearms in the commission of their crimes.

Although they didn't get it entirely correct south of the border—California's “three strikes and you're out” law for felonies, including pizza theft, comes to mind—a precipitous drop greater than the drop in Canada over the same time period in the violent crime rate south of the 49th parallel went hand in hand with a crackdown on violent crime. A variety of studies done by American criminologists, including Marvell and Moody, and Kovandzic, confirm a reduction in homicides and violent crime rates.

It's about incapacitation. How many robberies with a firearm can you do when you are behind bars? If the right offenders are targeted, which we believe this bill does, it works.

Is violent crime on the rise in Canada? When it comes to statistics about the rates of crime, there's no denying that a whole lot of cherry-picking goes on, and it happens on both sides. Even the criminologists, lawyers, law professors, and other academics who are quick to remind you about sticking to the facts and getting it right are sometimes guilty of relying on short-term or year-to-year increases or decreases to make their cases. This is both misleading and inappropriate; some would call it downright dishonest.

I believe the committee clerk has given you a page from Juristat. In the middle column, check the violent crime rate. As you all know, it's calculated on the basis of 100,000 population. Dating back to 1962, it shows an increase from 221 per 100,000 in 1962, to 1,084 in 1992, levelling off since then to slightly under 1,000 for the past nine years. I would suggest to you that this is an extraordinary increase by any measure, and the levelling off that has taken place over the last dozen years still has us light years away from those good old days in the sixties.

Although the CCA did not have access to corresponding long-term tables for firearm offences, we are confident that they would mirror or exceed the general violent crime rate. We encourage the committee to obtain the same long-term table from the justice ministry for firearm-related offences. In addition, violent crime as a proportion of the overall crime rate is up over that same time period.

On gun play in Toronto over the past 30 years--I know Chief Blair spoke about much of this--my experience is anecdotal, but I want to share it with you. We suspect the same things that occur in Toronto are occurring in other urban jurisdictions across the country. I had a very unique perspective as a law enforcement officer on the Toronto Police Service, starting in 1976 until I retired this year. In those early years it was exceedingly rare, even in the busiest downtown divisions, that offenders arrested were in possession of illegal handguns or semi-automatic weapons. Even the most organized narcotics and drug traffickers did not carry or possess these kinds of firearms. I know because I worked in the drug squad, made hundreds of buys, and kicked in hundreds of doors from 1982 to 1986. We rarely seized a handgun. Uniformed, plain-clothes, and undercover officers rarely confronted these kinds of weapons.

That changed in the late eighties and coincided with the crack trade--free-based cocaine--and continued into the early 1990s and onwards with the proliferation of American-style street gangs, usually arranged along ethnic lines, that now commit crimes in support of territory and profit. The results are in full view in our housing projects and on our crowded downtown streets. There are drive-by shootings and shots fired because of perceived disrespect--something that, as Chief Blair indicated, was usually handled in the past with a punch in the nose. There are brutal and often random home invasions. No self-respecting crack dealer will leave home without his trusty Glock pistol or 9 mm handgun, and whole communities are marginalized and living in fear.

We have a new vocabulary of violent and brutal crime, and the violent crime statistic that I provided from Juristat reflects that reality. It's not Andy of Mayberry and it's not Leave it to Beaver any more.

What about the amendments? I think this is the important work the committee is doing.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no excuse for exploiting a young person for a sexual purpose and we have legislation that makes that absolutely clear.

Before the law was amended in the last Parliament by the previous government, which the member was a part of, it was strong legislation. It was first introduced by the Progressive Conservative government when former Governor General Ramon Hnatyshyn was the minister of justice. When he was minister of justice he was responsible for introducing the basic law on the age of consent that we have now.

I remember being an assistant to an MP at the time and being part of the committee discussion. I listened to the debate in committee and I do not believe many, if any, organizations or individuals who appeared as witnesses opposed the legislation that established the basic age of consent law where a person in a position of trust or authority was prohibited from having a relationship with a person in the age group of 14 to 18.

That was good legislation and it was made stronger in the last Parliament by Bill C-2, which further delineated areas of exploitation and made it very clear what the problems of exploitation were. It was very explicit. It included prostitution and the production of pornography.

If people took the time to look at that law, they would see that it is an excellent educational tool around understanding what was good and what was bad about relationships. No matter what kind of relationship or what age a person was, it contained guidance about the qualities that go into a good relationship, that raise the issues of exploitation and the power dynamics that happen within a sexual relationship. There is good material there and I wish we would use it more often.

I am concerned when organizations, like the Canadian AIDS Society, Planned Parenthood and the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, which are among the most pre-eminent sexual educators in Canada, raise concerns about this legislation. They are saying that it may drive young people's sexual activity underground and put them out of range of discussions about appropriate expressions of sexuality and appropriate ways to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases and HIV-AIDS.

When those organizations are concerned that we are not putting enough emphasis on education and developing the kind of capacity for our young people to understand the importance of the various things that need to be considered when people enter into sexual relationships, we need to be putting more emphasis on that side of the equation and I wish it was possible.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act.

This is an important debate that we are having today. It is an important debate that we need to continue to have around this particular piece of legislation. Here in this corner of the House in the NDP caucus we have different points of view on this matter. We have already seen that this afternoon in the debate. A number of NDP members have taken differing positions on this piece of legislation. I think that debate has been healthy in our caucus, where we have explored the issues relating to the age of consent for sexual activity and to people's concerns around the sexual activity of young people in Canada.

I do not think the NDP has come to a common position on this legislation. I would be surprised if we did. I think members will see that NDP members take different points of view on it, but it is important that we air those different points of view and have them taken into consideration as part of the debate on this legislation.

It is particularly important in light of the proposal that was made late last week by the Liberal House leader that six crime bills go directly to the Senate from this place. One bill that was suggested to go directly to the Senate was Bill C-22. At the time the suggestion was made, there had not been any debate in the House on this bill. That debate began today. At the time the suggestion was made there had been no debate whatsoever here in the House of Commons on Bill C-22. It would have been very irresponsible to send Bill C-22 directly to the Senate without having given it any debate or consideration, even if there were complete unanimity in this place on this legislation, which there is not.

It is very important that Bill C-22 go to committee and that there be a thorough discussion, that witnesses be called and that people be given an opportunity to discuss their point of view and their concerns about this legislation. People should be able to say why they support the bill or why they oppose it.

It is particularly important that we hear the voices of young people on this issue. There is no one in the age ranges that are contemplated in this bill represented in the House. There is no one who sits in this place that is within the age range that we are contemplating in this legislation. It is very important that we take some pains to try and hear some of those voices as part of this discussion. I think young people do have a particular perspective on both sides of the issue. It would be very important to hear from both sides, but especially to hear from young people.

I am concerned that when we make these kinds of decisions we can too easily be seen as paternalistic. As older people we may have a particular perspective and concerns that are not shared by those who are directly affected by this legislation. It would be a very important step for the committee that will be looking at the bill, whether that be the justice committee or a special legislative committee, that it actually take the time to seek out and hear from young people.

Within the New Democratic Party we have had a vigorous debate on Bill C-22. Young people who are active in our party have taken a very strong position in opposition to raising the age of consent. In fact, they sent a number of resolutions to our recent federal convention that addressed that very issue. I want to read one intervention from the NDP youth of Canada which said:

WHEREAS the Conservative government has indicated that it plans to increase the age of consent for sexual activity, excluding anal intercourse, from 14 to 16 years of age;

WHEREAS the laws governing sexual consent currently protect minors from sexual abuse and exploitation;

WHEREAS increasing the age of consent will not remove the causes of sexual exploitation of minors; and

WHEREAS increasing the age of consent will effectively criminalize sexual activity amongst young people insofar as it may lead to a restriction in access to safer sex information and resources;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Federal Council direct Caucus to oppose any legislation that would increase the age of sexual consent, or that would further criminalize sexual activity between minors.

That is a very serious statement of their concern. Any time a group within any of our political parties seeks to direct a caucus to take a particular position on an issue I think expresses their very strongly held position on that legislation.

I think those folks deserve a hearing. Those young people who have concerns about the legislation deserve a hearing. That is why I am glad we are having this debate. I hope there will be no attempt to short-circuit a full and free discussion of this legislation before a House of Commons committee. We need to hear those witnesses. We need to have that full discussion. We need to have the bill back in the House, whether it is amended or not, to have further discussion on it. I personally would feel very strongly that any attempt to short-circuit that process with regard to this piece of legislation would be absolutely the wrong thing to do.

At the same time I do recognize that there are strongly held positions in my own community on this issue. I have heard from many people in my community on this issue, many people who support raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. Just last week I presented petitions in the House from about 80 people from the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, including quite a few from my own constituency, who asked that Parliament take that remedy, that it increase the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. I know that is a very strongly held position in my constituency.

I also know that the City of Burnaby has taken a very strong position through its task force on the sexual exploitation of youth which rose out of concerns in south Burnaby for street prostitution and the fact that there were young people involved in street prostitution in south Burnaby. One of the recommendations made by the task force that looked into it was to increase the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan is a very strong and passionate supporter of that particular initiative.

There are people in my community who are very concerned about the age of consent and seek a remedy. At the same time I want to make sure that the remedy we propose will actually address the concerns that people have about the exploitation of young people. I am yet to be convinced that the law we currently have on the books does not take the right measures to do that.

Right now it is illegal to be involved in an exploitive relationship with a young person in Canada under the age of 18 years, a person between the ages of 14 and 16 years of age, and this law does not change that. In fact, what the law does is it only criminalizes non-exploitive sexual activity for young people in the age group 14 to 16 years. Right now exploitive sexual activity is clearly prohibited in the Criminal Code of Canada. This bill, in changing the age of consent, really will only criminalize non-exploitive sexual activity in that age group.

That is something we need to consider very carefully. I do not believe that criminalizing sexual activity is the best way to deal with any of the concerns that we might have about young people engaging in sexual activity. I do not think a criminal sanction is the way to go. I do not think that ultimately solves the problem. If anything, I think a criminal sanction only drives the activity underground where we do not have the ability to discuss it, to address it and to deal with the real issues about why that hurts young people and why that relationship may be one that we would have concerns about.

I grew up at a time when sexuality was largely criminalized, when my sexuality as a gay man was largely criminalized in Canada. I do not think that prohibited people from engaging in gay and lesbian relationships, even though it was against the law in Canada, but it certainly did drive it underground. It certainly did drive the solution of problems around relationships, around sexually transmitted diseases and around other issues underground at the time. I think that we recognized back in the late 1960s in Canada that it was not a helpful circumstance and we removed that prohibition from the Criminal Code.

The same effects are possible with this kind of legislation. I do not want to make it more difficult than it already is for young people who, say, contract a sexually transmitted disease, from getting assistance with that health issue. If they know that the relationship they have been in is one prohibited by law, then I think there will be a real reticence on their part to seek the kind of treatment they need in that circumstance. That is a serious concern about this legislation in the way that it currently stands.

That concern has been raised by a number of organizations. The Canadian AIDS Society board of directors adopted a statement on the age of consent back in July. One of the things that the society said was:

The Canadian AIDS Society is concerned that increasing the age of consent could result in young people being more secretive about their sexual practices and not seeking out the information they need. This will place youth at an increased risk of contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

We already know that young people in that age group are among the group that is most affected by sexually transmitted diseases and HIV-AIDS. We want to make sure that we do not put any barrier to improving the circumstances where they get the information, where they get the treatment, where they know about the appropriate ways of preventing these diseases and this virus.

When an organization like the Canadian AIDS Society raises a concern of this magnitude about this legislation, I want to share that concern. The society also said that it believes that Bill C-2 which was passed in the last Parliament created some new protections for young people. I want to read the section where the society addressed that issue:

Passed by Parliament in July 2005, Bill C-2 created new protections for youth under 18 years of age against exploitative sexual activity. Bill C-2 takes into account the nature and circumstance of the relationship, including the age of the young person, the difference in age between the youth and the other person, how the relationship evolved, and the degree of control or influence exercised over a youth under 18.

Bill C-2 in the last Parliament actually further defined the issues around exploitive sexual activity, around what it meant to be in a position of power or authority in a relationship. We need to see what the effect of those changes are, if they went some way to actually improving the circumstance of relationships where there was exploitation.

It is clear that the legislation that is in place in the Criminal Code already protects people under the age of 18 from sexual relationships that happen in circumstances of exploitation, in circumstances related to the production of pornography, in circumstances related to prostitution, or in circumstances where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency. The legislation is very clear.

Over the years when I worked as a constituency assistant I would often have conversations with people on the phone who were concerned about the age of consent. Often they did not understand that those provisions were in the current legislation, that the legislation was very clear about what it meant to be in a relationship of trust, authority or dependency, what it meant for there to be an exploitive relationship.

I actually believe that the current legislation provides a good opportunity, should anyone choose to take it, for discussion with young people about the nature of a relationship and what are important criteria to see in relationships. I really do not see the problems with this legislation. I think it has gone some way; I think the revision in the last Parliament also goes some way to improving that circumstance.

The Canadian AIDS Society has made some important points. It also says that we should be focusing on promoting “consistent comprehensive AIDS-HIV and sexual health education across Canada”, that that is the side of the equation on which we need to be putting our efforts. Sometimes a Criminal Code amendment may seem like an easy and popular step when the preventive kinds of measures that the society is talking about through education are the ones that will actually address the problems that do crop up.

Educating young people to make better choices in their relationships is the way that we need to go. Anything we can do as members of Parliament to increase the ability of young people to have access to important information about relationships and about sexual relationships is the way to go. I would certainly support anyone who was increasing the availability of that information and the ease of access to that kind of information for young people across Canada.

The Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, which I believe is the umbrella organization for planned parenthood organizations across Canada, has also made a position statement on the age of consent. I want to quote from its statement as well:

The Canadian Federation for Sexual Health does not support raising the age of consent to sexual activity from 14 years to 16 years, as there is no evidence that this increased restriction on individual rights will increase protection of youth from sexual exploitation or provide any other benefit sufficient to justify the intrusion into personal privacy and consensual activity. Rather, the prospect of legal sanction and third party disclosure could seriously discourage youth from accessing preventive and therapeutic health services and other forms of information and assistance.

Again, it has raised the whole question of the access to health care, health services and information and assistance for young people who contract a sexually transmitted disease, and that is a very important consideration. It is flawed legislation without other provisions in it.

It also goes on to say that the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health believes that at any age, consent should be informed. It further believes that the best way to protect and support young people is to ensure that they have access to accurate, comprehensive, timely and non-judgmental sexual health education and services that inform them about their rights and options and the risks and benefits of engaging in sexual activity. Again, we are back to that need for information and education for young people rather than a criminal sanction against sexual activity, and that is very crucial.

The legislation also does not address the question of a uniform age of consent. Since I believe 1987, we have had calls for this in Parliament when an all party committee, in its “Equality For All” report, called for a uniform age of consent. We still have on the books a differential in the way anal intercourse is treated. We know this has been thrown out of the courts, but an amendment should have been in the legislation. If the legislation really sought to deal with issues around the age of consent, it would have included and amendment, making it a uniform age of consent for all sexual practices. I am very disappointed this not there.

For me, if there is any reason for this legislation not be approved, it is because this amendment is not in it. We cannot leave that law on the books. It would be inappropriate to prosecute people for engaging in sexual activity and it would be inappropriate to prosecute young people for engaging in that, no matter what we think of the sexual practice. This criminal sanction is wrong and the amendment should have been included in the legislation. If this goes to committee, I hope it is one thing members of the committee will seriously consider.

Another amendment required in the legislation is one which would allow for conversations about sexually transmitted diseases. When a young person discloses this and disclosed a relationship with an older person, it would be considered a privileged conversation, which would not have to be reported. If the legislation goes forward, as a minimum, it has to include that kind of protection. Otherwise, in this circumstance I do not think young people will make this disclosure. They will not seek the kind of assistance they need when they have a medical issue and when they are involved in a relationship outside of the parameters of this law. That is an absolutely crucial addition to the legislation before it is a viable.

We cannot do anything that makes it more difficult for young people to get the assistance, to seek the treatment and to get the information they need around sexual issues. That is a very important piece of any legislation dealing with the age of consent for sexual activity.

I am also concerned there is still a real bias in our society against young people taking any initiative to discuss issues of sexual activity and relationships. An example of that is the current controversy whipped up by some folks on the religious right about a publication from St. Stephen's Community House in Toronto called The Little Black Book for Girlz: A Book on Healthy Sexuality, which is a book of sexual relationship information produced by young women in that community. It is part of the collection of the Library of Parliament now and I have had a look at it. There is some very important information in it, presented in a way that is accessible to young women in our society.

I want to commend both the community centre and the team of young women for their efforts in putting that resource together. It is exactly the kind of resource to which young people should have access. It presents the information they need in a very helpful way.

With that commendation on the work in this general area, I cannot support the legislation in principle at this stage. I need to know that it has a full and free discussion in this place, that it goes to committee, that witnesses and particularly young people are heard on the issue of this age of consent legislation and that their perspective is taken into account. I believe there are some important places in this legislation that need to be amended before I could give approval in principle to it, and that is around the uniform age of consent and privileged sexual health conversations with young people.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today to take part in the debate on second reading of Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act.

Essentially, Bill C-22 proposes changes to the Criminal Code to better protect young people, age 14 and 15, against any form of sexual exploitation by adult predators. That is a rather clear and simple objective that the members of this House should understand and support.

It is also an important element of our government’s commitment to tackle crime. We recognize that families should be able to raise their children without fear of sexual predators. In that regard, Bill C-22 enables us to take a very big step toward the achievement of that commitment and, I would even go so far as to add, to satisfy the expectations of Canadians.

The age of consent, or the age of protection, is the age at which the Criminal Code recognizes the capacity of a young person to consent to sexual activity. In other words, it is the age below which any sexual activity with a child or young person is prohibited.

At present, the Criminal Code prohibits all sexual activity with a child under two categories of offences: general offences of sexual assault of a child or an adult, and specific offences that apply only to children. Those prohibitions deal with any form of sexual activity, whether it consists of sexual touching or sexual relations.

The criteria under which an assault is “sexual” was established almost 20 years ago by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R. v. Chase, a 1987 case in which the court concluded that sexual assault is an assault which is committed in circumstances of a sexual nature, such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. This criterion requires any court to consider all the circumstances, such as the part of the body touched, the nature of the contact, the situation in which it occurred, and the intentions of the accused.

Bill C-22 does not seek to amend the already well established legal status on this question. In fact, it proposes rather to build on the approach adopted by the Criminal Code concerning the prohibition of sexual activity with those who have not reached the age of consent

Currently, the minimum age of consent to sexual activity that is in any way exploitative is 18 years. This applies to prostitution, pornography and sexual activity involving a relationship of authority, trust or dependence or situations in which a young person is exploited in some other way.

The bill does not change the existing age of protection for these purposes.

For other kinds of sexual activity, however, the current age of consent is 14. There is only one exception to this rule: 12- and 13-year-old youths can consent to sexual activity on condition that their partner is less than two years older than they are, although this partner may not be 16, and the relationship is not one of trust, authority or dependence or a relationship in which the youth is exploited in some other way.

Bill C-22 does not change this two-year age proximity exception, although it does advance the age of consent from 14 to 16 years. It also creates a new age proximity exception for 14- and 15-year old youths.

More specifically and as is currently the case with the age proximity exception for 12- and 13-year old youths, Bill C-22 would create a new age proximity exception that would allow 14- and 15-year-old youths to consent to sexual activity with a person who is less than five years older on condition that this relationship does not involve a position of authority, trust or dependence and is not exploitative in any way.

The bill contains a broader age exception for 14- and 15-year-old youths in recognition of the fact that they are more likely to engage in sexual activities than 12- or 13-year-olds and the peer group of secondary school students is generally larger than that of children in intermediate school. This measure also reflects the general purpose of Bill C-22, which is to better protect 14- and 15-year old youths against adult predators while avoiding the criminalization of consensual sexual activity among adolescents.

This is not the first time that we have studied a proposal to extend the age of protection from 14 to 16 years of age. This issue has actually been raised, studied and debated on numerous occasions over the last 20 years.

Allow me to mention some of the landmark reports on the subject.

First, in 1981, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, together with the Minister of Health and Welfare, struck the Committee on Sexual Offences against Children and Youth. The committee was given a very broad mandate to examine the incidence of sexual offences against children and adolescents in Canada and to recommend improvements to laws protecting adolescents against sexual abuse and exploitation.

The committee, often referred to as the Badgely committee after its chair, Robin Badgely, submitted its report in 1984. This was the first comprehensive interdisciplinary report to provide a national overview of the sexual abuse and exploitation of children in Canada. The committee made 52 recommendations that addressed the need to reform criminal and evidentiary law, as well as social services and programs to better protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation.

The committee studied existing Criminal Code prohibitions concerning sexual activity with children. For example, at the time, the only thing a man was absolutely prohibited from doing was having sexual relations with a female who was not his spouse and who was under 14 years of age. Sexual relationships with 14 or 15 year old girls were prohibited only if the girl in question was “of previously chaste character” or if the accused was more to blame than the girl for the behaviour.

It is easy to see why the committee recommended modernizing these prohibitions to protect both boys and girls, not only from sexual relationships, but also from all forms of sexual activity, regardless of whether they were “of previously chaste character”.

It is interesting to note that the committee also recommended that the age of protection be raised from 14 to 16 years. However, even though several of the committee's other recommendations were followed in what was then Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, which came into force on January 1, 1988, the age of protection was not raised.

Former Bill C-15 required that Parliament review the implementation and the effectiveness of these reforms four years after they came into force. In June 1993, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, chaired by Bob Horner, tabled its report on the four-year review of the child sexual abuse provisions of the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act (formerly Bill C-15).

Once again, the issue of age of consent was examined. Some of the submissions the committee received recommended raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 and including a close in age exception of three years. However, the committee concluded that the testimony received did not warrant raising the age of consent.

So it is that Bill C-22 is before us today. The issue is still there; it has not gone away. But do we have more evidence today than in 1993 to justify raising the age of consent? I think so, and I believe that the people of Canada think so as well.

First, children and adolescents continue to be greatly exposed to the risks of sexual assault and exploitation.

In 2005, Statistics Canada said that children and adolescents accounted for 61% of all victims of sexual assault reported to police. According to its report, and I quote, “Sexual assaults are largely crimes committed against children and young people.” [Juristat: Children and youth as victims of violent crime, April 2005].

As well, the adolescents that Bill C-22 is seeking to protect better are among those at highest risk of being victims of sexual assault. Again according to Statistics Canada's 2005 Juristat, girls aged 11 to 17 account for a high proportion of victims of all types of sexual assaults committed against children and adolescents: 31% or nearly a third of victims were adolescent girls between 14 and 17, and nearly 23% of victims were adolescent girls between 11 and 13.

These same adolescent girls are also more likely to be lured over the Internet. Luring over the Internet has been an offence under the Criminal Code since 2002. The Criminal Code prohibits the use of the Internet to communicate with a child or an adolescent for the purpose of committing a sexual offence or an abduction.

In 2005, Cybertip.ca, a national tipline for reporting the online exploitation of children, reported that during its pilot phase from September 2002 to September 2004, 10% of the tips it received were about online luring.

In 93% of cases, the victims were young girls, most of them—about 73%—between the ages of 12 and 15. Given the popularity of the Internet among teens, we have every reason to believe that this trend will continue.

For example, three years ago, Statistics Canada reported that 71%—nearly three quarters—of 15 year olds used the Internet at least a few times a week; 60% said they used it primarily for email and chatting. My source is a document entitled Canadian Social Trends published in the summer of 2003 by Statistics Canada.

The 2004 report of the Canadian branch of the World Internet Project, which was released in October 2005, included a survey of Canadian Internet users and non-users. In the survey, parents estimated that their children spent an average of 8.9 hours a week on the Internet.

Third, young Canadians engage in sexual activity relatively early. Let us look at some of Statistics Canada's data about sexual activity among youth.

In May 2005, Statistics Canada reported that the percentage of teens who said they had sex for the first time before turning 15 has been increasing since the 1980s. As reported in The Daily on May 3, 2005, it is estimated that 12% of boys and 14% of girls have had a sexual relationship before turning 14 or 15. In 2003, an estimated 28% of 15 to 17 year olds reported having had at least one sexual relationship.

Fourth, many other countries already recognize that 14 and 15 year olds are at risk of sexual exploitation. Their age of protection is higher than Canada's 14.

Take the Commonwealth countries, for example, where the criminal law derives from the same sources as Canada’s. We find that the age of protection is 16 in England, and 16 at the federal level and 16 or 17 at the state level in Australia. In New Zealand, the age of consent is 16. If we look south of the border, we find that the age of consent is 16 at the federal level in the United States, and that it varies essentially from 16 to 18 at the state level.

It is particularly worth noting how Hawaii recently dealt with this question. In that state, the age of consent was set at 14 until 2001, when it was temporarily raised to 16 so that additional analyses and studies could be done. In 2003 it was permanently raised to 16, and an exception for age differences within five years was adopted for all sexual activity with a young person 14 or 15 years of age.

Today we know much more about the risk of 14 and 15 year-olds being sexually exploited than we did 20 years ago. It is now time to act on what we know.

I am aware that some people have decided that Bill C-22 serves no purpose, arguing that former Bill C-2, which dealt with the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, extended the existing prohibition on sexual application to cover young people aged 14 to 18. That amendment imposed a duty on the courts to consider all of the circumstances of a sexual relationship with a young person, such as the age of the young person, any age difference between the two partners, the evolution of the relationship and the degree of control or influence by the older partner over the young person, in determining whether the situation was a case of sexual exploitation.

That amendment was simply not sufficient. It did not adequately clarify things and it did not protect young people aged 14 and 15. However, that is what Bill C-22 does. Bill C-22 eliminates all conjecture and draws a very clear dividing line: if you are more than five years older than a young person who is 14 or 15 years old, you are prohibited from engaging in any sexual activity with that young person. This rule will provide protection for all young people 14 and 15 years of age against anyone who is more than five years older than them.

It is not the aim of Bill C-22 to criminalize all sexual activity on the part of young people. In fact, this bill provides for very clear and very reasonable exceptions, to ensure that sexual activity between young people to which they have freely consented is not criminalized. Bill C-22 will not operate to criminalize marriages or common-law relationships involving a partner who is 14 or 15 years of age and a partner more than five years older than that person that exist when it comes into force. There will be an exception for those cases.

However, there should be no doubt regarding who will be held criminally liable under Bill C-22: any adult who is five or more years older than a young person with whom he or she engages in sexual activity. This is not just something that must be done to protect young people against sexual predators, it is also the only fair thing to do.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, why are the members of her party speaking to this issue today? Clearly, the protection of our children is something that is extremely important.

We introduced Bill C-2 in previous parliaments that looked at enhancing opportunities to ensure our children were protected. Her members are talking about a variety of other issues, as if the rest of us do not care. It is the government that is filibustering its own legislation. We on this side of the House announced last week that we were very supportive of the legislation.

Why do we not just move forward today and pass the legislation rather than filibuster it and delay it? It is my understanding that none of us on this side of the House have any objections to it, and we indicated that.

Let us just get on with supporting the legislation and move on to the other issues on the agenda.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to speak to Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act. It is a very important bill and it is something our government tried to get through during our 13 year tenure as government in the House of Commons. Age of protection is one of the most important issues because it means protecting our young children.

We debate many issues each day in this House and while they are all important, there can be no doubt that when it comes to talking about the protection of Canadian children and youth against sexual exploitation, this debate rises to the top of our priorities. It is quite understandable. We are parliamentarians who also are parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles and we share the same concern about safeguarding children against such exploitation.

Bill C-22 is about recognizing that our youth, in particular 14 and 15 year old youth, need and indeed deserve better protection against adult sexual predators.

Youths of this age are experiencing constant and rapid change, including social, physical and cognitive changes. While there is nothing new about this, the environment in which the change is occurring is quite different today than it was 20 or even 10 years ago. The impact of such things as the Internet and what youth see and hear through the media and the entertainment industry today cannot be underestimated. It is in the faces of our youth 24/7.

It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to remain vigilant in ensuring that we are doing all we can to safeguard youth against harm or the risk of harm. Police have been asking us to do exactly that for a number of years. For instance, the Canadian Professional Police Association, the national voice for 54,000 police officers across the country, has consistently advocated for increasing the age of consent for youth to have sexual relations with adults from 14 to at least 16 years of age. Many police officers have said that it is absolutely deplorable that in our nation 14 year olds can legally have sex with adults.

That is what we are trying to accomplish with Bill C-22. Bill C-22 is a bill to protect our youth. Bill C-22 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to increase the age of consent from 14 to 16 years. The age of consent, which Bill C-22 proposes to rename as the age of protection, refers to the age at which the criminal law recognizes the capacity of a young person to consent to engage in sexual activity. Any sexual activity with a young person who is younger than the age of consent, irrespective of whether that young person purported to consent to the activity, is prohibited.

Currently the age of protection for sexual activity involving prostitution, pornography or relationships involving authority, trust, dependency or otherwise exploitive use of the young person is 18 years. Bill C-22 would maintain 18 years as the age of protection for these activities but for all other activities or relationships the age of protection is now only 14 years of age.

There is an exception to this. It is what is often called a close in age or peer group exception and it is this: a 12 year old or 13 year old can consent to engage in sexual activity with a partner who is less than two years older and under age 16, as long as the relationship does not involve authority, trust or dependency and is not otherwise exploitative of the young person.

Bill C-22 would maintain this two-year close in age exception for 12 and 13 year olds, but would raise the age of protection from 14 to 16 and would create another close in age exception for 14 and 15 year olds. In this way, Bill C-22 would not criminalize consensual teenage sexual activity, but it would prohibit anyone who is five years or more older than the 14 year old or 15 year old from engaging in any sexual activity with that young person.

I recognize that there may well be different views on whether and when teenagers should be engaging in sexual activity. The fact that Bill C-22 proposes to maintain the existing close in age exemption for 12 and 13 year olds and to create a new one for 14 and 15 year olds should not be interpreted as condoning such activity.

We know intuitively as parents of young children--and health professionals can confirm--that early sexual intercourse can have serious consequences for any young person. For example, Statistics Canada's May 2005 Health Reports, volume 16, number 3, describes these consequences as including longer exposure to the risk of an unwanted pregnancy or of contracting a sexually transmitted infection, and greater difficulty for teenage mothers completing school, with the additional consequence of restricted economic and career opportunities. As for babies born to teenagers, they are at greater risk of premature birth and low birth weight and of dying during their first year of life.

But Bill C-22's proposed close in age exception reflects the reality that teenagers are sexually active and that sexual experimentation among teenagers does occur. In fact, the same Statistics Canada report states, “By age 14 or 15, about 13% of Canadian adolescents have had sexual intercourse”. There are similar percentages for boys and girls, at 12% and 13% respectively.

Bill C-22's proposed close in age exception also reflects the reality of the broad scope of our criminal law's prohibitions against sexual activity below the age of consent. They apply to all sexual activity, ranging from sexual touching to sexual intercourse. So even if only 13% of teens have had sexual intercourse by age 14 or 15, it is quite possible that more have engaged in lesser forms of sexual activity. Bill C-22 is not seeking to criminalize such activity between consenting teenagers.

This is why I support Bill C-22. It directly responds to a gap in our existing Criminal Code protections by criminalizing adult sexual predators of 14 year olds and 15 year olds while at the same time proposing the necessary additional reforms to prevent the criminalization of consensual sexual activity between teenagers.

One of the very real and practical benefits that I see flowing from Bill C-22 is the certainty that it will bring. Currently, and as a result of Criminal Code reforms enacted in the previous Parliament by former Bill C-2 on the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, a court may infer that a relationship with a young person is exploitative of that young person by looking to the nature and circumstances of that relationship, including: first, the age of the young person; second, any difference in age between the young person and the other person involved; third, the evolution of the relationship; and fourth, the degree of control or influence exerted over the young person.

In my view, this approach is inadequate. With it, there is too much uncertainty, uncertainty for the adult, for the young person and for the police and the prosecutors. It might protect some 14 and 15 year olds, but not all, or not all 14 and 15 year olds in the same situations.

Under Bill C-22, there is no such uncertainty. If the adult is five years or more older than the 14 year old or 15 year old, all sexual activity with that young person is prohibited.

Bill C-22 proposes long awaited criminal law reforms to better protect youth against adult sexual predators. I call upon all hon. members to support its swift passage so that our youth do not have to wait any longer for such protection.

Indeed, it has hit home very closely to me as the mother of a police officer who worked in the ICE unit, the Internet child exploitation unit. Time and time again, young people, our most vulnerable citizens, were exposed to sexual predators over the Internet. They were young people who were on the streets and without homes, young people who were left vulnerable to those who had authority over them.

I think that now there is a relatively new crime that is not on the horizon but on our streets. We are addressing it right now in the status of women committee. It is the issue of human trafficking. When we have laws that do not protect our young and our vulnerable, the traffickers are able to coerce our young people into the sex trade industry. In my view, and in the view of the members on this side of the House, that crime is not an industry, and the sex trade, as it called, is not a trade. It is all about intimidation, exploitation, disrespect and criminal activity against very young people in our nation.

Today Bill C-22 has come to the forefront. I implore all members on all sides of the House not to hold up this bill. Last year under the former government, we tried our very best to raise the age of consent. We have answered all possible questions. We know it is common practice in a minority government for members opposite to drag their feet and make a lot of excuses, but I implore all members from all sides of the House to take very careful consideration, through their vote, of raising the age of consent.

I would implore all members on all sides of the House to vote in favour of Bill C-22 and get it through the Senate as quickly as possible. What we are seeing in the Senate now with the federal accountability act and some of our laws that we have put through the Senate is that they are being stopped in the Senate, so we cannot go any further. With much pride, some members opposite have been stating that they are just holding the bills there, looking things up and putting in amendments

The raising of the age of consent has been brought to this House under the former government, which was in government in Canada for approximately 13 years. The age of consent was not raised from 14 to 16 when we tried very hard to have it happen as early as last year. Now I get the sense that all members are ready to pass this bill. I would implore all members to do exactly that, because without it our youth are at risk on a daily basis. Our police officers and everybody are in concert in asking the House of Commons and every member of Parliament to stick up for our young people and raise the age of consent. That is what we have to do.

As for human trafficking, it puts young people who are trafficked from other countries into our country and it puts our own youth at risk in human trafficking. Human trafficking, as members know, is not a choice for young people. Human trafficking occurs when the youth are actually captured. I have known of youth who actually were put in bondage and told that they must participate in sexual activities and pay off debt. Under human trafficking, there are even training camps for youth who refuse to comply. These young people are sent to training camps. A lot of terrible things are done to them to make sure they comply.

Raising the age of consent addresses a lot of issues across our nation, from human trafficking to sexual exploitation, and it puts Canada on alert and on the map as saying that we as a nation refuse to have our young people exploited, we refuse to accept the fact that sexual exploitation is an industry, and we refuse to accept allowing anything happening in that venue in our nation.

Today again I have to say that I hope all members, instead of arguing, debating and bringing up all sorts of different things, will know this bill has tried to address all issues. It tries to ensure that teenagers who are in a consensual sexual activity are not condemned or judged. It just tries to protect our youth against very serious sexual predators. I hope that the House of Commons will stand on Canadian soil today and with one voice say that we are not going to allow sexual predators to use and abuse our young people, whether those young people live at home or are strangers or immigrants from other countries. Our youth are here to be educated and given opportunities, not used and abused. They are here to be respected.

I have heard from many youth who say they know how weak the laws are here in Canada. I would suggest that the age of protection be widely advertised after the bill is passed so that people will know our youth are protected.

Today is a day for very serious consideration. I think that all elected members from all parties, from all sides of the House, are elected to act in an extremely responsible way to protect our young people. I will acknowledge that there has been a great deal of evidence in the House of Commons to show that we definitely have a difference of opinion, but there has been much debate about this over a long period of time. It has gone back and forth. Now it is time to stop going back and forth. It is a time to instruct the people in the House of Commons, the people in the Senate and the law makers of the nation that the highest court is here in the House of Commons.

As the member of Parliament for Kildonan—St. Paul in the House of Commons, as a mother of six children, the mother of a police officer and the former justice critic for the province of Manitoba, I am standing here now and saying that raising the age of consent is mandatory. It is the right thing to do. We have to cross party lines and stop the arguing. We have to bring forth our declaration, in a strong Canadian voice, that raising the age of consent is the right thing to do.

I would ask every member of Parliament before voting to think about their own daughters or their own children or grandchildren. Is the sex industry something that they want their children in? As a member of Parliament, I have to say no, it is not what I want my children in. As members of Parliament, we are the responsible ones who have to stand up and protect all the youth for all of Canada. We cannot have a double standard. It is our responsibility to stand up for Canada and for the young people in our Canada. I ask each and every member to put down their swords, protect the youth and make sure that the political arguments are buried long enough to pass Bill C-22.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-22. I am also very aware that all the justice critics need to be in committee for clause by clause of another justice bill right after this, so I am going to truncate my remarks to help get all the right people in the room who need to be there shortly after question period.

I will say at the outset that our party will support the bill. In doing so, we are following up on work that has gone on over a number of years. The Speech from the Throne of October 5, 2004 committed the government to cracking down on child pornography. Similarly, in the previous Speech from the Throne, the former Liberal government committed to reinstating former Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

The bill was reinstated on February 12, 2004 as Bill C-12. It was awaiting second reading in the Senate at the time of that Parliament's dissolution for a federal election. In June 2004 the then prime minister reiterated support for reintroduction of the package as the first legislative item in the new Parliament. I know that the former minister of justice, the hon. member for Mount Royal, introduced in the former Parliament Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act. It received third reading on June 9, 2005, royal assent on July 20, 2005, and came into force in its entirety less than a year ago, on January 2, 2006. Bill C-2, then, is built on reforms previously proposed in the former Bill C-12 and proposed reforms in five key areas.

I might reiterate, too, that former Bill C-12, by a procedural motion, a hoist motion, from the then opposition Conservative Party, was prevented from going forward a couple of years earlier.

Be that as it may, when I hear the Minister of Justice incorrectly saying that nothing was done, I have to put on the record that we did strengthen prohibitions against child pornography.

We broadened the definition of child pornography to include audio formats as well as written material “that has, as its predominant characteristic, the description of prohibited sexual activity” with children “where that description is provided for a sexual purpose“. We prohibited advertising child pornography, increasing the maximum sentences and making a number of offences have more bite.

We wanted to protect young persons against sexual exploitation. One of the things that I like in Bill C-22 is that the government has not disposed of that section that was so important, the section that talked about the exploitation of children. It had prohibited sexual activity with young persons between 14 and 18. Under Bill C-2, a court would be directed to “infer that a relationship is exploitative of the young person based on its nature and circumstances, including the age of the young person, any difference of age, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person”.

Consistent with the existing criminal law treatment of sexual assault, that bill focused on the offending conduct of the accused rather than just on the young person's consent to that conduct. That was always the concern, that it was not just an age number, because the age of 14 has been in the Criminal Code and utilized since the late 1800s. It was the “exploitative” nature, and I am pleased that the bill keeps this, because that helps in our being able to come forward with our consent today.

We did increase the penalties for offences against children.

We facilitated testimony not only for child victims and witnesses under 18 years but for other vulnerable victims and witnesses. This is procedural, to help stop re-victimization in the court process.

We created a new voyeurism offence. Today we have those cameras that take pictures; that is why we needed this.

In 2002 we also created the offence of Internet luring under section 172.1 of the Criminal Code. That prohibited the use of a computer system, including the Internet, to communicate with a young person for the purpose of committing a sexual assault against that person. It can and is being successfully charged, irrespective of whether a sexual assault actually took place. The fact of the offending conduct of trying to lure a child via a computer system is what we were getting at and it is there.

Also, just a few weeks back, a private member's bill on increasing sentences passed in the House.

Today's Bill C-22 is an improvement over former private members' bills, no matter how good the intention was. The fact is that now this bill has the five year close in age exception and that will go a long way, I think, in helping us to accept this bill and give our consent to it.

In fact, in our Liberal justice plan announced last week, this was one of the bills that we said would be put forward and given consent by our party, along with the other bills of conditional sentencing and imprisonment, as amended in committee, such as: Bill C-9; Bill C-18, an act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification; Bill C-19, an act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; Bill C-23, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments); and Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate), which was debated in the House last week under the topic of payday loans.

We on this side will add Bill C-22 to that list of bills. There are about 11 government justice bills. This one makes six that the Liberals are prepared to move forward in the Liberal justice plan, although we do not think that these bills are universally perfect. But we could find flaws with all pieces of legislation in the House. There are sections in this bill to do with unconstitutional areas of the Criminal Code, which we could have fixed. The justice minister has chosen not to do that, but at this stage I think the protection of children should be our utmost priority.

Listening in the chamber today was one of the good police officers who has to work in this area. He was kind enough to give some Liberal members a briefing. Unfortunately, his colleague from the federal police services was not allowed to do that, for reasons unknown.

On this side of the House, we as the official opposition are prepared to support this bill. I am prepared now to move on and give my time so that critics from the other parties can all be present in the justice committee for voting measures later this afternoon on another piece of legislation. There is unequivocal support here for Bill C-22.

[Rosalind Prober, President, Beyond Borders Inc.]

Good afternoon.

My name is Rosalind Prober. I'm the president of Beyond Borders, which is a volunteer, non-profit organization dealing with global child sexual exploitation.

Beyond Borders is part of a multinational NGO, a non-governmental organization, called ECPAT, End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes. ECPAT is based in Bangkok, Thailand, and I'm on the board of directors.

To be transparent, a criminal lawyer with the same last name as mine has been ultra-vocal in the media, ranting against a fellow Manitoban, Vic Toews, and this legislation. That would be my husband. We disagree when it comes to “home sweet home” jail sentences. Incidentally, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not apologizing for that.

I'm here today to speak on behalf of children who are sexually victimized by adults. Holding perpetrators accountable is certainly not easy for children. Many abused children do not live in Canada. Many are victims of Canadian child sex tourists. Many are totally incapable of withstanding punishing cross-examination on the intimate details of their sexual victimization in our “win at all costs” adversarial system. Many are found to be not credible.

As we all know, sex crimes can be life altering, and they have a heavy impact, especially on the most vulnerable in society, who are the easiest to abuse, in many cases. The disconnect between victimization statistics and criminal justice statistics shows all too clearly that most sex crimes are not reported.

On behalf of these children and children who do manage to successfully prosecute abusers, Beyond Borders supports Bill C-9. We support the removal of conditional sentencing for sexual assaults or other sexual offences against anyone under eighteen when the state has prosecuted by indictment for a crime that carries a maximum sentence of ten years or more.

Tough laws on paper are nothing more than lip service when they are constantly ignored. This is an egregious violation of children's rights to justice.

Should Canadians be reluctant or hesitant to use the justice system to denounce sex crimes against children? In Beyond Borders' view, the answer is a clear no. Society has a right and a duty to children, as documented in all the international conventions and protocols we sign, to condemn conduct that it finds intolerable. Surely sexual activity with children is such conduct. Surely the message from the justice system to the public should be that these crimes are abhorrent and very serious.

Has the judicial branch failed in its duty to protect the most vulnerable in society by giving slap-on-the-wrist sentences for serious sex crimes against children? Yes, it has. Conditional sentencing has been abused and overused. The fundamental principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence has gone out the window.

Aside from leaving the age of consent at fourteen, Beyond Borders supported Bill C-2, which was brought in by the previous government. That bill imposed on the judiciary mandatory minimums for those convicted of sex crimes specifically against children. Bill C-9 will ensure that those who sexually assault children, commit incest, and so on, will not escape incarceration. It should be pointed out, however, that unlike Bill C-2, which imposed specific minimum sentences, this bill still leaves the door open to judges to impose suspended sentences and probation for sex crimes against children.

Is jail in the community, or house arrest, equivalent to incarceration in prison? Clearly not. Crime victims have the right, especially children, to be treated respectfully in the court and told the truth about sentencing perpetrators. A person's home should never be equated to jail; that is preposterous. Sex offenders against children who get house arrest are going home to their own beds. Because there are so many sex offenders against children from upper-income brackets, many return to luxury. It is not credible to refer to homes as jails. It is disrespectful of everyone to pretend that going home after being sentenced is the equivalent of real jail. House arrest is an undeserved soft touch; if it weren't, it would not be so sought after by criminals.

In 2001, a young 12-year-old first nations child in Saskatchewan had the enormous misfortune of being spotted by three adult men. When any 12-year-old ends up hysterical, dead drunk, and has to be hospitalized due to clear evidence that she was sexually assaulted, one would think that a sentence of house arrest for a perpetrator of this crime would be impossible. However, not only did Dean Edmondson get house arrest, he also became the victim in this case as the 12-year-old was portrayed as not just a consenting and willing participant but as a sexual aggressor as well. As precedents go, this is one Canadians should not look to with pride.

Sex crimes against children are often premeditated, with some involving elaborate planning and manipulation of not just the kids but their parents as well. Sex crimes can leave long-term scars and, as we all well know, can lead to destructive lifestyle choices and suicide.

There are strong societal sanctions against sex with children. Millions of tax dollars are sadly going into teaching kids how to protect themselves. So when an adult chooses to cross that barrier into behaviour that harms society's most vulnerable and cherished members, he or she should have no possibility of what is in reality just an inconvenient curfew. House arrest should not be an option in sentencing child sexual exploiters.

Bill C-9 closes that option, is in the best interest of children, and should be supported by this committee.

Thank you.

Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 148 members of St. Anne's Women's Group in Peterborough. They point out that Bill C-2 did not change the age of consent. The age remains at 14 years, yet 14 to 17 year olds do not have the maturity to recognize exploitive relationships.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect children rather than adults by moving swiftly to change the age of consent.

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the provisions of Bill C-2, which I indicated would come into force on November 30, will come into force November 1, a month earlier.

Justice

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has placed great emphasis on its responsibility to protect our children. An example of this is the fact that the first bill we tabled following the last election was Bill C-2 for the protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

Can the Minister of Justice please tell us when we can plan to see that bill come into force?

Criminal Code

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the government wanted to do something truly good about protecting citizens, then Chuck Cadman would have been leading debate in the House on his own private member's bill and it would have sought unanimous consent to pass it at all stages so Canadians would have been protected. That would have been a fitting tribute while he was living. That is what it should have done in the House. Instead it brings forward a watered down bill.That is the worst argument I have ever heard over there, that it is somehow doing some on behalf of Canadians to protect them.

I rise on behalf of the people of Essex to speak to Bill C-64. I am here also with thoughts of my former seat mate, Chuck Cadman. I have to be honest, I miss him terribly.

Chuck's brought forward his private member's Bill C-287, on the alteration and obliteration of vehicle identification numbers, because there was no provision for the direct prosecution of a person engaged in the physical act of tampering with a vehicle identification number, a loophole that has been masterfully exploited by organized crime. Instead what we have is Bill C-64, a partial attempt by the Liberal government to address that loophole, which is insufficient.

Also, I am here to talk about what the Liberals have been falsely claiming as a fitting tribute and honour to the late Chuck Cadman, member of Parliament. The only fitting tribute to the memory of Chuck Cadman would be to take his private member's bill, ironically unaltered, and pass it in the House. Instead what we have is the Liberals trying to fulfill a promise they made to Chuck after he gave the government life in that crucial May 19 budget vote.

I was sitting in my seat next to Chuck after that vote. It was interesting to watch the long lineup of Liberal members of Parliament eager to shake Chuck's hand. I thought the most interesting moment of that whole night was when the justice minister was face to face with Chuck. If we can believe it, he looked him in the eyes and said that he did not know why Chuck came to this Parliament, but that he would do something about the issues that were important to him.

It is very interesting that our justice minister did not know that the reason Chuck Cadman came to the House for eight years was because of the death of his son and the fact that the criminal justice system did nothing about it. Shame on the government.

What has the government brought forward instead of bringing Chuck's bill forward and passing? We have a nice little add-on to the bill, and will read it. First I will read the words in Chuck Cadman's bill. It states that every one commits offence who, wholly or partially alters, removes or obliterates a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle without lawful excuse.

The government decided it wanted to make an ad-on to that. It states, “and under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle”.

That is a substantial change from what Chuck wanted to achieve. Chuck's intention was that we would have a justice system that would get tough on criminals. He was a tireless crusader of rights for victims over the rights of criminals. Chuck's previous private member's bill on the issue put the onus of proof for lawful excuse on the person indicted, on the accused criminal. That tilts the balance in favour of the Crown on behalf of the victims of crime.

What the Liberals have done with Chuck Cadman's idea is change the onus now to put a double onus on the Crown.

It was Chuck Cadman's intention that someone caught with an altered vehicle identification number would have to explain themselves. It is not a great demand to put on somebody who is caught with a vehicle that has an altered VIN. If I were working at a wrecking yard and, as part of the normal process of business, removed a vehicle identification number, I would have a lawful excuse why that vehicle identification number was altered and removed. That would have sufficed under Chuck Cadman's bill. Now, the Crown, on behalf of the victims of crime, has to prove an additional burden that the vehicle identification number was altered or removed to conceal the identity of that vehicle. I can hear the criminal defence lawyers laughing already. Those are the people who the Liberals consulted, between talking to Chuck Cadman and bringing the bill forward.

I was thinking a little about lady justice earlier today. I think we all remember the lady justice symbol of her holding up the two scales, literally weighing the evidence, with a blindfold across her eyes to symbolize her impartiality in the weighing of that evidence.

Under the Liberals there is a new lady justice. Her arms are thrown up in the air in a show of helplessness as criminal after criminal gets soft treatment, or gets day passes to amusement parks or gets house arrest, while victims in our system get re-victimized.

This new lady justice has dropped the scales at her feet because the evidence seems to no longer matter. Witness a lot of the court decisions. The evidence suddenly does not matter any more. This new lady justice still has her blindfold on, not to reflect her impartiality any more but because she needs to shield her eyes from the injustices that are committed. This new lady justice has been brought on by 12 years of Liberals being soft on crime.

Let the numbers speak for themselves. Already this year there have been 64 murders in Toronto, 44 violent crimes committed with guns. The Liberals say that the gun registry that is supposed to protect people. It is their answer to everything, like Kyoto is their answer to everything in the environment. They have a gun registry to protect everybody. It has not. People are being gunned down in our streets.

James Caza has 42 convictions. He is roaming the interior of British Columbia. I am sure the people in British Columbia feel real safe these days.

Serial rapist Larry Fisher was surprised himself that he was let out of jail so quickly. While out on parole he raped and murdered.

Liberal Senator Larry Campbell wants a soft approach on hard drugs like crystal meth.

Legal counsel from the Liberal government testified before the justice committee that mandatory prison terms for criminals would amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

A parole board handed out day passes to pedophiles to attend children's theme parks. I have four young kids. I will rethink how I spend my summers. Will we go to Canada's Wonderland? I have no idea who will be roaming around there and who will be a threat to my children.

This is wrong. Canadians should not have to restrict their freedom from operating in society because they do not know what criminals are lurking there, criminals that the Liberal justice system has let go.

The Liberal government opposed Bill C-215, a bill sponsored by my Conservative colleague from Prince Edward—Hastings, which proposed mandatory minimum sentences on indictable gun crimes. The bill has gained support from the victims of crimes and from those who enforce the laws in the land, our police. They know the bill makes sense, but the government does not support it.

The Supreme Court of Canada refused to consider the case of Dean Edmondson who was convicted of sexual assault for trying to have sex with a 12 year old girl. Instead of a prison term, he got house arrest.

It brings me to the obvious question. What is the Liberal priority? The Liberals want to solve overcrowding in our prisons. They want to solve our court backlogs, the mountain of cases that have clogged up our courts. They want to do it by making it easier to stay out of jail, even though these people wreak havoc on society. The Liberals want it to be easier to make bail. They want to make it easier for the courts to give the criminal house arrest and to give concurrent rather than consecutive sentences. God forbid if one were convicted of multiple violent crimes that one would have to serve sentence after sentence. Why not get a group discount? That is what the government approves.

The Liberal priority is to make it easier for a Liberal patronage appointee filled parole board to give day passes to fun parks to convicted pedophiles.

With Bill C-64, Liberal so-called justice means to get the handcuffs off the criminal and put them on our crown attorneys instead. That is what the bill proposes to do. Once again the Liberals are siding with the criminals. They are not standing up for victims of crime. They are siding with the criminals and the Liberal defence lawyers who donate to their election campaigns.

I think we all remember that Allan Rock was the Liberal justice minister for a time. He gave us the failed long gun registry on which the government has spent $2 billion. For what? It is not serving its purpose. It is allowing the criminals to continue wreaking havoc on society. It goes after law-abiding farmers and duck hunters instead.

Allan Rock gave us the Liberal policy of conditional sentencing with no direction to the courts as to which serious violent crimes should be exempted from the concept of conditional sentencing. What is the result? Liberal appointed judges rightly interpret that the Liberal government's desire is to let violent criminals get out of jail free. That is the Liberal priority.

Bill C-2, the Liberals so-called child pornography legislation, is sitting on the Prime Minister's desk. It has the legitimate use defence in it. It used to be called the artistic merit defence. We can dress it up, paint it up or call it whatever, but it is a loophole one could drive a truck through. It leaves our vulnerable children unprotected.

The Liberals voted against raising the age of consent from 14 to 16. That is not much to ask to protect our young adolescents. Instead, the government wants to keep it legal for a 40 or 50 year old man to have sex with a young adolescent.

I think it is clear that the Liberals are soft on crime in general and on vehicle crimes specifically. Our Conservative colleague, my seatmate, had his private member's bill, Bill C-293, a bill I spoke in support of in this House, a bill that proposed mandatory minimum sentences for vehicle theft.

The other so-called Cadman bill, Bill C-65, the companion to this legislation, dealing with street racing, does not honour Chuck. The Liberal government this time left out something very important from that legislation, which was the scale that Mr. Cadman had built into his bill of increasing punishment for repeat offenders. Apparently those who continue to threaten the safety of our communities get a discount for their anti-social choices.

Mr. Cadman was on a crusade for eight years to get tougher on criminals in crimes involving vehicles before his premature demise. During those eight years, seven were under Liberal majority governments, not a minority government like it currently is. The Liberals, if they were serious about vehicle identification number alteration, could have passed Chuck's bill quite easily. They could have rubber-stamped it post-haste. They had majorities for seven years in this House and instead they reserved the right to fast-track things for political pork-barrelling to Liberal cronies and friends. The talk of Liberal concern for Chuck Cadman's crusade is hollow, quite frankly.

The least the Liberals could have done this time around, if they truly wanted to honour Chuck's memory, would have been to bring forward his bill unaltered. I find it a curious irony that we are talking about altering vehicle identification numbers and yet the Liberals altered the bill of the late Chuck Cadman, an honourable and distinguished man, for their own political purposes. It is a moral crime, a crime against Chuck's memory, to allow the Liberal government to alter a good bill.

The Liberals can talk about Chuck's memory all they want but they are waxing poetic. They did not listen to Chuck Cadman at all. The loophole in Bill C-64 is proof of that. The Liberal government listened instead to Liberal defence lawyers and now defence lawyers and organized criminals will have a great time watching the crown frustratingly try to prosecute under this legislation.

I would contend that the Liberals, with their loophole in Bill C-64, have dishonoured the memory of Chuck Cadman. I do not say that lightly. I sat next to the man for my short time in this House and I spent my time getting to know him. He was one of the most decent men I have ever known, a good family man, a devoted husband and devoted father. He was not planning on being a member of Parliament. That was not his design, but he made it his crusade because he loved his son that much, to come here and ensure we had the laws and the direction to the courts that society wants criminals to be prosecuted to the fullest, that they should pay for their crimes, that Canadians should be protected and that they should not be revictimized in this process. Chuck was here to do that. I can say proudly that Conservatives have always stood for the principles in Chuck Cadman's original private member's bill.

Conservatives will continue standing up for safe streets, for healthy communities and on behalf of victims of crime and say, “No way”. The rights of Canadians should be respected in this country.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for two days in a row I have had the pleasure to reflect on Bill C-65 and now Bill C-64. The government claims these bills to be representative of what Mr. Cadman, the former hon. member for Surrey, was trying to accomplish during his tour here.

As I said yesterday with respect to Bill C-65, Bill C-64 has been altered with a few words that reflect the mushy, soft on crime Liberal attitude. The bill probably will be supported by my friends to the left, the softy Bloc. The Liberals have watered down both bills because they appear to be too harsh for their souls to comprehend.

Many years ago Mr. Cadman recognized how serious auto theft had become. It is a major problem in many cities all across Canada. Close to 200,000 vehicles are stolen every year. This bill is supposed to make it an offence to alter, or remove, or obliterate vehicle identification numbers, or VIN, on motor vehicles. That was the purpose of Chuck Cadman's private member's bill, which he presented quite some time ago in the House. However, in the opinion of the Liberal government and other softies in here who support being soft on crime, the bill was too harsh.

The government has taken Chuck's bill and added a few words. Section 377.1 states, “everyone commits an offence who wholly or partially alters, removes, or obliterates a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle without lawful excuse”. Chuck Cadman's bill would have made the onus on the person indicted. It would not be up to the Crown to try to justify the altering of the VIN in any way, shape or form.

The government added, “and under circumstances that give rise to reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of a motor vehicle”. That sentence destroys the entire purpose of Chuck Cadman's private member's bill. It has changed his bill completely, even to the point that a number of people who were very supportive of his initial bill are not supportive of this one.

Members of Chuck's family and his campaign team back in Surrey are livid with Bill C-64. I understand that letters have been written by the campaign chairman of his committee to editors of various newspapers. Those people are livid that the government would dare change these things, water down the bills and say that Bill C-64 is in memory of Chuck Cadman. By making these alterations, the government has strongly dishonoured his memory by saying that this is Chuck Cadman's bill when in fact it is not.

It is pretty clear in people's minds that Bill C-64 will put the onus on the Crown to prove someone caught with an altered VIN intended to conceal the identity of a motor vehicle rather than to explain themselves, which was Mr. Cadman's original intention. That is a very strong point.

I was here during Mr. Cadman's tenure. Over the years Chuck fought so hard for these kinds of bills and amendments. The government consistently rejected any form of mandatory licence prohibitions similar to the type that Chuck constantly proposed.

The government ignored the recommendations related to VINs. It ignored the recommendations related to street racing. It continued to soft pedal on all of these efforts to confront crime. Mr. Cadman was definitely committed to seeing that crime fighting efforts were made law in this great country to bring more emphasis to the value of victims rather than constantly seeing perpetrators receive a lot more attention.

Today in question period even the answer that I received regarding the constant idea that the rights of perpetrators seemed to override the rights of victims in all cases indicated that there was an imbalance and that there were efforts to do something about it. When a bill on some very stringent issues regarding Chuck Cadman's ideas is watered down, that is just the opposite. Once again the focus is on the predator and not the victim. The government needs to wake up and realize that is the case.

What is even more disturbing is if this bill were amended, if it passed and became law, where would it go next?. I am really disgusted when I look at some of the things that have happened in regard to decisions that are made in the House of Commons. Let me provide some short examples.

Last week, while visiting my constituents in my riding, I ran across three people who were suffering from hepatitis C. One of them does not have very long to live. I believe some time around April the House concurred in a motion put forward by our health critic, the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, that would implement the recommendation in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health that called for compensation to all victims of hepatitis C. It was passed in the House and all victims of hepatitis C were to receive compensation.

When these three people asked me when they would get their money, I was shocked. I knew it had been approved long ago by this place. What is going on? The House of Commons made a decision that all hepatitis C victims would be compensated, yet to this date they have not been. In other words, the government of the day is refusing to take any action. It is ignoring the decision of the House.

Let me talk further about that to illustrate my worry about these kinds of bills that may pass, and even if they are amended, but do not go anywhere.

Bill C-2, the child exploitation act, has been approved by the House of Commons. It has gone where it is supposed to go. It is supposed to be implemented and become law. This is about child exploitation. Where is it? It is my understanding it is still sitting on the Prime Minister's desk and is not going anywhere. The House of Commons passed that law and it is supposed to happen. Why has it not?

We need answers to these kinds of questions. The decision on hepatitis C was unanimous. Nobody voted against it. Everybody in this place was in favour of giving the victims of hepatitis C a cheque. Today they still have not received them, and I would like to know why. After eight months, the government cannot achieve that? Are the Liberals waiting for everybody to die and then they will not have to bother with it? That is extremely disturbing.

On November 30, 2004, the House approved another motion by the leader of our party which called upon the government to take appropriate measures to sell 11,000 acres of arable land back to the families and farmers whose lands were expropriated to build the Mirabel airport. Guess what? The government has refused to comply with the wishes of the House. It has not done that.

On April 5 the House adopted a motion by the member for Red Deer, concurring in a committee report disqualifying Glen Murray's appointment as chairman of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Today, Mr. Murray still continues to chair the round table. Once again, the government completely ignored the decision of the House of Commons.

On February 15, Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 were defeated in the House of Commons. The trade minister shrugged off the defeat of these two bills that would create a new international trade department separate from the Department of Foreign Affairs. He said that the two branches of government would continue to operate independently, even though Parliament did not give its blessing to do so. Even though they were defeated, the two bills were implemented. I find this amazing. Bills that are defeated are implemented and bills that are passed are not, because they do not suit the attitude on that side of the House.

Bill C-2 on child exploitation was approved and is laying dormant. Will the Liberals get on with it? Is it too harsh? It might be.

I was at committee on Tuesday and one of the witnesses was from the justice department. Guess what one of his statements was when the department objected to a private member's bill, which had been brought forward by my colleague, regarding the penalties for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime? What did the official of the justice department say loud and clear? The bill was opposed because it was cruel and undue punishment. The punishment was too severe for people who would dare break the law in the commission of a crime using a gun. Yet the victims of these crimes never get to cry out about the harsh impacts on their lives from the actions of these perpetrators.

There is way too much of that going on, and it is no wonder. Every time a bill is brought in like Bill C-64, the outfit over there has to water it down because it is too harsh on the perpetrator. Never mind the guys who lose their cars to theft. Let us not get too harsh on those who steal them. How nonsensical can they get? Common sense does not prevail anywhere in the House of Commons. Decisions do not prevail in the House of Commons. It does not matter whether a motion passes, it does not get done.

I do not know if members would like more examples, but I have a ton of them, examples where the Liberals refuse to accept the decisions of the House. I do not know contemptible they can get.

Our health critic also had a motion in regard to the funding required to fight cancer and a few of the other serious diseases we are facing. He introduced a motion calling on the government to fully fund and implement a Canadian strategy for cancer control in collaboration with the provinces and all stakeholders. That was approved by the House, but there has been no action. Nothing is happening. The government refuses to give any effect to the motion. Why?

I am glad to see two or three Liberals here. I hope they are listening closely. Do they know of all the decisions that they took part in making but are not being done? Do they not care about the fact that hepatitis C victims are not being compensated, even though those people over there had a voice in that and voted yes to having it done? Does it not bother those members a little bit that people living in their ridings who have hepatitis C are not being compensated? Are they not bothered that the House is being ignored by whatever little group of individuals who do not care about decisions made here and that they will do it anyway?

Does it not bother those members that two bills designed to split a department were defeated and yet the government went ahead and created the two departments? Does it not bother those members the slightest little bit that these undemocratic, dictatorial decisions are going on right under their noses? Does it not make them squirm in their seats just a wee bit? If it does not, then it ought to make it really hot to sit in those seats. It is absolutely shameful.

And to hear the answer to my question today, that the government realizes there is an imbalance in our law and order and fighting of crime. That was the government's own admission in the answer. Why are we not doing something about it? We have an opportunity to get tough on crime. When we have a chance to get tough on street racing as Mr. Cadman wished, on the stealing of automobiles and the removing of VINs, why do we not do it?

When the Liberals make a statement that there is an imbalance, why does more favour always go toward the predators rather than the victims? This is constantly happening. When they make those statements, why do they allow it? Why do they want to amend those bills to make that happen again?

Why do the Liberals not fess up and look to the people in their ridings? How many people in their ridings are happy that we have a law in the land which says that adult men can have sex with 14-year-old girls? How many people in their ridings are happy about that? About 99% of the people in my riding are not happy about that at all, but that is the law and there is not the courage to change it because somebody over there does not want it to happen. Some soft, mushy idealist over there says that it would be too harsh, that we could not do it because it would make it difficult for those adult men who like to prey on young women who are kids. Like it or not, 14 year olds and 15 year olds are still kids. They are young girls just coming to the point of life where they can enjoy things, yet we dare allow the possibility of endangering them.

I know that questions are going to come up after this speech but boy, I would like some answers to come out of the mouths of those people over there before they ask the questions. I would like them to explain to me why they do not honour democracy, that when a decision is made in the House it is done. If they doubt it, I will give them a copy of the 14 things I know about that have been decided on but which have not been accomplished. They could take it up in the Liberal caucus if they wanted to, but it would not make any difference because they are puppets of a regime that refuses to honour the decisions of the House. That is what has to stop.

Then above all things, the most absolutely ridiculous, the most undemocratic decision I have ever heard of was to stifle the opposition by coming back in the fall and saying that there will be no opposition days. What a shameful, undemocratic disgrace the government brings to the House of Commons.

The Liberals ought to be apologizing to their constituents on a daily basis for their inaction on decisions made here and for their unwillingness to come down hard on criminals and help victims to a larger degree than they ever imagined. That is what a Conservative government would do and I would love to be part of that.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-65 on behalf of my constituents of Fundy Royal.

Unfortunately the bill is held out to be an adoption of Mr. Chuck Cadman's previous private member's bills, Bill C-338 and Bill C-230, which he had been trying for years to get through the House. They were common sense legislation that would protect Canadians and innocent bystanders and make our streets safer for everyone.

However, in typical Liberal fashion, the government dragged its heels for too long, and now, insultingly, once again it is offering too little too late.

From the outset, I would like to state that this bill is flawed and inadequate. Countless people have suffered from street racing while the government did nothing. Now the government is responding, but it is responding with a typical Liberal half-baked measure.

It reminds me of a couple of other issues related to the administration of justice, which I will touch on very quickly. One is the sex offender registry. As my colleagues know, victims' groups, the police and the provinces have been calling for a national sex offender registry for years. Unfortunately, the party opposite was ideologically opposed to such a move.

When public pressure became overwhelming in regard to the fact that the protection of children outweighed any privacy rights that sex offenders might have, the government did come up with proposed legislation for a sex offender registry. It was unfortunate and ironic what the bill did in regard to the registry. People were shocked to find out that the registry was not retroactive, which meant that all of the convicted sex offenders and people who had victimized children in the past would not be included in the registry.

It left countless Canadians wondering what was the point of having a registry if it was empty, if it was a blank sheet of paper, if we had to start from scratch when we already had all this information and could protect Canadians. There was a model in Ontario that we could have followed. Ontario had a retroactive registry.

Once again, in a wishy-washy method that was designed to pander to their own ideological bent, the Liberals could not stomach having an effective registry, but because of public pressure they had to come up with something.

The other example is Bill C-2, the child protection legislation. We see this same pattern. They call something “child protection legislation” so that it sounds like a bread and butter issue. It sounds good. We are all interested in protecting children, but what we are left with in Bill C-2 is a hollow shell. We are left with loopholes that people who victimize children could drive a truck through, loopholes that the defence and the bar associations across the country will have a field day with. It is not effective. It is not precise. It does not protect children. It does not go beyond where we are today with our current legislation.

The party opposite suggests that just by throwing a name out there and saying that something is a sex offender registry or child protection legislation or, in this case, a street racing bill, somehow Canadians will be fooled into thinking the government is taking some substantive actions.

Originally Mr. Cadman's bills were tabled to address the rise in street racing. The police tell us that the practice of street racing is becoming increasingly dangerous across the country. It begs the question, then, why now? Why is the government finally wanting to take on the appearance of action? Why was something not done in the past when Mr. Cadman was introducing private member's bills that would have addressed this very issue?

It is important to note the government's earlier response to Mr. Cadman. What was it saying in the past? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said:

Unless there is some compelling reason to specify that certain circumstances are aggravating it is better not to multiply the instances where the Criminal Code spells out that a particular way of committing the offence will be an aggravating factor. In my view, we are not seeing any such reason emerging from decisions of the trial courts and the appeal courts with regard to the four offences when street racing is a part of the circumstances of these offences.

There was a reluctance to adopt Mr. Cadman's bill. There was an effort to downplay it, to make it sound like it was not going to be effective. The Minister of Justice said, “Your proposed bill would result in a mandatory driving prohibition”.

That is what the bill called for: a mandatory driving prohibition.

The minister went on to say:

As you are aware, the Canadian criminal justice system is premised on the notion that sentences should be individualized for each offender...Research indicates that mandatory minimum penalties do not work from the point of general deterrence and recidivism.

This is the same line that we hear from the current Minister of Justice. We heard it as recently as yesterday in a response to a question. The Minister of Justice stated that mandatory minimum sentences do not work, yet we see that in other jurisdictions they are effective for serious offences. The Minister of Justice and the government are for some reason ideologically opposed to providing concrete protections for law-abiding citizens and to protecting the innocent in society.

It has been three years since Mr. Cadman first tabled his bills. All along, the government refused to support the legislation because it called for mandatory minimum driving prohibitions and increased the punishment for repeat offenders.

We could ask any Canadian if it makes sense that if someone is a repeat offender there should be an increase in the punishment. If someone is showing signs of recidivism, of being a repeat offender, should there be an increase in the punishment? The average thinking Canadian would say, “Absolutely. That makes sense”. When someone is a more serious offender, there should be a more serious consequence to the offence, yet in the past the government refused to support this legislation. I am pleased to say that the Conservatives have consistently supported these measures.

Bill C-65 proposes to amend the Criminal Code by defining street racing and by specifically identifying involvement in street racing as an aggravating factor during sentencing. That makes sense. The following offences are listed: dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm; dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death; criminal negligence causing bodily harm; and criminal negligence causing death.

Bill C-65 also provides for mandatory driving prohibition orders if street racing is found to be involved in one of those offences.

There we go. On the one hand, yesterday the minister stated that mandatory sentences do not work, yet in an effort to appease Canadians when there is public pressure for something, the party on the other side will do whatever it takes to appease people. So what do we see included in this bill? We see a measure that I support. There is the mandatory driving prohibition, but again it is a half measure because there is no increase for repeat offenders.

There is an irony in debating this bill today, which has the mandatory provision, when we remember that the Minister of Justice stood up yesterday and said in a blustery way that he was opposed to mandatory minimum sentences because they do not work. It just does not make sense.

Despite the positives, and there are some positives in this proposed bill, it is important to note, as I mentioned, that without serious penalties for serious crimes those crimes are going to continue. There will be no effect.

It is important to remind Canadians that in this legislation the severity of the punishment does not increase for repeat offenders. That was an essential aspect of the proposals in Mr. Cadman's original private member's bills. His bills proposed that for subsequent serious offenders there would be more serious consequences.

Bill C-65 is a half measure. After years of the government dragging its feet and speaking out against Mr. Cadman's private member's bills, it has introduced a half measure. It is a half measure that I cannot support.

We should honour the original intent of these bills, which would have been effective and would have provided serious consequences for those people who are serious offenders. We need to have some common sense amendments to this bill.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can sense the frustration of the member for Wild Rose. I know that he has worked very hard on the justice committee and on many issues, especially on issues affecting children. He was a school principal in his prior life, so to speak, and has a burning desire to help children; I think that is why the member for Wild Rose is here today.

The issue he brings forward about the fact that the government has not declared Bill C-2 just goes to prove my point exactly. The reason the government has not put this into effect, at least not that I have heard unless it has been done very recently, is that the government opposes mandatory minimum sentences.

In that law, Bill C-2, the Conservative Party was instrumental in getting bare bones minimum prison sentences in place. The prison sentences were very short, but the reason the Conservative Party agreed to it is that when there is a mandatory minimum prison sentence, even if it is one day, the possibility of house arrest is excluded. We did not think that sex offenders should have house arrest for their offences, especially those offenders who abuse our children.

Therefore, I suggest, the reason that the government has not yet enacted the bill is that it is fundamentally opposed to the idea of mandatory prison sentences, and that goes right back to this particular bill, Bill C-65. The government is opposed to it and is simply putting up this smokescreen, clothing it in legalese that makes it look familiar but has nothing to do with what Mr. Cadman wanted done.

I would say that if this government is concerned about Bill C-2 and mandatory minimum prison sentences, why did it not do something about it? In fact, the government supported us because it had to do; it was put in a corner. That goes to show that the government will do it when it is politically expedient to do it.

That is why the government is coming up with this bill. It has nothing to do with the principles that Mr. Cadman advocated, because those principles simply are not there. At best, they are watered down. The government will do it in legislation. It will move ahead when it has to or when it is politically expedient. Otherwise, it remains philosophically opposed to these important justice principles.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to commend the hon. member for Provencher for his excellent speech. I have been here since 1993 and have seen a number of the very same philosophical views applied to certain pieces of legislation, which the member talked about with regard to this particular bill.

I know what Chuck Cadman was after. We sat on the justice committee together from 1997 on, during many days. I knew what he was after and I think he got it right, but I have seen this government turn it down. It had no intention of supporting that bill. Then the government members dare to come back to the House and say that in honour of him they are presenting this bill today. It is a far cry from what this honourable man wanted to see done in this place.

My biggest fear, from what I have seen over the years, is about the number of issues that have been approved by this House of Commons. I think it is worse now with a minority government. Maybe those issues were not approved with the Liberals' consent, but the majority of members approved many pieces of legislation. I think of the hepatitis C people. It has been decided by the House of Commons that all of them are going to be compensated, but it is not happening.

In fact, I have a list of about 14 different bills and motions that are supposed to be enacted. They have gone through committee and are lying dormant. Where is Bill C-2, the child exploitation act? Why has it not been enacted? I understood that it was approved quite some time ago.

Why is it that we put up with a government in charge of this country that sits on its duff day after day and does not enact things that this body of people has approved? This is the Government of Canada that has decided these things must happen, and we have a government that sits on them and does not implement them.

Does the hon. member have any comment in regard to what I have said? It is really aggravating me that we have a place that does not adhere to what we decide.

Justice

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question when it comes to the protection of children that the opposition has anything on us.

We believe the priority of children is important. We have taken Bill C-2, our first bill in this session of Parliament, and brought it forward for the protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

We believe in the protection of children. We believe that Bill C-2, when it comes into force, will meet that challenge.

Criminal Code

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to speak to Bill C-65 which deals with street racing.

It is a particular honour for myself because I considered Chuck Cadman a friend. The government has introduced Bill C-65 as a bill to honour Chuck Cadman and in his memory. It was just a few months ago when many members of the House were at a funeral in Surrey, British Columbia to remember Chuck and his fight for a safer Canada and for victims' rights.

Chuck spent the last years of his life fighting for a better and safer Canada. During that fight, while he was in Parliament, he introduced Bill C-338 and Bill C-230. The Liberal government opposed those bills. We heard the parliamentary secretary say that the reason for that was sentencing principles. The government does not believe in the principle of mandatory sentencing. It does not believe in creating legislation with teeth. Without consequences and without legislation with teeth, a disrespect for the rule of law is bred.

There have to be consequences built into legislation to be able to respect the law. The vast majority of Canadians do respect the law in Canada, but a smaller group of people do not. That creates huge problems, one being street racing.

What is a street racer? The typical street racer has changed over the generations. Right now street racing involves people with high powered cars. Their hobby is to spend their paycheques on high performance vehicles. They soup them up and then they have races. Sometimes the races are in lonely areas of the communities where there are not a lot of people around. With cellphone technology and through the Internet, they talk to one another about where they will go to race.

They have spotters who watch for police cars. If they see any, they forward a message to the people to scramble. They will have a number of people observing and having fun. There is drinking and partying going on as they are racing down the streets. This has resulted in a lot of people being seriously injured or killed.

Another form of street racing that creates havoc and deaths is the hat race. A hat race is when hot cars gather together. The owners of the cars and some of the passengers throw money into a hat. They will be given a destination and the first person to that destination wins the money in the hat. They disregard stop signs and go as fast as they can, racing through communities so they can win the money. It exciting and exhilarating to them. Their adrenalin flows as they tear through our communities.

Hat races and street races are all part of the street racing phenomenon we have been experiencing with these high performance vehicles and our technology. People are dying . In that vein, Chuck Cadman wanted to do something, so he created these two private members' bills. He fought hard for them in the House.

Canadians grieve still the tragic loss of his life. The Prime Minister spoke at his funeral. I am glad we were there to remember Chuck and acknowledge his hard work. The Prime Minister promised he would introduce bills to remember Chuck. We have Bill C-65 on street racing and Bill C-64 on vehicle theft and changing VINs, which we will speak about shortly. These two bills were really important to him. I talked with Chuck's wife, Donna, and I promised that would speak to this bill. I will report on what she said in a moment.

Bill C-65 is to honour Chuck. Dane Minor also was a very close friend to Chuck. He wrote a letter to the editor of the Surrey Now newspaper in British Columbia. I would like to read it into the record. Dane Minor was Chuck Cadman's former campaign manager who worked for years with Chuck on issues. He was very excited to hear that the government was going to honour Chuck with Bill C-65 and Bill C-64. He read an article of October 1 about “Chuck's Bill likely will be law”. When we saw that we thought maybe the Prime Minister and the government were really going to do something to finally honour Chuck. I and Dane were excited about this.

He writes:

I read [this] article...with a growing sense of disgust. Several weeks ago the Prime Minister announced on the front pages of national and local papers that his Government would pass Chuck's private member bill into legislation as an honour to Chuck. My immediate response was a positive one. It would be a fitting memorial to Chuck. Then the Justice Minister announced his watered down version. This isn't Chuck's bill in either intent or in design. It is a cynical attempt by the Liberals to use Chuck's good name while doing little or nothing to change the existing laws.

One of the things that drew Chuck into the political arena in the first place was a visit by a former Justice Minister to supposedly discuss the Young Offenders Act with Chuck. The man blew into town spent five minutes getting his picture taken shaking Chuck's hand and went back to Ottawa saying meetings with the victims showed his government cared about victims and the faults of the YOA. Chuck was disgusted and it was incidents like these that led him to become an MP to truly change things.

This “new” legislation from the Liberals is the same kind of political stunt. [The] Justice Minister said his government tweaked both bills to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to address “operational deficiencies”. [Baloney]. Chuck had one of the best legal advisors in Ottawa on his staff and his bills were well within the Charter. The ultimate ridiculousness of [the justice minister's] version was the reason for removing the penalties for repeat offenders, “because the police across this country don't have tracing and tracking records so we know if it was a first, second or third tracking offence“.

If the Liberals truly want to honour Chuck Cadman I suggest that they pass his laws as written and actually give the police the resources to find out how many previous offences there were. If they don't have the courage to do that, at least have the decency to stop using his name in a self-serving bid to gain political points.

After reading the letter, I talked to Dane. I asked him for permission to present it today. He was glad to have it read in the House of Commons.

I also talked with Chuck's wife yesterday. I asked Donna what she would like me to tell the House. She said that I should tell the government not to water down Chuck's bill. If it did, it would create Mickey Mouse legislation and it would protect the criminals.

I have a background ICBC, as did Chuck. I was in loss prevention. I worked to find out where crashes were happening, why they were happening and where the crime was happening. Chuck and I both had a passion. I feel as though I am carrying on the torch for him to fight for safer communities, particularly regarding automobiles. Chuck wanted to deal with this. It was an important issue to him.

When we talked to the public, we were encouraged to share the three e s: education, engineering and enforcement. When we have a problem in a community through policing, whether we are an engineer, a police officer or politician, if we look at the three e s, that usually will guide us into finding a solution to the problem. Let us apply the three e s to street racing.

The first is education. We educate through the school systems, through the Internet, through movies. Before a movie starts, there are trailers. In the movie theatres we see these trailers warning people that if they drive fast, the forces between 50 k.p.h. and 60 k.p.h. actually double. The impact doubles between 50 k.p.h. and 60 k.p.h.

It is often students who drive the hot cars. Through education we tell them that there are only four little pieces of rubber which hold the car to the pavement and if they drive extremely fast, the forces are tremendous and they could lose control and they could kill themselves and other people. We know that education has worked somewhat.

The second is engineering. Street racing is a problem. Some communities have put in speed humps, bumps and strips on the road. They know of some of the areas where people are racing cars and they wet the streets. They are trying through engineering design to keep street racing to a minimum and to stop it. Through education and engineering we are trying to do what we can to stop street racing.

The third is enforcement. The enforcement aspect of it is our responsibility in the House. We need to have legislation that provides a stop to street racing. It is our responsibility and that is what Chuck was trying to do, the enforcement.

Why are we opposed to it? We are using Chuck Cadman. If we want to have Chuck Cadman's memory on it, then let us have Chuck's bills which include the teeth.

There was a recent announcement on crystal meth, a dangerous drug and is now schedule 3. What are we going to get for it? No teeth. It is a phony announcement.

The child pornography bill, Bill C-2, was passed by the House. Everyone was excited because our children would be protected. Again, it appears it was a phony announcement. It has just been sitting on the Prime Minister's desk for the last five months. I asked the justice minister yesterday why it has not been enacted and why is it not legislation. He would not answer.

We now have more phony bills using Chuck Cadman. It is shameful. We should honour Chuck and pass Chuck's bill. Promises were made by the Prime Minister to honour Chuck.

We need to change this bill. We need to give Chuck's bill the honour it deserves. Chuck wanted mandatory driving prohibitions in the bill, so that if people street race, there will be consequences. He also wanted increased punishment for repeat offenders. If people get caught, there will be a consequence, which is what Chuck wanted. If they do it again, it will be a more severe penalty and a more severe consequence. Each time they reoffend, there will be an additional increasing consequence.

Chuck was right on. We need to honour his bill. Bill C-65 is a phony bill and the Conservatives will be opposing it. Let us honour Chuck and let us oppose this phony bill.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to support Bill C-49 and to echo some of the strong support from members on all sides of the House for the bill.

In 1997 I attended, on behalf of the Government of Canada, the first World Conference on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth in Stockholm, Sweden. What I heard was appalling. It was the place where work began to be formalized for dealing in the trafficking in women and children. Since then, it has become a cause for me. It is something about which I feel passionate. I have worked closely with my colleagues over the years to bring us to the point where we have now many policies and pieces of legislation. We are working internationally with the United Nations and other countries to deal with trafficking.

For me the bill is one more piece in that armamentarium of all the tools that we can use to deal with trafficking.

The United States Department of State in its 2004 annual report stated that 600,000 to 800,000 persons are trafficked around the world each year; 47% of those are women and 50% are children. We do not have to be a mathematician to know that that makes up 97% of the total people being trafficked around the world.

UNICEF estimates that about 2.1 million children are trafficked each year and that it is worth $10 billion to organized crime.

Trafficking in human beings is not something is new. It is as old as time. Those of us who have read history know about slavery in ancient Rome. We also know about the 60 million Africans who were trafficked as slaves during the colonial era. We know that trafficking has been with us for a long time. It does not make it acceptable however.

Yet today trafficking is carried out in a very different series of ways than we used to read about in history. The new realities of different types of trafficking is reflected in this bill which is very important. We have to use new tools to deal with modern day problems.

The reality today is that victims can be trafficked through many different means: by being kidnapped, by being lured, by being given false promises of legitimate jobs or by being given false promises of all kinds of opportunity to people who are desperate and wanting to find some way out of the hopelessness of their lives.

The bill also reflects the reality that persons can be trafficked for different purposes: for being forced into the sex trade, for being forced into some form of labour whether it be in sweat shops or otherwise, or horrendously to have to donate a human organ or human tissue as part of what they are trafficked to do.

The bill reflects a reality that no one can ever validly consent to this kind of dehumanization.

At the same time Bill C-49 reflects the reality that human trafficking can involve global dimensions and local dimensions. Trafficking can occur within one country either from rural to urban, urban to rural areas or region to region. We know that it goes on in Canada.

Ultimately it does not really matter what form of conduct it involves or to what purpose the trafficking occurs. Bill C-49 has proposed a package of criminal law reforms that will deal with many of those new ways of trafficking.

This is tough legislation. I know some people do not think it is tough enough, but it is. It is tough enough hopefully to prevent trafficking. It is tough enough to protect the vulnerable victims. It is tough enough to prosecute offenders whether local or international and to make them fully and completely accountable.

However, that is not all. Bill C-49 is only one part of an array of tools, policies and legislation to protect the vulnerable in our society which is a priority for our government. For instance it links with Bill C-2 which was passed in July of this year and it builds on, IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to protect persons who may be trafficked as refugees. It builds on our existing Criminal Code protections against behaviours associated with trafficking, by creating three new indictable offences.

The first, trafficking in persons, is a specific prohibition against any person engaged in the exploitation of a person or facilitating the exploitation of a person. This new proposal identifies the acts in question such as recruiting, transporting, transferring, receiving, holding, concealing or harbouring a person, exercising control, and direction or influence over the movements of another person. That is a pretty broad definition. That includes all of the many different players. It does not only include the person who started the movement from country A but it could also be the person who played a role somewhere along the chain of events. They too would be indicted under this bill.

This legislation expands the definition of our criminal law responses. For example, the Criminal Code offence against kidnapping is also expanded in this particular bill. With this new offence, it is proposed that the maximum penalty for any of the trafficking to be life imprisonment if it involves the kidnapping, aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault or death of the victim, and 14 years imprisonment in other cases.

These maximum sentences send a strong message that this government denounces and deters this kind of criminal conduct. If it were to pass with the agreement of other members of the House, it would send a strong message that the Parliament of Canada denounces and deters this kind of criminal conduct.

The second part of the bill that I like is the proposal to create another indictable offence specifically targeting those who seek to profit from human trafficking and from the exploitation of others, even if they do not engage in the physical acts set out in the main trafficking in persons section. It would specifically prohibit any person from receiving a financial or other material benefit when they know that it results from the commission of the trafficking of another person. That offence would carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

The third part of the bill also sends a strong message. This legislation would create another new offence to prohibit anyone from concealing, removing, withholding or destroying another person's travel documents or identification.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the justice minister. I believe he honestly means well, but I do not believe his paradigm is in line with what Canadians want. They want justice. They want appropriate sentencing where there is a consequence for the crime. They do not believe in dangerous offenders serving their sentences at home.

Twice, at the beginning of my speech and also at the end, I talked about Bill C-2 and Bill C-13 and why they were sitting on the Prime Minister's desk without being enacted. When we come up with legislation, why does it sit on the Prime Minister's desk? Unfortunately, the minister did not answer those questions.

I think Canadians want conditional sentencing. We support Bill C-49 going ahead, but I am hoping we will get mandatory minimums added at committee stage.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Wild Rose says it from the heart. Canadians are frustrated with the sentencing that dangerous offenders are receiving in Canada.

The member sits on the justice committee, as do I. Canadians are asking for appropriate sentencing. Canadians are asking for sentencing to change. They are asking that we have consequences for dangerous and repeat offenders. Canadians want there to be consequences for those actions.

In my riding of Langley, a young man sexually assaulted two young girls. What sentence did he receive? He received conditional sentencing. It was house arrest. He served out his sentence at home. His victims lived on each side of him.

There has been an actual abuse of discretion. Canadians are calling out for change on how we sentence criminals. Canadians are calling for mandatory minimums because they do not have confidence in this government. Canadians do not have confidence in the weak legislation. They do not have confidence in the phony announcements.

Earlier I brought up the fact that we have Bill C-2, Bill C-13 and now Bill C-49 dealing respectively with child pornography, DNA and trafficking in people. What happens to those bills when there is unanimous consent within this House to have them move forward? Why do these bills sit on the Prime Minister's desk? Why are they not signed and enacted? We have heard about how important these bills are. Why are they not enacted?

What will happen with Bill C-49? Will this bill pass through this process? Will it receive immediate attention and then sit on the Prime Minister's desk? Canadians are asking for a change. The change starts with mandatory minimum sentences for dangerous and repeat offenders.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House of Commons to speak to Bill C-49, a very important bill. We do have unanimous consent that this move forward to protect the most vulnerable.

I will start off by addressing some of the comments made by the justice minister. He made the comment that mandatory sentencing results in lower sentencing. Canadians are frustrated that the sentencing the courts provide for very serious offences result in conditional sentencing, meaning offenders are serving their sentences at home. Canadians are not confident that the sentencing is adequate, which is why there is an outcry to have mandatory minimum sentencing so there will be at least jail sentences for these heinous crimes.

We had a recent announcement regarding crystal meth which is now a schedule one drug. Traffickers in this drug would receive life imprisonment. The typical sentence for that type of offence is three and a half years. The government comes out with these proclamations, these phony bills saying that it will get tough on crime. Every member of the justice committee wants to make sure that these victims are protected, that this does not happen any more in Canada and that there is a serious message.

As a Conservative, I believe that mandatory minimum sentencing has to be part of the bill. We support having the bill go ahead. Why? I would like to go back to the late 1700s. There was a man by the name of William Wilberforce who was known as the conscience of Parliament. He fought against slavery.

It came to the attention of the United Nations that trafficking in people was still going on, primarily of women and children being drawn into the sex trade. It is offensive, it needs to be dealt with and it is a world concern. As we have heard, $10 billion U.S. a year is what organized crime is reaping in benefits from this. It is a very big problem and we need to deal with it.

William Wilberforce in the late 1700s stood against slavery and yet it is still happening today. We need to come up with legislation that deals with this modern day form of slavery.

Trafficking in persons has been described, as I said, as human slavery in this year. The United Nations reported that trafficking is the fastest growing form of transnational organized crime. Local crime organizations are drawn to this industry because of the relatively low risk of being caught and it is run by multinational criminal networks that are well-funded, well-organized and extremely adaptable to changing technologies.

The United Nations estimates that 700,000 people are trafficked annually worldwide and most of them are women and children. Most victims are forced into commercial sexual exploitation as well as involuntary servitude or debt bondage. Others may be exploited through hard labour and, in some countries, children are trafficked to work even as soldiers.

Trafficked persons are often duped into their new profession, deceived with seemingly legitimate employment contracts or marriage abroad. Others are simply abducted.

People are being told they can come to Canada and get a job and that it is a wonderful country. It is a wonderful country, but they are brought into Canada under false pretences. When they arrive here they are told that the job they were promised is no longer there but that they do have another job, which turns out to be that of a sex trade worker. It is terrible to trap people into that. The visas and passports are seized and taken from these people. These people are afraid to go to the police in case they will be deported from Canada, so they keep quiet and they are trapped.

The government is right that it is an abhorrent crime against humanity, against human rights and we need to stand against it as a country.

In dealing with victim protection, international attention to the issue of trafficking is very important. The status of the victim is often very complex. Although there are some universally recognized victims such as, for example, children who are exploited through the sex trade, others often are perceived as illegal migrants and criminals.

Women trafficked into the sex trade are sometimes seen as simply violating immigration or criminal laws relating to prostitution. Because of these perceptions and because of threats from traffickers, many victims are reluctant to turn to the police for protection.

The social stigma from prostitution is also a problem. Women who have been trafficked internationally and who are returned to their home countries may be ostracized within their communities and their families. It is a very big problem.

In Canada there are no hard statistics, but the RCMP estimates that 600 women and children are smuggled and coerced into the Canadian sex trade every year. If we include in that figure people who are forced into other forms of labour, it numbers about 800 people a year. This should not go on.

Canada has a relatively good record on the international stage in terms of efforts to stem this trade. In June of last year, the U.S. state department reported that British Columbia has become an attractive hub for East Asian human traffickers, who smuggle South Korean women through Canada and into the United States. In large part this is attributed to the fact that South Koreans do not need a visa to enter Canada.

The only thing these thugs understand is the full force of the law. We must have legislation. Bill C-49 must have teeth. We need to involve heavy prison time and confiscation of all profits. As a Conservative government, we would want to have Bill C-49 amended to deal with things properly.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code in Bill C-49 would create three new indictable offences that specifically address human trafficking. The first contains the global prohibition on trafficking persons. The second prohibits a person from benefiting economically from trafficking. The third prohibits the withholding or destruction of identity, immigration or travel documents to facilitate trafficking in persons.

The legislation also ensures that trafficking may form the basis of a warrant to intercept private communications, to take bodily samples for DNA analysis and to permit inclusion of the offender in the sex offender registry. Bill C-49 also expands the ability to seek restitution to the victims who are subjected to bodily or psychological harm.

Again, without serious penalties for these very serious, abhorrent crimes, the exploitation and abuse will continue. In this legislation, there are no mandatory minimum prison sentences. We need to send a clear message that slavery is wrong.

About five months ago, the justice committee passed Bill C-2, the child pornography legislation. It received third reading and went to the Senate and received royal assent, but Bill C-2 is sitting on the Prime Minister's desk. As well, Bill C-13, the DNA legislation, passed through this House, went to the Senate and received royal assent, but it also is sitting on the Prime Minister's desk, waiting to be enacted. These are very important pieces of legislation and I would like the justice minister to answer us as to why Bill C-2, the child pornography legislation, and Bill C-13, the DNA legislation, are sitting on the Prime Minister's desk waiting to be enacted.

Bill C-49 is such an important bill. There is a will in this House to see it go on to the Senate and receive royal assent. Is it going to sit on the Prime Minister's desk, just like Bill C-2 and Bill C-13? I hope not.

We also have heard of the Liberal-NDP coalition's plan to legalize prostitution solicitation. We have heard that there is a report coming, which has been made public. This is a very serious problem. If we go down the path of legalizing prostitution solicitation, it will exacerbate the problem.

We already know that the government wants the age of sexual consent to be 14, one of the lowest in the world. It causes us problems. We have pedophiles looking at our children. They lure them through the Internet. Now there is a plan from the government to legalize prostitution and solicitation. With a low age of consent and the plan regarding prostitution, we must have multiple types of legislation to protect our vulnerable children and our women.

This is what I want to know. We need to know from the justice minister what kind of legislation we are going to have. Are we going to have Bill C-49, which is what Canadians want, with some teeth? Would he accept amendments?

We have other pieces of legislation in our Criminal Code that have mandatory prison sentences. Is not trafficking in persons one of the most abhorrent crimes in the world today? I would argue that it is.

If we have mandatory minimum sentences for these other violent offences, why not for trafficking in persons? Are the minister and the government saying that it is really not as bad as some of these other offences? I would argue that it is. I think it is one of the worst and I think the United Nations acknowledges that it is one of the worst. If we have mandatory minimums for other criminal offences, why not for this?

I do support Bill C-49 going ahead, but we have to toughen it up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons). Bill C-49 realizes a commitment made by the government in the Speech from the Throne. It reflects a continuing priority not only for the government but for me personally as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, namely the protection of the vulnerable.

It is a matter of protecting the most vulnerable among us.

No less important, this third reading debate on Bill C-49 is a reflection of all-party support for the bill, which I hope is a reflection of the broader support for the work of the government and indeed the international community in combating this scourge upon humanity, what I have referred to elsewhere as the new contemporary global slave trade.

I have always been concerned with promoting and protecting equality, and continue to do so as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. It has always been my belief that the true measure of a society's commitment to the principles of equality and human dignity is taken by the way it protects its most vulnerable members.

This is really what Bill C-49 is all about. It is about more clearly recognizing and denouncing human trafficking as the persistent and pervasive assault on human rights that it is. It is about providing increased protection for those who are most vulnerable to this criminal violation of human rights, namely women and children. It is about bringing the perpetrators to justice and ensuring that human traffickers are held to account fully for this criminal conduct.

Trafficking in humans is considered to be the most rapidly growing criminal industry in the world. It is estimated that it generates $10 billion in annual profits for organized crime, thus ranking second after drug and firearms trafficking.

Although the clandestine nature of human trafficking makes it impossible to know the real magnitude of the tragedy, the United Nations estimates that more than 700,000 persons are trafficked across international borders each year. Others put it higher. UNICEF for example estimates that 1.2 million children alone are trafficked globally each year.

In May of this year the International Labour Organization released a global report on forced labour. This report estimates that approximately 2.5 million persons are currently in situations of forced labour as a result of having been trafficked. Of these 2.5 million persons, approximately one-third are estimated to have been trafficked into situations of forced labour and just under one-half are estimated to have been trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation purposes. This is the important point. Almost all of these victims, 98% of them, are the most vulnerable, women and children. The remaining one-third are believed to have been trafficked for mixed or undetermined reasons.

If we take as our starting point that one person trafficked is one too many, that this is not just a matter of abstract statistics, but behind every statistic is a trafficked human being and a tragedy of that trafficking, these estimates surely must underscore the importance of measures such as Bill C-49. Indeed this should strengthen our resolve to do all that we can domestically and internationally to combat human trafficking.

Moreover, although anyone can be a victim of human trafficking, the numbers show that women and children are the primary victims of such trafficking, a reflection of their social, economic and legal inequality, indeed of their differential vulnerability. In fact, this is how many human traffickers achieve their aims, by exploiting the hopes and fears of their victims by offering them false hope and the promise of a better life.

Most of the time, women and children are trafficked for purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labour. They end up as servants, baby sitters or drug mules, for instance. Men, on the other hand, are generally trafficked for forced labour in illegal sweatshops, or to work on farms, in abattoirs or in the construction industry.

But no matter for what purpose they are trafficked, all trafficked persons: men, women and children suffer deprivation of liberty, physical, sexual and emotional abuse, including threats of violence and actual serious harm to themselves and/or to their family members.

This is why human trafficking is so often described as today's global slave trade because it is about the bonding and bartering of human beings, and battering as well, and indeed, the commodification of human beings which constitutes a pervasive and persistent assault on the most fundamental of human rights, the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

The daily reality of trafficked victims is difficult if not impossible to comprehend, but it is perhaps just as difficult to comprehend that trafficking in human beings is even an issue today in the 21st century, and in a country such as Canada, where the constitutional protection of fundamental rights and freedoms is at the very heart of how we seek to define ourselves as a people and a society.

Bill C-49 addresses the protection of vulnerable persons and the protection of fundamental human rights only.

Bill C-49 is organized around the three key objectives identified by the international community or what we call the three P s: prevention of human trafficking, protection of its victims, and prosecution of the traffickers themselves.

Currently, the Criminal Code addresses human trafficking through existing offences that apply to trafficking related conduct such as, kidnapping, forceable confinement, aggravated sexual assaults and uttering threats. Although these existing provisions have been successfully used in trafficking cases, Bill C-49 proposes the creation of three new specific indictable offences to more effectively and comprehensively address all forms of trafficking in persons, irrespective of whether it occurs wholly within Canada or involves cross-border movement.

The main offence of trafficking in persons would prohibit anyone from engaging in the acts therein specified, such as the recruitment, transportation, harbouring or control of the movements of another person for the purpose of exploiting that person or facilitating the exploiting of that person. This new offence would carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment where it involves kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault or causes the death of a victim. It would carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment in all other cases.

The second proposed offence would apply to persons who seek to profit from the trafficking in persons, even if they do not actually engage in the act specified in the main trafficking in persons offence. It proposes to prohibit any person from receiving a financial or other material benefit knowing that it results from the trafficking of another person. This offence would be punishable by a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

The third new offence would prohibit the withholding or destruction of documents such as a victim's travel documents or documents that establish the victim's identity or immigration status for the purpose of committing or facilitating the trafficking of that person. This offence would carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

Bill C-49's innovation applies not only in the proposal to create three new specific indictable offences to address all aspects of trafficking in persons, but also in the fact that these offences are built on the very essence of trafficking in persons. No matter what form the conduct may take, human trafficking is always engaged for the purposes of exploiting its victims, whether it is by forcing them to provide labour services, including sexual services, or services as a drug mule or human organ or tissue. Everything and all of it is for the purpose of exploiting that victim.

Accordingly, Bill C-49 includes a specific definition of exploitation that reflects this reality as well as the reality that victims may be forced to engage in such conduct, not only because they fear for their own safety but because they may fear for the safety of others such as members of their families.

However, we believe there is much to be gained by creating new Criminal Code offences that specifically target this conduct and that broaden the reach of our existing prohibition to comprehensively respond to all forms of human trafficking, whether they occur wholly within Canada or whether they involve some cross-border or international dimension.

Bill C-49 will more clearly and broadly define and address the type of conduct in question that we seek to prevent and we will more clearly and strongly denounce all forms of human trafficking. Bill C-49 will enable us to more clearly and directly name and respond to this heinous crime for what it really is, namely, human trafficking. Anyone who has ever heard victims of this tragedy speak of their experience will appreciate just how important this is to them, and so too it is an important and welcome innovation.

Bill C-49 will significantly enhance Canada's domestic laws against human trafficking. This will in turn support the broader international effort to combat trafficking. On that point, on the international scene, I am pleased to note that Canada, together with the international community, continues to support and enhance international collaboration in response to human trafficking.

Canada was among the first nations to ratify the UN convention against transnational organized crime and its supplemental protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children. These two instruments provide the widely accepted international framework for addressing the contemporary manifestation of human trafficking.

International protections against trafficking in persons offered by these instruments are themselves supplemented by numerous other international instruments, including the optional protocol to the UN convention on the rights of the child, on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography that Canada ratified last month on September 14.

I note this instrument in particular because it is focused entirely on children, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable who are trafficked. While any form of human trafficking is incomprehensible and condemned, this is particularly true in the case of children. Behind each one of UNICEF's estimate of 1.2 million trafficked children is a child, a human face, an individual with a name and an identity, a vulnerable person who is completely dependent upon us, upon the global community, for protection of the most profound of rights, the right to life itself.

Bill C-49 is an important step forward in strengthening Canada's overall response to human trafficking. We recognize that more is required than just a strong legal framework and we are working to address the three P 's, to which I referred, across the whole of the federal government.

Over the past year, for example, a lot has been done to address the principle of prevention, including training for police, prosecutors, immigration, custom and consular officials on human trafficking. We held seminars in this regard in March 2004 and 2005, one of them being an international seminar itself, round tables involving government and non-governmental organizations to discuss prevention and best practices to address human trafficking, conferences in which I myself have participated, both nationally and internationally, and the development of public education materials including an anti-trafficking poster that is available in 17 languages and a pamphlet available in 14 languages. Both of these have been widely disseminated within Canada and through our embassies abroad through the internationalization prevention effort.

As well, we are continuing to work to provide better support and protection for the victims, including through Bill C-2, the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, which received royal assent on July 20, 2005. Bill C-2 enacted criminal law reforms that will facilitate the receipt of testimony by child victim witnesses and other vulnerable victim witnesses, including women. Once enforced, these reforms will significantly enhance the ability of the criminal justice system to respond to the unique needs of vulnerable victims, including trafficking victims.

Lastly, I would note that the federal interdepartmental working group on trafficking in persons, co-chaired by the Departments of Justice and Foreign Affairs, continues to coordinate efforts to address human trafficking and is currently developing a comprehensive federal anti-trafficking strategy.

I believe that this interdepartmental working group, composed of representatives of 17 federal departments and agencies, is a clear illustration of how difficult it is to come up with a complete response to human trafficking, as well as a clear indication of how committed the federal government is to beefing up its overall response to this problem.

In conclusion, Bill C-49 will significantly improve our ability to address all forms of human trafficking, including trafficking that has international dimensions, as well as trafficking that occurs wholly within our country. It proposes, as I mentioned, the creation of specific offences prohibiting human trafficking, the imposition of severe penalties to better reflect the serious nature and impact of this form of criminal conduct on its victims and on Canadian society.

Together these new offences clearly and strongly denounce trafficking in persons and send a strong signal with regard to governmental, parliamentary, domestic and international condemnation of this global slave trade. Clearer and stronger prohibitions will mean greater protection for those who are the most vulnerable to being trafficked: women and children.

I appreciate and wish to emphasize the support that all members have expressed for Bill C-49 to date. I hope we can continue the spirit in common cause and commitment to expedite Bill C-49's passage because this is not a matter for a particular party or partisan cause. This is something in which we have united together on behalf of the trafficked victims and the most vulnerable, to provide for them the prevention and protection they deserve, and the accountability in terms of bringing the perpetrators to justice where warranted.

Justice

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Again, Mr. Speaker, clearly the issue of consent is of some concern to the member. I think what one has to appreciate is that exploitive conduct where one cannot consent are such things as pornography, prostitution, or a relationship of trust, dependency or authority, which we already recognize. What Bill C-2 is doing is actually adding one more category, and that is one of sexual exploitation where one cannot consent to the exploitation.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member simply does not understand the issue at hand. The issue at hand is not the age of consent, but rather can one actually consent to be exploited. The reality is that no one can consent to be exploited. The purpose for which they are moving forward is totally at odds with what the goal is.

Each and every one of us wants to protect our children and that protection is a priority of the government. We are going to do so through Bill C-2 when it is fully enacted and the section dealing with sexual exploitation which deals with the predator—

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I clarified for the House last week, this matter of age of consent has been taken off to the side. The actual issue really is the person exploiting our youth.

Each and every one of us has as a priority the protection of our youth. It is with the legislation that we have in place, in particular Bill C-2 that will soon be law, that we go after the person who exploits our children. That is the person we want to attack.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been some serious misrepresentations in the House by the opposition against the government position on some very important judicial matters and in particular the protection of children. It is time to set the record straight.

In protecting children, our government has enacted some of the toughest laws in the world against the exploitation of children, against child pornography and against Internet luring.

Bill C-2, which received royal assent on July 20, criminalizes the sexual exploitation of children, particularly between the ages of 14 and 17. It looks at the age difference. It looks at the age of the young person and the nature of the relationship and whether there is any exploitation.

In reality, the age of consent is actually 18 years of age in our country. We will not criminalize the sexual relations that occur between young people. We have also enacted Bill C-27 and Bill C-51, which go further in supporting and protecting our children.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, no one can consent to being exploited. Whatever the age, that consent cannot be given.

The reality is what we are doing in the process with Bill C-2 is to deal with the cause of the problem. The cause is the person who exploits our young people. Those are the people we are going to get and bring to justice.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the Minister of Justice is doing no such thing in terms of encouraging that type of conduct. In fact, as Bill C-2 clearly stated and which passed through the House and is now becoming law, we want to deal not with the child but with the person who exploits the child. That is the key to getting this resolved.

Criminal Code

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity, even at this late hour, to speak to Bill C-49. I want to take the opportunity to recap some of the items in the bill that relate particularly to vulnerable persons.

We have heard some very eloquent testimony here this afternoon on some of the situations that young people in this country find themselves in. The message that Bill C-49 sends is both strong and clear. It sends the message that the full force of the criminal law will be brought to bear on those who seek to take advantage of those who are indeed the most vulnerable among us.

We know that the crime of human trafficking disproportionately impacts on vulnerable people, particularly women and children who are preyed upon, exploited and abused for the profit of others. About 98% of those forced into commercial sexual exploitation are women and children. They are often lured through false promises of employment and working conditions that would benefit them and their families. This type of exploitation runs contrary to the very essence of who we are as Canadians and what we value: equality, liberty and justice.

Bill C-49 would strengthen our legal framework to combat trafficking by creating three new criminal offences. These offences directly address the very heart of this terrible crime of exploitation.

The main offence of trafficking in persons would prohibit anyone from recruiting, transporting, harbouring or controlling the movements of another person in order to exploit or facilitate the exploitation of that person. It carries the Criminal Code's strongest punishment, up to life imprisonment, accordingly reflecting the abhorrent nature of this crime, the impact it has on its victims, and importantly, society's condemnation.

As I indicated, exploitation is at the very heart of this crime and Bill C-49 properly acknowledges this fact by making it a key element of the offence. This approach is important. It reflects the international community's understanding of human trafficking and more importantly, squarely addresses the very behaviour that targets the most vulnerable among us. Bill C-49 proposes to create two additional offences providing law enforcement with an expanded ability to address the full range of conduct involved in human trafficking.

The second offence would prohibit anyone from profiting from the misery of others. Bill C-49 would make it an offence to receive a financial or other material benefit knowing that it resulted from the trafficking in persons. This offence would be punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

The third offence would criminalize the withholding or destroying of travel or identity documents in order to commit or facilitate the trafficking in persons. This is an integral response to trafficking because we know that traffickers often withhold such documents in order to maintain control over their victims in essence to ensure that victims' vulnerability is perpetuated.

Canada continues to be in the vanguard of nations in the global struggle against injustice and inequality. I am pleased to note that Canada has recently ratified the optional protocol to the convention on the rights of the child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. This ratification underscores our commitment, both domestically and internationally, to protect children from all forms of exploitation including trafficking.

Bill C-2, which received royal assent in July, further underscores this commitment. Bill C-2 builds upon already expansive criminal law protections and offers even greater protections for children and other vulnerable persons through enhanced penalties for those crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children and through expanding the use of testimonial aids to children and other vulnerable persons.

The government has an ongoing and strong commitment to the protection of the vulnerable and I believe that Bill C-49 is a further step in the right direction. I understand that the whole of government's approach to trafficking reflects the international community's approach to human trafficking, namely, to prevent trafficking, protect its victims and prosecute the offenders. A working group has been tasked with the development of a federal strategy and that work, I believe, is currently underway. Bill C-49 is an important part of this comprehensive approach and it will help us accomplish these prevention, protection and prosecution objectives.

I appreciate that Bill C-49 represents one component of a larger federal response to this issue and supports as well the government's numerous activities to combat trafficking in persons in all its forms. These include, for example, partnering with members of civil society to develop the capacity to properly respond to the needs of victims of this terrible crime. I also understand that the government has been active in developing prevention and awareness materials and in delivering training seminars on the dangers of human trafficking.

I, along with most members of the House, support all of these efforts. Bill C-49 is a critical step toward better addressing human trafficking in all its manifestations, both domestically and internationally. It proposes welcomed criminal law reforms that will enable Canada to continue to show global leadership on the protection of the vulnerable. I hope all members of the House will strongly support this bill. It is an important one for our communities.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing me to participate in this important debate on Bill C-49, which is clearly on a timely topic, trafficking in persons.

A few years ago, we were concerned about cross-border crime. Moving forward, we have realized that there is now something that is just as great a concern, namely trafficking in persons. The United Nations has set up a special working group on trafficking in persons. It has determined that about 15 million people a year could be subject directly or indirectly, within various migratory flows, to trafficking or the sex trade or exploitation.

This is therefore a very important question. During my speech, I will have occasion to refer to a document on sex workers and prostitution that was provided to us in connection with our work on the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, created by the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. This document was produced by Citizenship and Immigration Canada and also the RCMP. It is a joint classified document which we obtained through our clerk. It is very interesting because it is a matter of costs and large international circuits with consequences on the human level and for national security. “National security” is used here in reference to illegal immigration into Canada.

I would like to start by thanking two fellow citizens who came to see me in September. I am speaking of Danielle Julien who works for Franciscans International, an NGO that has followed very closely the entire international migration question as well as trafficking in women and, more especially, their exploitation. Franciscans International has come up with a document that is very well done called Handbook on Human Trafficking. It explains in a very educational way the issues surrounding human trafficking. I was extremely surprised to learn that Canada had not ratified.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-49, an extremely important bill, which the Bloc Québécois supports. Our party's justice critic, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, said so this morning, and I believe the member for Québec, our status of women critic, reiterated our position. I was extremely surprised to learn that the government has not ratified the 1949 convention on the traffic of persons. It is cause for serious concern to now have a bill on such issues when Canada could have done so much more in international tribunals. A number of countries have ratified this convention, but not, unfortunately, Canada.

There are a number of tools. I want to list a number of conventions, including the one entitled “Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others”. This convention dates back to 1949, very early in the history of the United Nations, which was established in 1945. Nearly five years after the UN was created, in an already multilateral framework, member countries were taking an interest in the issue of human trafficking. Most people know, and we must admit it, that we are referring here to the trafficking of women.

It is quite incredible; I could not believe my ears. When the Franciscans came to my office in early September to talk to me about this issue, they told me that Canada had not ratified this convention. I hope that someone will explain why. I hope that the parliamentary secretary and other MPs on the government side will tell us why Canada has not ratified this convention.

I have a list here of the countries that did ratify that convention in 1949: they include Afghanistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Cyprus, Congo, Ivory Coast, Dominican Republic and Egypt. A number of countries have ratified it, but Canada still has not.

Fortunately, even if Canada has not ratified the 1949 convention, it has ratified another extremely important document, the Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against transnational organized crime.

The document I referred to earlier, a joint effort by the RCMP and Citizenship and Immigration Canada, provides a sort of ranking as far as trafficking in persons is concerned. We know that there are four countries in the world that might be called high immigration volume countries, and one of these is of course Canada. We receive between 220,000 and 240,000 immigrants yearly. On October 1 each year, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has to disclose the planned quotas for immigrants.

I will point out in passing that Canada specializes more in economic immigration. The main interest is in independent workers, investors and family helpers. That is economic immigration and basically accounts for over 75% of those who immigrate to Canada.

So, we have four countries with a large volume of immigration: Canada, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand.

Another aside: Canada and Quebec have not made the same choice as far as models for integration are concerned. Canada has opted for multiculturalism, which means that people who have chosen Canada, whether they come from Poland, Spain, Senegal, Côte-d'Ivoire or the Dominican Republic, can maintain their culture of origin but must participate in the great melting pot of the ideology that is multiculturalism.

In Quebec, because Quebec is a francophone society with a particular historical responsibility, we have not opted for multiculturalism. We have opted for a common public culture. Quebec selects approximately 40% of its immigrants. It selects mainly those who come here to work. We will select a few refugees in camps outside their own country, but essentially this is also economic immigration.

Of course, in a sovereign Quebec, we will be fully aware of the importance of selecting our immigrants. I will make another digression here. I do not want to get too far away from the issue, because this is not what my comments are about. However, one of the modern reasons why Quebec should achieve sovereignty is to able to select its immigrants. Quebec needs immigration. We have a tradition of opening our doors to immigrants and of being generous with them. It goes without saying that since Quebec does not have a fertility rate that allows for the natural reproduction or replacement of its population, it needs immigration. In a sovereign Quebec we will set up extremely generous policies to select, welcome and integrate immigrants, based however on a common public culture.

The former poet, the late Gérald Godin, who was the MNA for Mercier, and who was very appreciated in sovereignist circles, and whom the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst knew, used to say that there are one hundred ways to be a Quebecker, but that these one hundred ways all had a common denominator, namely the French language.

This is why we rejected the multiculturalism model. We are saying that one can choose Quebec, but to do so is to participate in the common public culture. That participation is achieved through a communication vector, namely the French language. That was my short digression, which of course is totally non partisan. We are all aware of the level at which our debates should take place.

So, I am now getting to the issue of human trafficking, which is an extremely important issue, at least as important as the trafficking of goods or the illegal transborder trade. The UN set up a task force in which Franciscans International, as an NGO, is recognized as a stakeholder. I looked for some figures for Canada.

I remember that when the committee was working on the issue of prostitution, we were looking for figures. It is not easy to get an assessment on such an issue.

I obtained a confidential and protected document prepared in 2002 by Immigration Canada and the RCMP. I am referring to the first paragraph, on page 6, which says: “Over a five year period, about 13% of improperly documented arrivals that came to Canada or that were intercepted en route to Canada were directly related to a trafficker or an escort”.

This means that 13% of the people who entered Canada in various ways, by air, sea or land, did not have a passport or official travel documents, and of course, did not have a visa permitting them to enter.

A little further along in the document, the RCMP and Immigration Canada make the following assessment: “If only the people arriving by airplane are considered, this proportion rises to 25.1%.”

A look at the literature on illegal immigration will show that, for Canada, it is about 10,000 people a year. This is not an insignificant number. As lawmakers, we have good reason to be concerned about this.

There is another more humanitarian consideration. We know that there are people all over the world going through upheavals in their countries: genocide, the overthrow of the political regime, famines. They are going through terrible times. Therefore they want to leave their countries. What would we do if we were in their shoes, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, or Niger, or certain countries in Africa where people cannot survive on $1 a day? We should ask ourselves the question. It is possible that we too, as human beings, would be tempted to want to improve our fate and leave our country of origin. It is not unpatriotic to want to improve one's fate.

It should be understood that in terrible situations like those I just described, people are vulnerable and put themselves in the hands of traffickers. This is why there is illegal international immigration. People take advantage of the misfortune and unhappiness of others. They demand money and hold out the possibility of coming to live in a third country. In my example, of course, we are speaking of Canada.

The document from the RCMP and Immigration Canada estimates the amount that is asked from these poor people living in anguish. I would like to quote from the document: “The fees paid by migrants to enter Canada are high. They are said to be rising. The cost depends on the means of transportation and the market. According to illegal migrants, the fees vary between US$20,000 and US$50,000.”

US$50,000 is easily C$70,000.

“Few clients are able to amass the necessary funds by liquidating their personal assets, and even fewer are prepared to risk such a large sum by paying the full price before reaching their destination. A portion of the cost of human smuggling, perhaps as little as 10% to 20%, is paid in advance. The rest is collected upon delivery to the final destination.”

Remember that we are not talking about goods here but rather about human beings.

“Partial payments of the price for smuggling may be demanded at various stages of the journey.”

That is why Bill C-49, which the Bloc Québécois supports, is so important. From now on, the Criminal Code will set out sanctions and offences. Smugglers found guilty of such a crime could face life in prison. Document forgers may easily face 10 years in prison.

When the UN Commission on Human Rights last met, for example, it mandated a special rapporteur to report before the next UN general assembly. So this is an extremely important issue that deserves the full attention of parliamentarians.

I was saying earlier that Canada has not ratified the 1949 convention. I hope that someone will tell me why. I do not understand how this bill can be adopted here, by parliamentarians, when, in a multilateral forum, a convention dating back to the early years of the UN has not been ratified.

This convention was important nonetheless, however, because it created a legal system to fight the traffic of persons and the exploitation of the prostitution of others, now called procuring, by individuals serving as intermediaries. Procuring feeds on prostitution. The convention made it a crime to arrange for or profit from the prostitution of others.

This system affects women, children and some men, but obviously this reality applies mainly to women.

Canada's ratification of the 1949 convention must be a source of concern. As Franciscans International pointed out to me, it is extremely embarrassing when NGOs are working with the UN Human Rights Commission, for example, and there is talk of a bill, like Bill C-49 or Bill C-2 in the past, yet the convention has not been ratified.

I will say something about the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. That protocol contains something of interest, something that is in fact basic: the whole issue of victim consent. This protocol is an important tool.

For the first time, this protocol gives a definition of the phenomenon which consists of abuse of authority, as well as one for victim consent. We know that traffickers often make use of threats, blackmail, constraints, kidnapping, fraud, trickery, false promises, swindles and abuse of authority. The trade exists because of these ingredients.

This protocol, which has been ratified by Canada, is one of the means that has been used where victim consent, whether freely given or invalid, cannot be used as a pretext to excuse some action by a smuggler.

In other words, the mere fact that these means have been used is sufficient in itself to bring the law into play, regardless of the victim's wish or acceptance of the exploitation.

In closing, let me say that this is a bill supported by the Bloc Québécois and dealing with an extremely significant phenomenon. The entire Bloc Québécois parliamentary team will work diligently to help it pass.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-49, the act to amend the Criminal Code in regard to trafficking in persons.

These proposed reforms will strengthen Canada's response to this horrible crime, a crime that victimizes the most vulnerable. We know that children are disproportionately at risk of being trafficked. UNICEF has estimated that as many as 1.2 million children are trafficked globally each year. The International Labour Organization has estimated that of the 2.45 million people who are in situations of forced labour at any given time as a result of trafficking, 40% to 50% are children.

Children, along with women, are generally the primary victims of trafficking. In fact, they are almost exclusively the victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation. The International Labour Organization estimates that 98% of those forced into commercial sexual exploitation are women and girls.

This estimate reflects just how susceptible the most vulnerable members of our society are to this crime. Although children are the most vulnerable to being trafficked for sexual exploitation, they are also forced into other kinds of work such as domestic labour, which often involves sexual abuse. In some parts of the world, children are also trafficked for their body organs, if we can believe it, or as child soldiers. These children are treated like objects to be owned, used, sold, mistreated and abused.

Children's evolving capacity and dependency make them the most vulnerable members of society. They are at a much higher risk of being exploited and abused, and those who suffer socio-economic and other disadvantages are at an even greater risk. No child should have to suffer like that.

I understand that Canada is actively engaged, both domestically and internationally, in the fight against trafficking. I am convinced that our efforts put us on the right track. We must continue to be at the forefront of this global effort.

Canada's ratification on September 14 of the optional protocol to the convention on the rights of the child, on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, is one example of this government's commitment to protecting children from trafficking and other forms of abuse and exploitation. Bill C-2, which received royal assent this past July, is another example.

Bill C-49 contains criminal law reforms which, once enacted, would expand the availability of existing testimonial aids to children as well as to other vulnerable victims and witnesses to ensure that such victims can provide a full and candid account.

I am proud to rise today to support Bill C-49, which proposes three new offences that will specifically target trafficking in persons. It will strengthen our ability to hold perpetrators to account for treating others in a way that is unfathomable and abhorrent to Canadian society and the world. These reforms will offer law enforcement additional tools to combat trafficking-related conduct and will assist in protecting victims by denouncing and deterring this heinous practice.

The proposed new reforms would create a main offence of trafficking in persons, prohibiting anyone from engaging in specified acts such as recruiting, transporting, harbouring or controlling the movements of another person for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of that person. It would be punishable by a maximum penalty of life imprisonment where it involves the kidnapping, aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault or death of the victim and to a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment in any other case.

I note with approval that exploitation would be a key element of the trafficking offence. Exploitation is really the aspect that makes this crime so reprehensible. I support this approach, as it would clarify that our criminal law sanctions severely those who would exploit others for their own gain.

Two additional offences would also be created, one prohibiting anyone from receiving a financial or other material benefit for the purpose of committing or facilitating the trafficking of a person, punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, and the second prohibiting the withholding or destruction of documents, such as a victim's travel documents or documents establishing their identity, for the purpose of committing or facilitating the trafficking of that person, punishable in this case by a maximum penalty of five years.

I am convinced that this bill, once enacted, will assist law enforcement in holding to account those who would traffic children to exploit them for sexual or other purposes. It will help us deter this type of conduct and, in so doing, it will help us protect vulnerable children. I hope all hon. members will support Bill C-49.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start out on a personal note. Since I was a new member, you are one of the members of Parliament with whom I have had a very close relationship. I have enjoyed working with you and I want to wish you the best of health and thank those people who have given you strong relationships. I congratulate you for your courageous statement earlier today. Our thoughts are with you. You continue to do an excellent job in your role in serving the country.

I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal Code, trafficking in persons.

Trafficking in persons is a pervasive global phenomenon. No country has been left untouched by this terrible scourge. Canada, along with the international community, recognizes the severity of the problem and is committed to addressing it, both domestically and together with its international partners.

This bill is one example of that commitment. It is part of a larger approach that involves and overarching federal anti-trafficking strategy currently being developed by an interdepartmental working group dedicated to this issue.

I support this broad based approach because it recognizes the many manifestations of this complex crime, a crime that has serious implications for victims, for law enforcement, Canadian society and the entire international community.

Such an approach must be formed by the international standards that have been developed in response to this problem, and I believe Canada's approach does just that.

The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its supplemental protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, established the most widely accepted international framework to address trafficking. Canada was among the first nations to ratify these important instruments in May 2002.

In keeping with this framework, I understand that the federal anti-trafficking strategy will focus on the prevention of trafficking, the protection of victims and the prosecution of offenders.

As part of this approach, these proposed reforms send a very clear message that those who seek to exploit vulnerable people will be brought to justice. In particular, these criminal law reforms would strengthen our response to trafficking by building on existing provisions in the Criminal Code which address trafficking related conduct as well as the specific trafficking offence in the Immigration and Refugee Act that addresses cross-border trafficking. For those people who questioned this earlier today, there have been convictions under that act, so we are already working in that area.

These reforms would provide additional tools to better respond to the various manifestations that this crime can take, including prohibiting trafficking that occurs across and wholly within our borders and by focusing on exploitation which is at the very heart of this criminal conduct.

These continuing efforts by Canada to strengthen our responses to human trafficking are recognized internationally as well. For example, in the June annual “Trafficking in Persons Report” by the United States department of congress, which was mentioned in the debate earlier today, Canada's top tier one ranking was maintained, reflecting full compliance with minimum standards set by the United States to assess other countries' efforts addressing prevention, protection and prosecution.

Three new offences are proposed.

The main offence of trafficking in persons would prohibit anyone from engaging in specified acts such as recruiting, transporting, harbouring or controlling the movements of another person for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of that person. This offence is punishable by up to life imprisonment, reflecting its severity and its harmful consequences to the victims.

Second, the proposed reform seeks to deter those who would profit from the exploitation of others by making it an offence to receive a financial or material benefit knowing that it results from the trafficking of persons. The offence is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

Third, the proposed reform seeks to criminalize the withholding or destroying of travel documents in order to commit or facilitate the trafficking of persons. The offence is punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment.

The approach is consistent with the international community's understanding of this terrible crime and I rise today in strong support of these reforms, as have most speakers in the House today.

I think it is important to remember that the bill does not stand alone. In addition to the federal anti-trafficking strategy that I already mentioned, trafficking continues to be addressed through non-legislative measures as well. For example, I know that the government has undertaken numerous initiatives to combat human trafficking through the development of awareness materials such as a poster, pamphlet and website. I understand that the poster and the pamphlet have been translated into many different languages in recognition of the international nature of the crime.

I also applaud the government's continuing commitment to work in partnership with the international community to address this issue, for example through funding prevention efforts abroad, participating in various organizations, such as the United Nations, the Organization of American States and through the new security and prosperity partnership of North America.

I also would like to mention that Canada ratified the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography on September 14. It is a further reflection of an ongoing commitment to address all aspects of trafficking, including trafficking in children.

Just recently the International Labour Organization estimated that at any given time at least 2.45 million people are in situations of forced labour as a result of human trafficking, the majority of whom are women and children, the most vulnerable members of our society. These numbers underscore the need for a comprehensive approach to this global problem. Bill C-49 represents an opportunity to strengthen Canada's approach as well as to further the government's continuing priority, the protection of the vulnerable.

I am convinced that the current broad response is what is required if we are to effectively combat this crime. Bill C-49 is an important part of this comprehensive approach to combating human trafficking.

It seems that virtually everyone is speaking today in favour of the bill and I hope we will have a speedy passage through the committee and through the various readings in the House.

The one issue that has been up for some discussion and which might be interesting to carry on was raised by Her Majesty's loyal opposition. It relates to the lack of types of sentencing on these particular crimes and perhaps in the justice system in Canada as a whole. As I mentioned earlier, I have concerns about some of the light sentences relating to the assault of women when it could ruin or destroy lives. I think members are very interested in discussing that issue.

I talked earlier about mandatory minimum sentences. It has been suggested that this particular bill, and it is the only amendment that anyone has proposed today so I should address it, is just not part of the general philosophy for general offences in Canada. There are 29 very serious offences where there are mandatory minimums and 11 more in our proposed Bill C-2. However in general it is not part of the justice system in Canada for several reasons.

First, it tends not to achieve the objectives, which is more protection and more rehabilitation of offenders. For instance, in the United States, where it has been tried, because there is a mandatory minimum what often happens is that people tend to use it as a maximum and it has ended up reducing the length of sentences which was not at all the intention of such a scheme.

Also, in Canada, rather than an arbitrary, very narrow view of sentencing, we have a very broad system of sentencing and options because there is a broad system of circumstances if one is making decisions in fairness both to the circumstances and to the productivity of the results. What Canadians and everyone else wants in a justice system are two things: protection from the offenders so that they do not offend again and rehabilitation. Not everything fits into narrow forms of incarceration limits and punishments, which is why the Canadian system of sentencing can be based on fairness with a variety of solutions to those problems.

If those are the only concerns about the bill I hope we will move very quickly. Everyone in the House agrees it is a very serious international offence. We do have some laws in place. We have some convictions. We have some other programs. We have information programs that are an important a part of our strategy. There is also prevention. It is much more effective to prevent this in the first place. It solves a lot of economic and human tragedies.

All these are part of a strategy and this particular bill is another sign to the international community and to the justice system that we take this offence very seriously. That is why we are setting out three new offences and specifically targeting this so that there is no way that offenders could escape prosecution for the serious offence in Canada that afflicts nations around the world.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Quite frankly, I have mixed feelings about that, Madam Speaker.

It was interesting when Bill C-2, the child protection bill, was working its way through the justice committee. We heard from a number of police officers who worked directly in the field, and prosecutors. I remember one from Toronto in particular. His entire career for the last 10 years or so was dealing with crimes against children particularly and trying to use the existing sections of the Criminal Code which talk about exploitation in the relationship of the two people involved in the sexual contact. He was very negative on his ability and the ability of the criminal justice system to gain convictions when we use terms like exploitive.

Our courts historically, going back through the British criminal justice system, have not been good at defining it, interpreting it and applying it so that we end up with convictions. I am a bit concerned about some of the wording that we have used in the bill. There is no question that in a number of these cases the relationship clearly is exploitive. In others it is simpler than that. It is slavery. It is slave labour that we are talking about. I cannot help but wonder if we could not make the wording somewhat clearer in those cases.

In the sex trade cases it is much more difficult. However, when people who work in the garment industry in New York City have been smuggled through Canada to get there, whether it is through Buffalo or Windsor, when we see that happening, it seems to me we can simply say that this is a form of slave labour. Perhaps we should be using that kind of terminology.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-49 comes out of a reality which I suppose none of us really want to accept.

I always think that I am optimistic in my viewpoint of humanity and progress in the world. One of the points I always make in that regard is that we conquered slavery, slavery that was part of any number of institutional and government makeups from time immemorial. We beat that one. We progressed. We outlawed slavery right across the world. Unfortunately, when we come to the question of human trafficking, the reality is that we have not. There still is a small part of the world, individuals mostly involved in organized crime, who are engaged in what in effect is slavery. There is no other way to look at it.

When I was looking at Bill C-49, I thought, do we really need this bill? There are provisions within the Criminal Code that would deal with what oftentimes is kidnapping, hostage taking, assaults, and more serious violent crimes against individuals. When we look at the scope of the problem, the ultimate conclusion we have to draw is that we do need the bill.

I cannot help but bring this home to my own riding. We have a major crossing in Windsor and Tecumseh and Essex County. In the last five to seven years we have had a series of incidents of trafficking in humans.

We so often hear about young women in particular, and sometimes young men but almost always young women, who are being trafficked for the purpose of the sex trade. But there are others who appear to be used to provide cheap slave labour in the garment industry, the farming industry, which is all in the U.S. There are even people in the service industry, in restaurants and hotels. These people work at way below minimum wage in working conditions that oftentimes are horrible. They are doing so because of threat to their personal safety and oftentimes threats to their family members in their country of origin. We have seen that.

We have had some tragedies in Windsor as a result of this type of crime. There is a train tunnel that crosses between Windsor and Detroit. In the last five to seven years I think there have been three deaths as people were being smuggled through the tunnel. We think at least on one occasion it was one of the smugglers who was killed. The other two were victims of these crimes.

We have seen from some of the victims who have been apprehended that they come from all over the world. They come from Asia, China, Vietnam and India.

As we heard earlier from the Bloc member, a large number of people, especially young women, come from the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Some come from the Middle East. Interestingly enough a number of people come from Central and South America. They come up to Canada usually by boat along Canada's shores and then they are smuggled into the United States as what in effect will be slave labour.

There is no question about the problem. We heard from the parliamentary secretary the figure of 700,000 people a year that are trafficked. I have heard figures as high as a couple of million. The problem is there. Canada is one of the countries that is a recipient of this trade, mostly as a conduit into the United States. We have to deal with this problem.

Turning specifically to the bill, we have to ask the question, does it properly address the creation of new crimes? It makes sense to make the offence of human trafficking a specific crime. It would be much easier for our prosecutors and our police forces to obtain convictions if there was a specific charge.

Similarly, the additional charge that is being created which would make receiving a material benefit a crime under our Criminal Code makes sense. That one is often very difficult to establish. It may be taken into account in the sentencing, but right now, simply by showing that somebody has trafficked in humans, perhaps in the form of kidnapping or hostage taking, and then trying to prove that it is a separate crime because one has received a material benefit does not exist in our Criminal Code. The creation of the additional charge makes sense.

Often the victims' passports, travel documents, visas, and personal identification documents are removed from them as another means of control. By creating that specific offence, as is done in this bill, it would attack that conduct and convert it into a serious criminal offence punishable by what I consider to be fairly severe penalties.

I suppose I am speaking not only to the other members of the justice committee who will be reviewing this bill but also to the Canadian people more specifically when I say that one does have to be careful. The bill has significant limitations in terms of how it would be used. In order for us to comprehend that, we have to understand the nature of these crimes.

The vast majority of these crimes are perpetrated by organized crime around the globe. Because of the nature of the traffic in this country, a great deal of that organized crime, and in particular the ringleaders of those crime syndicates are not here in Canada because the crime originates elsewhere, for example, in the former Soviet Union, in Vietnam, or in China. It is in the country of origin where the crime originates. That is where the organized crime head pins tend to be situated. A great deal of the traffic that goes on here is by underlings. I will not say that for the biker gangs which we know are involved in the trafficking in the sex trade. We know that a number of those principals are here in Canada. The bill, if passed into law, would be useful in getting at them. What we and the Canadian public have to appreciate is that we will not get at the kingpins who are elsewhere, whether they are in the United States, in Europe, or in Asia. We will not be able to get at them with this bill.

We do need to take a more proactive position internationally on combating crime at its source. At least since the second world war we have done a reasonably good job of interacting with Interpol in dealing with crimes that are coming out of Europe. We have not been nearly as successful in other parts of the world. That is something we need to work on.

I do not think it can be done with legislation. It is one of those things where as parliamentarians we like to think we can resolve all problems. Maybe the Conservatives do not believe that, but I think the rest of us from time to time think we can resolve all problems by passing laws in this House. This is one of those times when it is clear it is not. This problem is only going to resolve itself, and I say that probably in the majority of cases, by getting to the source back in the countries of origin. That means international cooperation with governments across the globe.

It also speaks to another point. I want to raise the issue of terrorism and the amount of effort we have put into combating that. We have learned a lot about how to prevent incursions into Canada, as the Americans have in the U.S., those ideas, those thoughts and those enforcement mechanisms that we have developed to fight the agent who is coming into Canada on a clandestine operation or the terrorist bent on committing a serious crime. We have become much better at getting at that.

We have not done the same at stopping the flow of human traffic, but we have learned. We can apply those same new thoughts, principles and mechanisms to help fight human trafficking, to stop it from happening in Canada.

We can only do that with international cooperation with police forces around the globe. A good deal is being done at the UN at this time. We have to insist that more be done by countries that look the other way when young women are trafficked out of the former Soviet Union or young workers out of China, Vietnam or India. When governments look the other way, when local police forces and local enforcement agencies look the other way, we have to call them on it. We have to tell them that this problem which originates in their countries is being foisted on us and we are prepared to deal with it here, but we should not have to deal with it, that it should be stopped before it gets to our shores. A great deal of work needs to be done on this issue by our foreign affairs department and through our security services internationally.

I would like to make one more small point with regard to Bill C-49. I have drawn this issue to the attention of the parliamentary secretary. One of the clauses in the legislation is probably going to be redundant, if it is not already, in that it has already been dealt with in Bill C-2, the child protection act which passed in the House and the Senate and is waiting final implementation. There are a couple of other technical matters in Bill C-49 which I have some concerns about as well.

The NDP will be supporting this bill subject to those minor changes, recognizing that it is not a panacea. It is not going to resolve half of the problems we are faced with in this country with respect to human trafficking. Our government has to do more at the international level to effectively combat this problem.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

So there are no minimum sentences, but the government has put in maximums that are never used.

That is nice language, but it gives Canadians a false sense that we are taking action when in fact we are not. That is what we object to on this side of the House.

We are concerned. I have had petitions come in from concerned citizens in my community who want to see the age of sexual consent raised. This is not about close-in-age relationships. It is not about grabbing those teenagers and throwing them in jail. That is not what it is about. It is about difference in age. It is about the adults who exploit our teenagers. This is a very significant concern in our communities.

We have gangs that are targeting our young girls. They are not even out of middle school yet. They are just at the age of puberty. Some of them are maturing early these days, but they have not had much life experience. We have gangs that are there, older young men with their fast cars, with their drugs, and they are trying to lure those young girls. They will buy them clothes; they will take them out for dinner and treat them like a queen. The same happens with young boys too, as a matter of fact. They will take them and seduce them. Once they have compromised their person and their sexuality, they will then use them.

We have heard examples of that. I will give an example from my own community. A man called who was really upset. He found out his 14-year-old daughter was in a motel room in one of the communities I serve. She was with a 21-year-old man from a neighbouring community, and they met on a chat line. Here is this 21-year old-who has this 14-year-old in the motel room. The man goes down madder than a hatter. His daughter is in there. His young girl was 13 and now she is 14. These are very young girls who are being exploited. The dad is pounding on the door of the motel office wanting to know what room they are in, and they call the police and the dad gets arrested.

Canadians are concerned about this, and my constituents are concerned about it. This man was very concerned. He could not believe this. No one in the community could believe that the man's 14-year-old daughter could be lured in there by someone who she met on an Internet chat line and the dad is the one who is in trouble with the law.

So our communities are concerned. As I said, I have had hundreds of signatures on petitions in my office that I have presented in the House on this issue and banners that have come in from others in other forms trying to get their concern expressed.

In Conservative Party policy we call it the age of protection. It is about protecting our young people from sexual predators.

I have already made the point about Bill C-2, which the member has said has all these maximums. Frankly, it becomes meaningless because maximums are simply not used.

There are many examples. There are exceptions made under the current law for children as young as 12 years old, as long as the person who abuses them is under the impression that they are at least 14 years old. There are so many loopholes in the law that it makes the lawyers happy, but it gets people off without any significant consequences.

My hon. colleague mentioned a 31-year-old man who travelled from the United States to Ottawa for the express purpose of having sexual relations with a 14-year-old boy. Again, it was an Internet relationship.

There are protections in the United States against crossing state borders and against crossing international borders for exploiting young people, but we do not have those protections here.

I know my time is short, but I want to commend my colleagues, the member for Lethbridge, the member for Wild Rose who spoke and had passion about this issue, and the member from Calgary.

We are concerned about this. It is surprising that the member from the NDP would accuse our members of using emotion in this debate. It is an emotional issue. Our young people are being abused by adults who target them for sexual exploitation and we need to take action to stop it.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to see the member leaving, because I wanted to address her remarks.

She will hear them from inside, she says.

What is disturbing on this side is that the hon. member comes forward to extoll the virtues of Bill C-2, which has just passed, which does not deal with the age of sexual consent that this private member's bill, Bill C-313, addresses, raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16.

Members on the opposite side simply do not want to deal with that issue. The member makes a great point of talking about how the government has raised these maximum penalties, and she gave a list of all the things it has raised the maximums on. It is hard to find a single case in the last five years where maximum penalties have ever been used for anything. It makes good rhetoric, but there is no substance.

I asked what are the minimums--

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to recognize the hard work that does go into private members' legislation. I had the pleasure to work with the member opposite from Lethbridge when I chaired the finance committee and he was a member of that committee. He does hard work and I respect him as an individual. I know that every good intention was put into this legislation.

I currently work on aboriginal affairs as the parliamentary secretary. In the last Parliament, before the election, I was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice. And before I hear the catcalls, yes, I was a lawyer for 15 years in a previous career. I enjoyed that, and I bring that training to this Parliament too. I also taught law at the local university part time and also for the bar admissions.

That is not what this is about. This discussion today is to try to come to grips with the activity of teenagers and differentiating that from criminal activity that occurs as the sexual exploitation of children, which we are all concerned about.

Many times over the last dozen years while I have been in this Parliament I have heard that we have been delaying this. I want to take people back to the point before the last Parliament, when I stood up in this chamber many times, in fact day after day, trying to get what is now Bill C-2, which is the act to amend the Criminal Code, protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act, through this Parliament then.

This Parliament just passed Bill C-2, which gave major protections on the subject matter we are talking about. It could have been passed in the prior Parliament. I will say what happened here, because I need to refresh, and maybe the people who were not here at that time need to be advised that that bill had basically the same format. Now there have been a few minor changes as it travelled through this time around in committee.

Basically, that bill was subject to a procedural hoist motion, which means it was postponed. It was postponed by the opposition and we did not get that bill. That bill not only had sections respecting the protection of children and child pornography, it had voyeurism sections. It also had really important sentencing sections, and it had the facilitating of testimony for children, so they did not get retraumatized when they had to go through the court system.

We are not in any party of this House immune from what happens to our children. I am a mother. I have a 16-year-old. I have kids in university too. We are all trying to do the right thing. But we cannot take that “I am better than you” position. What we have to do is look at this in an objective way and look at not only the good a piece of legislation can do, but also the unintended consequences that could affect our children for a long time.

That is why I am very much in favour, when we look at criminal activity, of looking at the activity of the person doing that activity and judging that. That is what Bill C-2 did, and it is now in the Senate.

I know what the hon. member's intention was to do here. It was to allow that close-in-age exception for an accused who is 12 or more but under 16. The reality in homes across this country is that we have teenagers who could get into trouble with this bill, serious trouble that will affect them. It will give them a criminal record and it will affect their ability to get into college or university or to get into employment with the government, or a whole pile of other things.

I am not only talking about the trauma of what happens, but under this bill as it is currently written, I want to give members the scenario of what could happen.

Under Bill C-313, a 15-year-old boy could engage in consensual sexual activity with his 14-year-old girlfriend, but on the day of his 16th birthday the boy would be committing a sexual offence even if he kissed his girlfriend. Remember, we are not talking rape here. Rape is rape, and that is a criminal offence and it does not matter at what age. What we are gathering inside this net is something that was not intended.

We have to be very careful, because when you take a net widening in the Criminal Code, you put not only all of those emotional situations on the children involved and the parents, but you have financial implications in the criminal justice system and the social service system. That is what happens when you get that scenario of the charging prosecution.

I used to work with young children in the court system, and it is not easy when they go there. It is certainly not easier on their parents and their guardians. We have to be concerned, and we have to do this in a logical manner.

The member who spoke before me talked about Bill C-2. I will go to Bill C-2 because the section the hon. member's bill tries to get at is in Bill C-2. It is already there. It just passed this House; it is in the Senate. As I said, it could have passed in the last Parliament if it had not been hoisted by the opposition, because they did not want this bill before they went into an election.

Bill C-2 proposes the creation of a new prohibition to better protect youth against sexual exploitation. Under the prohibition, courts would be directed to infer that a relationship with a young person is exploitative of the young person by looking to the nature and circumstances of that relationship, including specific indicators of exploitation. Those indicators could involve a number of things. First is the age of the person. Obviously the younger, the more there is a presumption of exploitation. Next is the age difference between the child and the accused. Obviously the greater number of years between their ages, the child's age and the accused's age, the greater the amount of exploitation that could probably be inferred, especially if it is a person in a position of trust. Another is the evolution of the relationship, how the fact situation in that particular situation occurred. Then there is the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person. These are all elements that the criminal mind has to be apprised of, that the court has to look at, and in actual fact it gives a greater amount of probability of success in the conviction of a true exploitation. It eliminates that situation where you could have young people doing things that maybe as a parent I do not want my 16- or 14-year-old doing, but, ladies and gentlemen, they are doing them, and that is reality.

We live in a real world where teenage youth in this country are engaging in something every day. It might not be what we want, but it is also not criminal activity--not criminal activity with lifelong criminal sanctions. I think we have to deal with that.

I want to talk about the benefits that were in Bill C-2, which just passed. These were some of the additions that were put in Bill-2. It proposed significant reforms to ensure that sentencing in cases involving the abuse and sexual exploitation of children better reflects the serious nature of crimes. And this was just passed. This work was done. It is complete in this House. It is now in the Senate. It increased the maximum penalties on summary conviction for child-specific offences from six to 18 months. It doubled the maximum penalty on indictment for sexual exploitation of a young person from five to 10 years. That is serious time in our system of justice. It increased the maximum penalty on indictment for failure to provide the necessities of life and for abandonment of a child from two to five years. And it increases the maximum penalty on summary conviction for all child pornography offences from six to 18 months. That is what was done. I do not want anybody in Canada to believe that this House has not been paying attention to these issues.

Why did we do Bill C-2? The Speech from the Throne committed to crack down on child pornography. It proposed criminal law reforms that strengthen child pornography and sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code, and it created a new category called sexual exploitation. In other words, something was added to the Criminal Code that focused on this particular activity that should not be occurring with our children in this country. It facilitated testimony by children and other vulnerable victims and witnesses, those with an impairment of some type, and it created new voyeurism. Those little photo cameras? There is now a criminal offence that goes with those cameras and any voyeurism offence.

I think we have done a good job in Bill C-2. I am very pleased it passed the House this time. I wish it would have passed over a year ago, as it could easily have done if we had not been so interested in delaying it so that another party could claim victory down the road.

I am not going to take anything away from the member who worked on this bill, because I know him and I know what he is trying to accomplish. I just do not think that this bill is complete enough, and it creates as many problems as it could solve in this country.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill C-313. I appreciate the fact, with all sincerity, that my colleagues on this side of the House, at least, have offered their support for this particular bill.

I have personally introduced several times a similar bill to raise the age of consent. It is something in the neighbourhood of six times. The member from Lethbridge, of course, was higher up on the order paper in private members' business and was kind enough to put it on his agenda. The member from Wild Rose, of course, has also fought this particular issue since he here in 1993. Both members have concerns for what has unfolded in the streets of our country when it comes to the age of sexual consent.

I have listened to the members on the opposite side, including the member who just spoke from the NDP. This is not the sky-is-falling type of situation he seems to portray in his delivery, although I would have to say that there is a sense of urgency to this matter, given the fact that law enforcement, for instance, has been trying to deal with issues around the age of sexual consent. It has been trying to help the parents whose children have left the nest, if you will, for whatever reason, and are being manipulated, enticed by those unsavoury characters who think nothing of exploiting a young girl, sometimes a young boy, who may be 14 years of age.

I think on that particular issue alone this bill should proceed and should not be delayed any more by red herrings that have been thrown into this debate by members on the opposite side of the bench.

I would ask my colleagues to quickly act to protect children of this country. I say “quickly” with a sense of optimism, for once. That certainly does not have its basis on past performance of the government or other members in the House. I have risen in the House on numerous occasions to debate the bill, as I had mentioned before, all with the express purpose in mind of ensuring that our children were protected.

I am not about to get into the legalese, and there have been lawyers speaking on this issue time and time again, about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable on the legal side of things, but there have been judgments made in the courts of this land that take precedence and address all of the concerns that have been expressed here.

The NDP member says that we on this side want to deal only with emotion when it comes to this issue. Well, let us look at it from the other side of the coin here. There is a reality that is happening out there that members on the opposite side have not come to grasp yet.

They have not grasped the reality of what is really happening out there in the world. They are looking at things through rose-coloured glasses, where 14 year old girls often run away, who are being exploited time and time again by manipulative older men, and all in the name of sexual consent. The police cannot touch them and take them out of that very trying situation and bring them back home because the argument, as put forward, is that they consented, so it is out of police jurisdiction and they cannot do anything about it. That is the reality.

This has been the case throughout the years that I can remember and as long as I have been a police officer. Prior to this job, that is exactly what I did for a living. Cases of this matter were brought before the courts. Even when it came to the judgment of police officers looking at two teenage kids involved in sexual activity, the courts already set precedents in the matter.

It does not have to deal with a red herring section that the NDP says is missing in this legislation, a red herring that the Liberals, and now the NDP, are acting upon saying that children who will engage in sexual activity will suddenly be criminalized. The courts have already decided that. Precedents have already been set.

What these members are now saying, to divert attention from the bill and its effectiveness, is that this provision of charging and criminalizing youngsters for sexual activity is not included in the bill and is not going to protect them. That is a bunch of nonsense. I am absolutely surprised as to how the NDP member can even suggest that. I believe that member is a lawyer, is he not? He is a lawyer and should know better. Shame on him because he should know better, as should the Liberals.

This is not new. These red herrings have been thrown into the debate, not by us, not by those law enforcement officers across this country, not by the parents who grieve because they cannot get their children out of the clutches of adult men, but by the Liberals. They have chosen to throw this into the mix, and deflect away from the real purpose of why this legislation is here before us.

I would like to touch on a couple of rather odd instances that I do not believe the Liberal's Bill C-2 legislation for the protection of children will address. There was one situation that came up with a Mr. Beckham out of Texas, a 31 year old man who had lured an Ottawa boy to a hotel room for sex. It just shows where we are at here with our legislation and the fact that the members on that side of the House, the governing party, never intended to ever address.

Under Canadian law, 14 year olds, and everyone knows it because this is what the debate is all about, are qualified to consent to sex, unless they, of course, are with a person of trust or authority, or unless it is anal sex in which case the Criminal Code says everyone involved has to be 18 or older.

That law, the latter part of what I just read there about anal sex, has been ruled unconstitutional by two Canadian courts already. Guess what is going to happen? Do members think that this law will ever be challenged and put into the right perspective by the government? No. The government has consistently gone the other way. It has consistently rejected the common good when it comes to our youngsters, and it will not challenge it.

Canada's basic law regarding age of consent is 14 for non-anal sex, so as not to criminalize most sex acts between teenagers. Now, the law even allows for children as young as 12 to consent to sex in some circumstances. That is the law. Do you see the trend, Madam Speaker? It is going the other way. It is not reaching out to protect those youngsters. It is going the other way and opening the door so more of them can be exploited, as young as 12. I think that is absolutely shameful.

Given that trend, given that concern raised by so many people in this country, and given the fact that the government here has no intention of protecting our children, with all the rhetoric and red herrings, we can tell that the government is not serious about this particular bill. This is the concern we have on this side of the House.

I know this is the concern that law enforcement officers in this nation have. I ask all members in this House to rethink their position, especially on that side of the House. For the sake of our children, support this bill. Get behind it.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I feel like a broken record because, as the member for Wild Rose has already mentioned, the Conservative Party has spoken to this issue repeatedly and as recently as yesterday. I spoke against the private member's motion yesterday and I am speaking against Bill C-313 for basically the same reasons.

The first thing I want to say to the Conservative Party is that if it perhaps got its act together maybe we could deal with the age of consent. When it does this holus-bolus, scattergun approach it just does not work and it will not get the support of the rest of the members of the House.

I want to acknowledge the work that its member for Provencher did with regard to Bill C-2. He did some significant work on dealing with the age of consent and introducing amendments that I was prepared to support as a member of the justice committee for my party and in fact did support the amendments. The Liberals and the Bloc chose not to support them and to go on with this methodology that they have used.

I want to touch on this. I do not think the Conservatives get it. They have to get their act together. They can respond with emotion, yell in the House and try to shame the rest of us into doing it, but if they practically dealt with the problem maybe we could reach a resolution.

We really are talking about social engineering. Until the late 1800s, the age of consent in Canada was 12 years of age. We raised that in the early 1900s and have not touched it since then, except playing with it in a few areas with regard to specific offences.

What began happening in the late 1960s through to the late 1970s was that successive governments, mostly Liberal but, quite frankly, some Conservative, at the federal level began to tinker with it. The option they went for was the exploitative dependency relationship.

In the course of the witnesses and evidence we heard on Bill C-2, we heard from a number of police officers and, more important , from a number of prosecutors who dealt with the sections that were based on the relationship being of an exploitative nature.

What they told us repeatedly from both their own experiences and that of other prosecutors across the land was that the methodology, if I can put it that way, in social engineering simply did not work. They could not get convictions. It was just too difficult to prove.

I was convinced at that time by the witnesses, I have to say, and not by the Conservatives on the committee, that in fact we should be looking at using a different methodology.

The basic problem we have of fixing rigid ages, and we heard it from the Liberal member who preceded me, is the risk of criminalizing a large number of our youth. I am going to throw some numbers out because it is something the Conservatives did not do.

We the following are some figures we asked for and received. There are roughly 800,000 youth in the country at any given time who are 14 and 15 years of age. Of them, close to 50%, are engaging in sexual relations. Of the ones who are engaging in sexual relations, roughly 41% of them are engaging in sexual relations with an older person. It does not matter whether it is male or female. This is something that changed from my generation because it tended to be and still is the stereotype we hear from the Conservatives that it is always the male who is the older person.

The reality is that it is almost exactly equal. Of the 50%, and we are talking now about 150,000 to 180,000 youth, 41% are engaged in a relationship where the age gap between them is more than two years but less than five. We have an additional group of almost 5% who are engaged in a relationship with an individual who is six years or older than they are.

This is where I want to acknowledge the work of the member for Provencher from the Conservative Party. He brought forth an amendment that said we are going to put into the Criminal Code the age of consent by fixing it at 16 from 14, which is where it is now, but we are going to allow a defence to the other youth engaged in the relationship if the age gap is five years or less.

When I saw that, I thought that was a reasoned approach on his part. However, I do not see that in Bill C-313 and I did not see any concept of that in the motion yesterday. Those members just did not do their work. They are quite prepared to criminalize as many as 100,000 youth for engaging in sexual contact. Those are our children. They are not the pimps in downtown Toronto. Those are kids who go to our schools. And they are going to criminalize them.

So when the member for Wild Rose gets up and says, “Shame on you”, I repeat that back to him and to his party. If they got their facts straight and they dealt with this, as they have tried to do, based entirely on emotion, it is never going to go any place. If they did it on facts, if they took a proper and reasoned approach to this, got away from the emotion and feeding their own egos, maybe we could get this problem resolved.

Our party supports the member for Provencher. We could not convince the Bloc or the Liberals to do it, and I blame the Conservatives for that. If they had over the years taken a more reasoned approach, we probably could have brought some of them on side and we could have got that bill, Bill C-2, back to this House with an age of consent and that age differential defence in it. We could have passed it.

That bill, by the way, is before the Senate right now. It may in fact have passed in the last day or two, I am not sure. So we could have actually had it in place. But because the opposition wanted to deal with emotion, we did not get it through.

One of the other things they did not consider was that we still have a problem even if we do fix the age at 16 and we put in the near age defence. We would have a constitutional problem between ourselves and the provinces. One of the territories still has the marrying age set at 15. We are going to have this anomaly if we fix the age of consent at 16. We are going to have people in the north who can get married at the age of 15, but be charged if they engage in a sexual relationship with their husband or wife.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join in the debate of Bill C-313, an act to amend the Criminal Code, prohibited sexual acts.

Bill C-313 has as its purported objective enhanced protection for young persons against sexual exploitative or predatory conduct.

As I understand the arguments advanced in support of the bill, it seeks primarily to better protect some youth, namely 14 and 15 year olds, against sexual predatory conduct by adults and it is premised on the belief that our existing laws and proposed reforms do not adequately protect youth against this kind of conduct.

The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, April 2005 Juristat, “Children and Youth as Victims of Violent Crime”, recently reported that children and youth accounted for 61% of all victims of sexual assault reported to police and that half the sexual assault victims under the age of six were assaulted by a family member. Sexual assaults against children and youth were committed by strangers in only 5% of these reported cases, with the majority of the victims aged 14 to 17.

We must remain vigilant to ensure that our criminal laws are current and responsive to all forms of sexual abuse and exploitation of children and youth, and so I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate.

Would Bill C-313 better protect children and youth against this type of sexual abuse and exploitation? We should recall that under the existing Criminal Code protections against sexual assault, any non-consensual sexual activity, regardless of age, is a sexual assault. It is also important to understand that all of our existing prohibition against sexual assault, including the child specific sexual offences, apply to all sexual activity ranging from sexual touching, such as kissing, to sexual intercourse.

The Criminal Code does in fact protect children and youth against sexual exploitation, specifically it already prohibits sexual exploitative or predatory conduct toward children and youth under 18 years where it involves prostitution, pornography or where it involves a relationship of trust, authority or dependency.

As well, the Criminal Code already prohibits the use of the Internet for the purposes of communicating with a child to commit a sexual offence against that child.

Looking at Bill C-313, we see that it purports to strengthen these protections only for 14 and 15 year olds, only for some offences and only by focusing on the apparent consent of these young persons.

Bill C-313 seeks to provide this additional protection by increasing the age of consent for non-exploitative sexual activity from 14 to 16 years for some but not all related offences. It does not, for example, propose to amend section 172.1, Internet luring, even though such conduct has been identified as some of the predatory conduct that Bill C-313 is intended to better address.

It also does not propose to amend section 810.1 of the Criminal Code, which is a preventive measure that enables the court to prohibit a person from attending places frequented by children under 14 years or from using the Internet to communicate with children under 14 years where there is a reasonable ground to believe that person may commit a sexual offence against a child.

In raising the age of consent, Bill C-313 would also expand the existing close in age exception for 12 and 13 year olds to include 14 and 15 year olds. In doing so, it would maintain the existing prerequisite conditions that the other person must be less than two years older and under 16 years of age and that there cannot be any relationship of trust, authority or dependency. The apparent intent with this amendment is to allow close in age peers to engage in consensual sexual activity and yet this peer group exception would result in criminalization of consensual peer sexual activity.

For example, under the proposed exception in Bill C-313, a 15 and a half year old girl could engage in sexual activity with her 15 year old boyfriend but she would be prohibited from doing so on the day of her 16th birthday. Under Bill C-313, what was legal on one day between two consenting teenage peers, would become illegal on the next.

In contrast, the government's response to this issue, which we find in Bill C-2, the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, would provide increased protection against sexual exploitation to all youth between 14 and 18 years of age without criminalizing typical consensual sexual activity.

Bill C-2 focuses on the wrongful conduct of persons who exploit or prey upon vulnerable young persons and not on whether the young person consented to that act. Bill C-2 would do this by requiring the courts to infer that a relationship with the young person is exploitive of that young person by looking to the nature and circumstances of that relationship. The bill would direct the courts to consider specific indicators of exploitation, including the age of the young person, any difference in age between the young person and the other person, the evolution of the relationship and the degree of control or influence exerted over the young person. In other words, Bill C-2 accepts that there are different indicators of exploitation.

The chronological age of the young person is one such indicator. Bill C-2 tells the courts to consider this factor, but there are others. For example, if the other person is much older than the young person, this is likely an indicator that the relationship is exploitive of the young person. Bill C-2 tells the courts to consider this age difference.

How the relationship evolved is another factor. For example, did it evolve secretly and quickly over the Internet. Bill C-2 tells the court to consider this as well.

Bill C-2 is the way we will be able to better protect all young persons against predatory and exploitive conduct, not Bill C-313. For those reasons I do not support Bill C-313.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have a change of subject for a few minutes with this private member's bill which is once again before House. It is an effort by this party through our member for Lethbridge and in conjunction with our member for Calgary Northeast and me. We have made proposals in regard to raising the age of consent from 14 to 16.

It is fairly good timing to talk about this particular bill, because what I have heard all day about on that side of the House is rights. The Liberals are really concerned about rights, particularly with the issue that is before the House today and which we will be voting on tonight. They keep talking about how important rights are.

I listened to TV just a few moments ago. I was watching the Don Newman show and there was our Prime Minister talking about rights, saying a right is a right. Rights: that is what we are all about, he said, and we are going to protect rights.

I have been here 12 years during which there have been several attempts by this side of the House to have the age of consent raised, because, as members know, when 14 year olds or 15 year olds decide they want to live with an adult, they have the right to make that decision. Guess what, though: the parents of those 14 year olds and 15 year olds have no rights at all in trying to get them out of a possibly very dangerous situation, or a very sad situation, when they are living with an adult twice their age or older.

The parents do not have the rights. I want to express that. The reason they do not have the rights is that time after time this Liberal government has rejected raising the age of consent. The Liberals have done it again with the latest bill, Bill C-2, the child protection act, when they would not amend the bill to raise the age of consent. The Liberals do not allow the parents to have the right to have a say on what to do with a child who is 14 or 15 years old who makes the decision because the age of consent law allows it. That is pretty hypocritical, if you ask me, Madam Speaker.

We talk about grandparents' rights. I know that every member in the House has had to talk to grandparents who have had trouble with access to their grandchildren because they do not have that right under the divorce and separation laws, which the government has had the opportunity to fix time after time. It has refused to do that. The Liberals do not want to give the grandparents the right.

The Liberals talk about rights all day long. They talk about how important it is to protect the rights. I have never seen once, anywhere, that marriage was a right, but I sure have seen a lot of cases where not only it is a right to protect our children, it is essential. It is a responsibility. We are not allowing these parents to take care of their responsibility because they do not have the right to do it. There is something wrong with this whole big picture.

Child pornography is another “right”. We have to protect them with artistic merit because the courts say so; some judge sitting somewhere in some courtroom made a decision that there could be some artistic merit. The right of protecting the children, the children's right to be safe from that evil stuff, is not fully protected because the government believes they should not have that right. It continually gives defences to the people who are engaged in this activity.

I am really sick and tired of hearing people continually rising on that side of the House and talking about the rights, the rights and how important the rights are. I can point to dozens of things that we have seen over the last 12 years on which the government has refused to give the right to certain individuals who should have that right, particularly when it comes to protecting our kids and those most vulnerable.

I have been in education for 30 years. I have been dealing mainly with children through the teenage years. I can tell members that there is a big difference between a child who is 14 and a child who has reached the age of 16. There is a lot of maturity in those two years. The age of consent should probably be even higher, and the children older, but if these people would just come to their senses we would settle for 16.

The Liberals do not recognize the fact that there are parents across the country who are fit to be tied because they have absolutely no way to get their children out of these situations they are engaged in, which in some cases are extremely dangerous. The Liberals have something wrong with their heads.

We have brought this before the House time and again. Who rejects it? Who votes against it? It is the people who are professing “rights” all day and all week long on another issue. It is double-talk, it is hypocritical and it is absolutely a shame that it continues day after day.

Indians on a reserve do not have a right to an ombudsman, Madam Speaker. You do. Everyone in this House does and every Canadian does, but for those living on a reserve there is no right to an ombudsman. A bill was brought before the House that would have given those people that same right, that same equality. Who rejected it? The Liberal Party rejected it. Many of the NDP rejected that same proposal.

Age of Consent

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the debate on Motion No. 221, which proposes to restrict sexual activity between adolescents and adults by amending the Criminal Code to raise the age of consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years of age.

We all recognize the importance of providing increased protection to youth against sexual exploitation or predatory conduct. However, I do not believe that Motion No. 221 can meaningfully and effectively achieve this objective.

The government's approach to this issue, very seriously reflected in Bill C-2, protection of children and other vulnerable persons, is more comprehensive, more effective and far more responsive to this serious issue. While Motion No. 221 proposes raising the age at which a young person can consent to be exploited, the government's position is clear. We do not accept that young persons can ever consent to being exploited.

Bill C-2 proposes to provide all youth between 14 and 18, not just 14 and 15-year-olds, with enhanced protection against sexual exploitation through the creation of a new prohibition. The new prohibition would require the courts to infer that a relationship with a young person is exploitative of that a young person by looking to the nature and circumstances of that relationship.

The bill would require the court to consider specific indicators of exploitation of each young person, including the age of the young person, any difference in age between the young person and the other person, the evolution of the relationship and the degree of control or influence exerted over the young person.

A number of reasons have been cited in support of Motion No. 221 for raising the age of consent. For example, young persons need to be better protected against being lured for a sexual purpose of the Internet. The Criminal Code was amended in 2002 for exactly that: to create a new prohibition against the use of the Internet to lure a child for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against that child.

The proposed new prohibition against sexual exploitation in Bill C-2 will further strengthen this protection. It directs the court to specifically consider the evolution of the relationship, which could include, for example, whether it evolved secretly over the Internet.

Another reason cited in support of raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age for non-predatory or non-exploitative sexual activity is that it would better protect these youth against being recruited into the sex trade or prostitution related activities.

This is difficult to understand because the age of consent for exploitative sexual conduct, including for prostitution, is already 18 years of age. I do not see how raising the age of consent for non-exploitative conduct from 14 to 16 years can better protect youth in this regard. Moreover, not only is the age of this conduct already 18 years, but the existing penalty for this type of conduct is very significant. Under subsection 212(2.1) of the Criminal Code, anyone who uses force or the threat of force to coerce a young person into prostitution faces a mandatory minimum penalty of five years imprisonment, up to a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

Another reason given in support of Motion No. 221 is that 14 and 15 year olds are too immature to make informed choices about whether to engage in sexual activity and with whom they should engage in such activity.

Consider how the existing criminal law treats and recognizes the developing maturity and capacity of young persons. 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 non-exploitative sexual activity is 14 years. The age of consent to exploitative or predatory sexual activity is 18 years.

While it is true that society uses other non-criminal measures to regulate other aspects of the conduct young persons, it would be completely inept to compare, for example, the regulation of when a young person is allowed to drive a car to the criminalization of a young person's engagement in consensual, non-exploitative sexual activity.

I am sure there are many views on what age and under what circumstances young persons should engage in sexual activity. The fact is young persons do engage in sexual activity. On May 3, Statistics Canada's publication, The Daily, reported that by the age of 14 or 15, about 13% of Canadian adolescents have had sexual intercourse. The figure for boys and girls was similar, 12% and 13% respectively. Presumably, they are engaging in other forms of sexual activity at an even earlier age.

How should we respond to this? I believe we should be responding strongly through education, by providing more and better sex education and counselling to young persons to discourage this behaviour. This is far more realistic and has greater potential to protect our young people. We should respond to this by criminalizing those persons who seek out and exploit young persons instead of criminalizing young persons themselves for engaging in sexual activity.

Motion No. 221 focuses on the conduct of the young person. It focuses on their consent to be sexually exploited and it ignores the reality that young persons do engage in sexual activity, from kissing to sexual intercourse. Motion No. 221 would criminalize such typical consensual sexual activity between a 15 and a half year old boy and 16 or 17 year old girlfriend.

As I said at the outset, although I strongly support the objective of providing increased protection to youth against sexual exploitation, I do not support Motion No. 221 because it does not achieve this objective. The bottom line is that Bill C-2 is comprehensive and goes further to protect our young people.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

The member keeps prattling on about wanting a copy my speech. This is all being recorded and perhaps he should be made aware that in fact he can get a copy when I am finished.

The other point that needs to be raised here with regard to this motion is that there is also about 6% of the age group that are beyond the five year differential. We are also looking at potentially criminalizing those, but the determination was made, and rightfully so, that the age gap of five years was the appropriate one. It reflected the reality of what is occurring in terms of defending it, but at the same time it is saying that once a person moves beyond that five year age gap it becomes a statutory prohibition and will be subject to criminal penalty as a result.

I want to make one additional point that came up repeatedly in the debate in the justice committee around the age of consent. We have already heard from the member from Mississauga that the government's position, supported by the Bloc, was that the exploitive dependency relationship is the one we have to prohibit. I analyzed that from the perspective of asking what in fact is happening now, because various Criminal Code sections now use the same type of analysis and Criminal Code framework to prohibit this type of relationship.

However, we heard repeatedly from crown prosecutors, some of whom prosecute only criminal offences involving sexual activity, and from a number of the police forces that this methodology, this infrastructure of the Criminal Code, in fact does not work. It simply is not a methodology that can be used with any type of reasonable success in our criminal justice system.

As I say, we heard that repeatedly. As a result of that evidence from the prosecutors and police forces at various levels in the country, it seemed obvious that the government had to shift its position. Unfortunately, it was not prepared to do that at the justice committee. Those amendments failed because of the positions of the government and the Bloc in opposing them.

I believe that debate has to continue. Bill C-2 is now waiting for royal assent, I believe. It went through. Perhaps I should point out that it was with our agreement and the agreement of the Conservatives that it was put into play.

What is going to happen now? There will be a review after five years, I believe, and we will then have to come back and find solid proof that what the prosecutors, the crown attorneys, and the police officers were telling us is in fact true: that it is not going to be effective in dealing with those cases where there are exploitation and dependency, the classic of the young person being exploited, oftentimes right into prostitution.

I firmly believe that the system now being put in place is not going to work and that we will be back here in five or six years and will move to what the Conservative justice critic moved at that time, which we supported. I believe that very strongly.

In conclusion, I want to make one final point. The decision of making this move has to be put in the proper context of dealing with the age of consent. The reality is that when we look at other jurisdictions that have moved to increase the age of consent there has not been a significant increase in the number of convictions, even when they were very solid in what the age of consent should be.

What it has some effect on, and perhaps this is the most positive thing we can expect, is that there has been a communication by the legislature of that jurisdiction of its disapproval. I will not say it is significant, but it has had some effect on lowering the sexual activity among our youth.

We heard from psychologists during the course of the committee hearings that most youth, particularly those who are 14 or 15 years of age, are not in a position to properly judge whether they are ready for full sexual activity. By communicating this as a legislature, we have some impact on those youth. Again, it is not significant in terms of overall percentages, but it does communicate from us as legislators the need for them to perhaps have second thoughts about what type of sexual activity they will be engaged in.

For that reason, we believe that the age of consent should be raised so long as we have that defence ingrained.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pass on my thanks to the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for bringing the motion forward. It is a timely motion, given the government's failure to adequately address this most serious problem. Many advocacy groups across the country, certainly in my riding, have been asking the government to take serious measures on the issue. As usual, we have seen a dithering government and justice department fail to actually do anything concrete.

The hon. member for Mississauga South talked about the government's own bill, Bill C-2. Bill C-2 fails in many respects. Most notably, it fails to protect a vulnerable category of children, those aged 14 to 16, from the grasp of sexual predators. Children at these ages can easily become the target of people on the Internet and of neighbourhood offenders who seek out vulnerable children to do them harm. Every day parents are horrified to learn that Canadian law fails to provide them with a legal recourse.

In most democracies, including the United Kingdom, Australia and most American states, adults are prohibited from having sexual relationships with children less than 16 and sometimes even 17 years of age. In Canada, a child may legally consent to sex with an adult at age 14.

The member for Mississauga South talked about how the current legislation deals with exploitative measures such as prostitution, pornography and other things. I would suggest to that member that this definition of exploitation is too narrow. We all know that children at 14 and 15 years of age are susceptible to types of exploitation that are not listed in the bill.

We can image a 35 or 45 year old adult who preys on young persons, manipulating their minds and certain circumstances. We can think of many examples where young women in poor households in poor neighbourhoods are being groomed, a term used among child care workers, where adults buy gifts for children, take them to the movies and show them a side of life that maybe they do not see in their neighbourhoods in an attempt to lure them back to their homes to do them evil.

Under the current definition for legal consent for sexual relationships, a young boy or girl of perhaps 14 or 15 years of age can legally give that consent. In other words, the adult would be off the hook. However, is that young person really giving consent or is he or she just falling victim to the circumstances that the adult predator is basically manipulating?

Many child advocacy groups, provincial attorneys general, premiers, the RCMP and countless other organizations are calling on the government to immediately raise the age of consent. In fact, the former attorney general for the province of British Columbia and the current member for Vancouver South got together with the justice ministers from the other provinces and territories, and unanimously agreed that the age of consent should be raised to 16. Now that this hon. member is a federal politician and serves the Crown, his resolve on this issue appears to have waned.

The Liberals' reasoning for not raising the age of sexual consent is the worry that changing the law may criminalize sexual activity between young people, but that is a red herring. It is another excuse for not addressing fundamental problems in society. There are many other jurisdictions that have close in age provisions where young teenagers who are sexually active, classmates who have sex, for example, would not be subject to the same criminal prosecution.

Some hon. members opposite do not think this is a serious debate and would rather discuss perhaps corporate advertising. On April 23, 2002, the Canadian Alliance put forward a motion calling on the government to raise the age of consent for sexual activity from 14 to 16. Members of the NDP and the Liberal Party voted against and ultimately defeated the motion. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona said in the House:

When the day comes that we have that kind of debate in here and we go after the corporations for the way in which they are constantly, every day, in every house, on every TV set exploiting sexuality, then we will have a real debate on our hands.

This is a real debate. This is not something we should ignore and talk about something else straight away. This is an important issue for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, and for thousands of parents and families who want their children to have protection.

The security and safety of our children is a serious debate. All Canadian children should be protected from sexual exploitation by an adult before they are even old enough to drive a car. However, it would appear that this is not the case according to the Liberal-NDP coalition.

Canada's Criminal Code already permits children younger than 14 year of age to consent to sexual acts as long as their partners are less than two years older than they are. This close in age provision is already in the Criminal Code.

Rather than a straightforward, effective position on raising the age of consent to 16 years of age, Bill C-2 would create a situation where a judge would be obliged to consider a complicated test in evaluating the sexual relationship between a child as young as 14. This test would involve the consideration of criteria including the age difference between the accused and the young person, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence the adult had over the young person.

Neither the existing Canadian law nor the proposals in Bill C-2 effectively address the sexual exploitation of children under the age of 16 by adults. Only by raising the age of consent can the law truly protect children.

I applaud groups such as Beyond Borders and Child Find that are bringing concerns such as these into the public domain. They have been fighting for the rights of children across Canada and should be commended for their fight on this issue. They realize that childhood is too precious to be taken away. It is my hope that with the help of advocacy groups across Canada and with the will of the House the age of consent will be raised.

Concerned parents have come into my office and talked about situations they have heard about either firsthand or secondhand involving young teenagers 14 and 15 years old who have been taken advantage of by an adult. I have to explain to them that under Canada's existing laws the justice system is incapable of addressing that problem. Sexual predators, 45, 50 or 60 years old, are within their legal rights to engage in sexual activity with a 14 or 15 year old. Many examples of adult exploitation of young children have already been mentioned.

The Liberal definition of sexual exploitation is too narrow. I would contend that a 14 or 15 year old child cannot legally give consent in many circumstances because of the different ways adults can entice them to engage in this activity. For instance, adults can groom young people, entice them, and spend a lot of time luring them away from their families and into their homes. A lot of documentation has been provided which shows people use the Internet to prowl and find young children who are susceptible to this.

I have spoken with police officers in my riding who have told me that they do not have the tools to fight this sort of thing. That has always been a problem with the Liberal government. It does not give our police officers the tools they need to make our neighbourhoods safe, to protect our young children from a serious blight in our society, adults who prey on young and vulnerable children.

I would like to thank my colleague for putting the motion forward. It is something that this party has been advocating for a long time because we listen to families. We listen to parents who are concerned about the safety of their children. We listen to police organizations that fight the front line fights, who go through the justice system and find flaws in our legislation. They talk to us and we listen to them. We listen to the advocacy groups that are concerned about the quality of life in our neighbourhoods and the safety of our children.

We listen to all those groups, but the Liberals do not. I do not know who they are listening to. I do not know who is setting the policy directives in the justice department who would argue against protecting 14 and 15 year old children from this class of predator. Anyone who preys on young children is the lowest form of criminal.

I do not know who the Liberals are listening to, but the Conservative Party is listening to ordinary Canadians, to families and police organizations. We will continue to listen to them. We will continue to propose legislation that will make our neighbourhoods safer.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the last 45 minutes of debate on Motion No. 221. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should restrict sexual activity between adolescents and adults by amending the Criminal Code to change the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

I am a big fan of private members' initiatives. Over the last 12 years I have had a number them and I have often thought that the best outcome of a private member's initiative is not for it to proceed through all stages, even though this is a motion and this would be its final stage, but it is to have the government adopt the intent of the proposal by a private member to ensure that the rights and interests of all are being protected.

It would be easy to argue that Motion No. 221 does not in fact help that process. It would suggest, for instance, that a 15 year old and a 17 year old engaging in sexual activity would be a problem but the problem here is the definition of sexual activity. Kissing, in fact, would constitute sexual activity.

The rationale of the motion presumes any sexual activity, which is the problem, but the intent is well-founded.

I have spoken many times in this place about children and about child pornography particularly. I do not think there is any disagreement in this place that the existence of child pornography means that a child must have been abused. The problem with private members' initiatives is that the only way for a private member's initiative to be successful is for it to be somewhat simpler in linear terms rather than trying to get a comprehensive solution to something.

Let us take for instance, Bill C-2. Currently the age of consent to sexual activity is 18 years of age where the relationship is exploitive. This is the difference between Motion No. 221 and Bill C-2. That exploitive activity involves prostitution, pornography or where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency. Where none of these exploitive circumstances exist, the age of consent is currently 14. What the member seeks to do is to increase that from 14 to 16.

However the key here is that any non-consensual sexual activity, regardless of age, is an assault.

Under Bill C-2 the courts would be directed to look at some broader characteristics. I know the committee will be reporting that bill back soon. I am sure the member's motion, Motion No. 221, and the debate that it has brought to this place, will add further to the passing of Bill C-2, which I know members in this place will want to do.

With regard to the issue of an exploitive relationship, Bill C-2 directs the court to consider broader indicators, which, unfortunately, have not been specifically put in Motion No. 221 but I am sure have been included in some of the debate already. They include the age of the young person, any difference between the age of the young person and the other person, the evolution of that relationship and the degree of control or influence asserted over that young person. We can see that there are some other elements other than simply age.

As we look at the debate that we have had in the past, I do not think there is much question in this place that there is a serious concern about the linkage between sexual activity at a younger age and the exploitive sexual activity that Bill C-2 tries to address.

In this particular case, the bill provides a clear direction to the courts to infer that a relationship is exploitive of the young person after examining the nature and circumstances of the relationship and the youth himself or herself.

Motion No. 221 is an important motion brought forward by the member because it gives us the opportunity to raise the serious concerns that we have with regard to the exploitation of children. Although this may also relate to sexual activity, which is not of the character that we talked about during the debates on Bill C-2 and with regard to child pornography, it does represent a proxy to do the logical extension and to look at the linkages between the earlier sexual activity, however defined, and the risk of young people becoming involved in some of the exploitive activity, which is what this House has dealt with to a greater extent.

Bill C-2 intends to better protect our youth. I believe the member is thinking of our youth in bringing this matter forward. I want to remind the House that motions come before the House in the context that the government consider the advisability of taking some course of action. It means that no matter what else we do, the debate that takes place with regard to Motion No. 221 should provide greater input as we deal with other activities.

However, because Bill C-2 is at a point where it will to be coming back from committee and there will be an opportunity to debate it, the member will find that much of the discussion that is taking place here will also be reflected in the discussion on Bill C-2.

I thank the member for participating in private members' business. It is an important tool that members of Parliament have to express their concerns about some of the social and moral issues of the day. There is no simple solution for a complex problem but if there is, probably it is wrong. In this context, it would be unwise and maybe imprudent to suggest that the member's motion is not comprehensive enough. In fact, private members' bills and motions often are very pointed in terms of areas to try to advance larger issues.

I thank the member for raising the issue and I hope, as a consequence of her contribution, the debate on defining sexual activity and, even greater, the exploitation of our children due to sexual activity, will be advanced as a consequence of her efforts.

Petitions

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present yet another petition, this time from residents of my riding of Prince George--Peace River from the communities of Tumbler Ridge, Rose Prairie, Hudson's Hope, Charlie Lake, and from the city of Fort St. John.

The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the House of Commons the fact that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by a clear majority of Canadians. They believe that Liberal Bill C-2 does not adequately protect our nation's children, and that the Liberal government has not prevented artistic merit from being used as a defence for the production and possession of child pornography. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials that promote or glorify child pornography are outlawed in our country.

Criminal Code

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am assured that discussions have taken place on this issue and that you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, be deemed to have been concurred in at the report stage, read a second time, read a third time and passed on division.

Supply

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I talked about globalization, as did members from all parties.

With globalization and sectoral markets, changes and problems are a given. We must be in a position to find solutions. In Quebec, as everybody knows, when industry changed, we tried to find solutions. We suspected that the textile industry would collapse and we tried to devise transition programs to retrain workers. But that is not enough. We need more help.

There is a lot of room for improvement in Human Resources Canada and EI. I sympathize with my colleague. I wish the government had a real desire to make serious changes to all aspects of EI so as to really help workers—instead of what it has been doing since 1993. Workers pay taxes and EI premiums but do not get the services they need. I sympathize and have said what I would like to see. I only hope I will be heard.

(Bill C-2. On the Order: Government Orders:)

June 6, 2005--the Minister of Justice--Report stage and second reading of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe you would find consent for a motion that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, be deemed to have been concurred in at the report stage, read a second time, read a third time and passed on division; and, that Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (proceeds of crime) and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and to make consequential amendments to another act, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee and reported to the House without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion. I wish to designate Tuesday, June 14 as an allotted day, which means that the main estimates shall be dealt with that day.

Tomorrow we will begin report stage of Bill C-43, which is the first budget bill. This bill will be our priority until it is disposed of. When Bill C-48, the second budget bill, is reported from committee, it, too, shall be given our top priority.

There are discussions among the parties concerning the early disposal of Bill C-2, the child protection legislation; Bill C-53, the bill respecting proceeds of crime; and possibly Bill C-56, the Labrador-Inuit legislation.

The other pieces of legislation that we can anticipate debating in the next week are: Bill C-26, the border services bill; Bill S-18, the census legislation; Bill C-25, RADARSAT; Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act amendment; Bill C-28, the Food and Drugs Act amendments; Bill C-37, the do not call legislation; Bill C-44, the transport legislation; and Bill C-47, the Air Canada bill.

Committees of the House

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

In accordance with its order of reference of Monday, October 18, 2004, your committee considered Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, and agreed on Thursday, June 2, 2005 to report it with amendments.

Supply

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Peterborough. How can he make such a speech in the House of Commons when he sat with me on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and recommended the best 12 weeks option?

Before the 2004 election, the Liberals went across Canada. After the election, they kept going. They came to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and recommended this best 12 weeks option.

Today we have a motion in the House of Commons on the best 12 weeks. I want to know how my colleague from Peterborough can get up in front of Canadians and say what he is saying when he was in the committee on EI and he recommended the best 12 weeks. He has a report in the House of Commons in which he recommends the best 12 weeks. He did it on Bill C-2 in 2001. He did it twice. How can he get up today and say the government is doing the right thing? He is saying two different things. I want him to get up in the House of Commons and tell me that. How could he do it?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak today. I want to thank the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, who seconded the NDP motion on employment insurance, for giving such prominence to the employment insurance issue. The problem faced by seasonal workers across the country is so serious as to warrant putting before the House a motion that will be debated all day today.

Let us examine this motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, employment insurance benefits paid to Canadians in areas of high unemployment (10% or greater unemployment rate) should be based on either: 1) the best 12 weeks of income in the last 52 weeks preceding the claim; or 2) the best 12 weeks of income since the beginning of the last claim, whichever is shorter.

I believe this is a step in the right direction, but I have to add that it is not what is really needed. Many Canadian workers are aware that I toured Canada in 1998. I have talked about it time and time again in the House of Commons. The purpose of this tour was to see how other parts of the country, besides the riding of Acadie—Bathurst, were affected by this problem.

At the time, the minister responsible for employment insurance said the problem existed in Atlantic Canada and nowhere else in the country. I travelled through 10 provinces and one territory, the Yukon. Everywhere I went, this problem existed.

The problem, as everyone knows by now, was so serious that during the various elections the Liberals would always tell voters that if they voted Liberal, then changes would be made to EI. They did that every time.

I remember one of our colleagues who used to be in the House of Commons, Georges Farrah, the representative for the riding of Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok. His first day at the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, a session the Minister of Human Resources Development attended, he made an appeal to the minister on behalf of the people of Gaspé and Îles-de-la-Madeleine. He said people were unable to qualify for benefits and that the divisor of 14 was the hindering factor for workers.

The current member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac clearly said—and I have the newspaper clippings to prove it—that officials in Ottawa did not understand seasonal workers and that the government needed to make changes to the system.

The former member for Shediac—Cap-Pelé, Bernard Richard, who is now the New Brunswick ombudsman, is someone who is quite respected in that province. One newspaper reported that Bernard Richard demanded that the federal government find solutions to the employment insurance program.

I introduced a bill in the House of Commons after tabling my report on my tour across Canada. The report included 15 recommendations. The Liberals and the Conservatives chose to vote against the bill. I want to thank the Bloc Québécois for voting in favour of it. We fought hard to improve the employment insurance system for seasonal workers.

That said, the following question might be asked today: why take the best 12 weeks in an area with an unemployment rate of 10% or greater? I predict someone will ask that question.

The reason is as follows. Bill C-2 was introduced prior to the 2000 election—I remember it quite clearly and, obviously, so do other members of the House of Commons. Subsequent to that election, we realized that not many amendments had been made. The parliamentary committee had written a report that went beyond Bill C-2. Then it made a number of recommendations that the government completely ignored.

During the 2004 election, a few more minor amendments were made, such as extending the number of weeks by five. We called for additional changes, but we were told that they would be made after the election.

The problems with EI are extremely important. The former Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, struck a parliamentary committee comprising Liberals to travel around the country and identify these problems. After the report was tabled, the current Prime Minister even decided to follow up on this work. This committee still exists, as a matter of fact.

When the committee started to draft its report, the senator from Madawaska, Ms. Ringuette-Maltais, made a dissenting comment to the effect that it did not go far enough. However, the Liberal Party did not share that opinion.

It is our responsibility as members of this House to have parliamentary committees. The report of the Subcommittee on Employment Insurance Funds presented another 28 recommendations in February 2005. The Liberal Party had agreed to use the best 12 weeks. The Liberal members of the committee had even voted in favour of the report, which refers to the best 12 weeks, so that it could be tabled in the House of Commons. However, after the budget was tabled, the minister announced in a press release that she was in favour of the best 14 weeks in regions where the unemployment rate is 10% or higher.

Today is an opposition day, and we are proposing that the House adopt the best 12 weeks instead of the best 14, and we are using the government's own motion to do it. So we hope it will be adopted.

Consider the seasonal regions. We do not choose where we are born. We do not choose our parents. One fine day, bingo, we are here. We are born, and we learn whatever language we are taught. Nature, not us, determines who we are. However, I do think that Acadia, along Chaleur Bay, where I come from, is the most beautiful region in Canada.

My colleague over the way says he might like to move to Quebec in order to have a view of the beautiful St. Lawrence as it flows into the Atlantic. That is not far from where we live, but our cousins in Gaspé have the same problem we do. In fact, when the people of Gaspé and the North Shore invited me to Forestville, there were 2,500 people out in the streets. Workers from the local businesses, business owners and clergy were out to show us that this is no longer a political matter. It is a human matter. It is time the EI problem were addressed.

For Canadians in the regions who have to accumulate 14 weeks to qualify, the divisor is 14. If there are regions where 17 weeks are needed, then the divisor is 17. Yet there are regions where there is high unemployment and 12 weeks are required. Twelve weeks is 420 hours with an average work week of 35 hours.

So why punish these people and tell them the figure will be 14? They are already getting only 55% of their income, so they are being punished twice.

A problem has developed in the southeast of the province, where people work 17 or 18 weeks out of the year. Some 1,500 people there broke the law by stockpiling time. The Liberals understood the problem and settled it by proposing the 14 best weeks, since there are 17 or 18 weeks worked.

But the problem is not limited to this one place. People must be treated the same everywhere. Since the minimum required to quality for EI is 12 weeks, it is completely normal for those to be the best 12.

People who work in the fishery or forest industry—whether in northern Ontario, Kapuskasing, Hearst, Hornepayne, Manitouwadge or White River, or in northern Alberta, or in Prince George, British Columbia—everywhere I went, have the same problems with EI.

This week in parliamentary committee, when we were debating Bill C-280 proposed by the Bloc Québécois, the parliamentary secretary was worried. If money were taken from the employment insurance fund and put into an independent fund, our country could be driven to the verge of bankruptcy. We balanced our budget and paid our debts with it when we had a deficit.

Is it really up to working people who have lost their jobs to pay for the country's deficit and balance the government's budget? They are attacking families, children. They are taking money from these families that could be used to help them buy food and clothing and send their kids to school. They are creating poverty in Canada, and that is totally unacceptable.

When we speak about employment insurance, it is not only in Acadie—Bathurst. Newfoundland has similar problems. We could talk to the Minister of Natural Resources who said that he has the same problems in Newfoundland because it is a fishing region. It is not the fault of the working people if the fishery stocks have gone down in the Atlantic Ocean. It is not the fault of the fish plant workers if the fishery stocks have gone down around the Gaspé coast. It is not the fault of the working people, with all the high technology now even in the forestry sector, that the woodcutters have been removed. Even there they only have short weeks which are not enough.

Some are under the impression that if we bring it down to the best 12 week of earnings, it will encourage people to quit their jobs and go home. Who is encouraged to quit their job and take 55% of their wages? As a matter of fact, the law is very clear in employment insurance. If people quit their job, they will not have employment insurance because they will not qualify. This is an excuse the government is using to not give employment insurance. It is only an excuse to take that money and use it to balance the budget and have a zero deficit.

I recall in 1986 when the Conservatives moved the account from employment insurance to general revenues. People were on the street because they did not want the change to employment insurance.

The minister responsible for employment insurance in 1996 was Doug Young. When he was in the opposition in 1989, he asked all New Brunswickers to fight back against the changes in employment insurance because they would be a disaster for New Brunswick. In February 1993 Jean Chrétien himself, when he was in opposition and leader of the Liberal Party, said the Conservatives were wrong to make changes to employment insurance because the problem was not the people. He said we should not punish people. He added that the problem was economic development, and we had to create jobs and put people to work.

Sadly, in the fall, when the Liberals were elected, they continued to make the changes that the Conservatives had been doing which was to cut employment insurance. When the Liberals took the money from EI and put it in general revenues, it gave them a way to get money. Then they became greedy. It is not the workers who depend on EI any more. It is the government that depends on EI for all those surpluses. Some $46 billion of surplus on the backs of workers who lost their jobs is totally unacceptable in this country.

The employment insurance surplus is about $46 billion. It is no longer working people who depend on employment insurance but the government itself, which needs it to balance the budget and have a zero deficit.

In the case we are talking about, the best 12 weeks, people made arguments such as it would cost too much, be too expensive, cost $150 million.

For the information of the House and all the hon. members, I asked our researchers to look into this. When we were in parliamentary committee, some people from Human Resources Canada came and gave us some figures because we were pushing for the 12 best weeks out of 52. The best 12 weeks would cost $320 million.

In the minister's remarks after the budget was tabled, he announced some changes, saying that the 14 best weeks would be used, the number of hours would be reduced from 910 to 840, and one could also have earnings of $75 a day. The cost would be $300 million.

If the costs of the 12 best and 14 best weeks are compared, which would be $320 million compared with $300 million, the difference is $20 million and not $150 million. That is not very much—$20 million—to help families, children and industry, when they have a surplus of $46 billion. Just last year, in one year, the government generated a $3 billion surplus.

I ask my Conservative colleagues, who opposed the recommendations on employment insurance—apart from an independent fund—to take a look at their colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador and support them too. I ask all my colleagues in the House of Commons and in the Bloc Québécois to support the changes requested in the motion. I ask my Liberal colleagues to do a very honourable thing next week and support the motion before the House of Commons.

I am sure that working people will thank everyone in Parliament, all the political parties, because finally they will have put their political partisanship aside and done something for people in need, for working people.

Criminal Code

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-313, an act to amendment the Criminal Code, prohibited sexual acts. Bill C-313 proposes criminal law amendments to raise the age of consent to sexual activity for some but not all sexual offences against children.

The protection of children and youth is an issue that is well-known to hon. members. The age of consent to sexual activity, as a component of this broader issue, is also not a new issue for us. Although I think we should agree that the protection of our youth against sexual exploitation is a priority for many, if not for all of us, it is clear that we cannot agree on the best and most effective ways to achieve this objective.

I cannot support Bill C-313 for it is an incomplete and ineffective approach. Bill C-313 proposes amendments that will raise the age of consent to non-exploitative sexual activity from 14 to 16 years for some but not all sexual offences against children.

The age of consent is not a term that is used in the Criminal Code, but it is one that is commonly used to refer to the age below which the criminal law does not recognize the legal capacity of a young person to consent to sexual activity. All sexual activity with persons below this age, ranging from sexual touching such as kissing to sexual intercourse, is prohibited, but any non-consensual activity regardless of age is a sexual assault.

One shortcoming of Bill C-313 is that it seeks to provide youth with greater protection against sexual exploitation by focusing, not on the exploitative conduct of the wrongdoer, as the Criminal Code does generally with sexual assault, but rather on whether the young person consented to be exploited. This is an odd approach.

Another limitation is that Bill C-313 only recognizes one factor as an indicator of a young person's vulnerability to being sexually exploited, namely the young person's chronological age. Bill C-313 appears to arbitrarily set it at age 16. Again, this is a bit at odds with the fact that most would readily acknowledge that not all 14 year olds have the same level of maturity and even that some 14 year olds are more mature than some 17 year olds.

Therefore I am not sure why the bill would not similarly consider the specific circumstances of the young person as being reasonable indicators of the young person's vulnerability to being sexually exploited.

Another significant shortcoming of Bill C-313 is that it does not propose to impose a uniform age of consent for all related offences. It does not amend the following offences: section 159, anal intercourse; section 172.1, luring a child over the Internet for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against the child; section 273.3, removal of a child from Canada for the purpose of committing one of the enumerated child sexual offences; section 810.1, peace bond to prevent a known or suspected child sex offender from frequenting places where children can be expected to congregate or from engaging in activity that involves contact with young persons, including communicating with young persons through the use of a computer system such as the Internet.

The most significant shortcoming of Bill C-313 is that it would criminalize youth for engaging in consensual, non-exploitative sexual activity even with peers. The bill does not provide a close in age exception. For example, it would be illegal for a 15 year old to engage in sexual activity with her 16 or 17 year old boyfriend, even though such activity may have been legal immediately before his 16th birthday and importantly, even though we all know that such activity is common. Turning these persons into young offenders does not provide them with better protection.

I do not support Bill C-313 for its approach. Instead, I think the better and more effective approach is the government's approach as reflected in Bill C-2, protection of children and other vulnerable persons, currently before the justice committee.

Bill C-2 proposes to create a new category of prohibited sexual exploitation of a young person who is over the age of consent for sexual activity; that is, who is 14 years of age or older and under 18 years.

Under this new offence, courts would be directed to infer that the relationship with a young person is exploitative of that young person by looking to the nature and circumstances of that relationship. The bill would direct the court to consider specific indicators of exploitation including: the age of the young person; any difference in age between the young person and the other person; the evolution of the relationship; and the degree of control of influence exerted over the young person.

Simply stated, Bill C-2 would recognize chronological age as well as other factors as indicators of vulnerability. It would recognize that the particular circumstances of some youth, including 16 and 17 year olds, may put them at greater risk of being exploited. It would recognize that the way in which a relationship develops, for example, secretly over the Internet, can also be an indicator.

Under Bill C-2 all youth between 14 and 18, not just 14 and 16 years as proposed by Bill C-313, would receive increased protection, irrespective of whether the exploitation was at the hands of someone who was much older or close in age.

Bill C-2 also focuses the law's attention on the wrongdoer instead of whether the young person ostensibly consented to that conduct. Bill C-2 says, in fact, that young persons cannot legally consent to be sexually exploited.

While some may debate whether young persons should engage in any sexual activity and at what age, the fact remains that Canadian youth, as young or younger than 12 years old, are sexually active.

It is clear that Bill C-313 would criminalize youth for engaging in normal adolescent sexual activity, even when that activity is engaged in with a peer. As I said, while one may not agree with youth engaging in such activity, there are other far more effective ways than using the state's strongest power, the criminal law power, to educate our children about their sexuality.

For all these reasons, I do not support Bill C-313.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

moved that Bill C-313, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibited sexual acts), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton—Sherwood Park for seconding this motion today. He will also be taking part in this hour of debate. I appreciate him being here on a beautiful Friday afternoon in Ottawa.

I am honoured to rise in the House today to debate my private member's bill, Bill C-313. The bill has a very worthy goal of amending Canada's Criminal Code by raising the age of sexual consent from 14 years to 16 years. The bill embodies a cause that I have inherited from the hon. members from Calgary Northeast and Wild Rose, both of whom have spent tireless hours over the past 12 years in an effort to achieve the protection of our children that this bill calls for. Mr. Speaker, you know full well that they have worked very hard in other aspects of protecting children in Canada.

As I have mentioned, this is not the first time the House has been faced with the opportunity to take meaningful action to protect our children from adults who use legal loopholes to engage in sexual activities with minors. For years the House has been presented with many private members' bills aimed at raising the age of consent and today that call continues. It continues largely because the House has yet to provide an appropriate answer to those calls for protection.

Despite claims by the government and Liberal governments that predated it, Canada's Criminal Code remains ineffective in its protection of our children when it comes to providing deterrents for adults who seek sexual relations with the most vulnerable and impressionable citizens of our society: our children. I use the words “our children” because, whether we have children of our own or not, as citizens and members of Parliament we possess a collective responsibility to provide meaningful protection for the children of Canada as if they were our own.

Although my children are now adults, they in turn have children, making me a pretty proud grandfather. The children of our neighbours, our co-workers, our colleagues and even strangers we pass on the street from all regions, ethnic backgrounds and faiths, are all Canada's children. They are Canada's children and therefore, as Canadians and legislators, they are our children to protect.

As members of Parliament, we are elected to make laws that respond to the various needs and necessities of our constituents. I would state that an essential virtue of this bill is that it affords much needed protection for children in not only my constituency of Lethbridge but every single constituency represented in the House. I look forward to the day when Canadian parents can rest assured that no adult can lawfully pursue sexual relations with their children.

The Criminal Code of Canada, as exists today, provides tacit approval for sexual relations between adults and adolescents as young as 14 as long as the sexual relations are consensual and the adult is not in a position of authority or trust over the minor. The same Criminal Code also excuses adults who have sexual relations with children as young as 12 years of age as long as the adult involved was under the impression that the minor was at least 14 years of age, the sexual relations was consensual and there was no abuse of position of authority or trust. As hard as that is to believe, that is what the law is in Canada.

In short, the laws of this land leave our children, as young as 12 years old, vulnerable to the lowest seductions and manipulations of troubled adults who would seek to rob them of their innocence. Clearly, it is time for the House to provide meaningful protection for our children.

Recent Liberal governments have taken a piecemeal approach to protecting our children from opportunistic adults seeking sexual relations with children. One example of this is the Liberal government's Bill C-15A of 2002 which outlawed the use of the Internet to communicate with a child for sexual purposes. While criminalizing Internet luring was a positive step, it really did not provide meaningful protection against very real threats.

Bill C-15A merely removed a stepping stone from the path. While removing a mere stepping stone from the illicit path is positive, it does not eliminate the destination to which the path winds, and that is sexual relations between adults and children.

The Criminal Code of Canada must be amended in order to establish truly robust and effective protection for our children and it is time for us to take real action against a real problem.

A recent event right here in Ottawa highlighted the need for this very action that my bill pursues. Just two months ago, a 38 year old man travelled from the United States to Ottawa with the express purpose of having sexual relations with a 14 year old boy. This individual's trip to Ottawa was the culmination of an Internet relationship that began in an online chat room several months before.

Because the age of consent in Canada is 14, he was not charged with sexual assault or any child sex crime. Under the current Criminal Code, the only charges that the police and parents could pursue against this individual were two charges of unlawfully taking a person under 16 away from his parents against their will and one count of using the Internet to facilitate this. Unfortunately, these charges carry no minimum penalties and have maximums of only five years.

Ironically, this individual faces heavier consequences in the United States where there are strict laws against adults crossing state and international borders in order to have sex with persons under the age of 16, even if it is consensual. It is shameful that the laws of another nation currently provide stronger protection for our children than do our own Canadian laws.

It is no coincidence that this troubled man travelled to Canada to have sexual relations with a minor. Our ineffective laws lacking deterrence and consequences leave the most vulnerable members of our society, our children, much more vulnerable and unprotected than need be.

There was a case in eastern Canada where another person came from the United States, contacted a 14 year old, was apprehended, was thrown in jail and had to be released because the young person with whom he had come to Canada to have a sexual relationship was 14 and legal. He therefore had to be released.

As long as our laws remain complacent in the face of such threats, Canada will remain vulnerable to the cold calculations of those who seek to exploit the innocence of and have sexual relations with our children. We are in real trouble when we have such troubled persons from outside our country travelling into Canada for that expressed reason: to take advantage of our lax laws and to have sexual relations with our children.

The Criminal Code as it stands today is powerless in the face of such brazen acts of illicit opportunism where a minor, who, in the Ottawa case, was suffering from depression, is seduced and manipulated prior to being drawn into actual sexual encounters with an adult.

I will speak of another event here in Ottawa where a 35 year old man was found guilty of having repeated sexual relations with a local 13 year old. He was not found guilty but he was charged. Although this individual has clearly broken the current law that supposedly protects our children, he was simply sentenced to house arrest. During the first 12 months of his sentence he is merely obliged to follow a curfew and to participate in sexual behaviour assessments and treatments if his corrections officer deems them necessary, and that is “if”. The court also required this individual to make a $1,000 donation to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

That incident illustrates how, even when the laws meant to protect our children are clearly broken, no real consequences are assigned as a deterrent for the guilty individual or others who may follow suit. We have laws that together reflect our society's disapproval of adults having sexual relations with minors but there is no definitive principle or legislation supporting them.

This is the crux of my argument today. This bill is aimed at protecting, not limiting our children and their rights. I invite members to read the bill and join me in its promotion by considering a peer exemption for close in age categories so as not to criminalize teens who are sexually active with their peers. The true aim of the bill is the protection of our children from adults who intentionally pursue sexual relations with minors. With this bill Parliament will send a clear message.

It is time for Parliament to state clearly and with authority that our children are not fair game for those troubled adults and it is time for Parliament to state clearly and with authority that we will support the parents and law enforcement agencies which are the front line defenders of our children by providing them with laws clearly stating that sexual relations between adults and children are not only unacceptable but unlawful.

If the government and this House cannot support the bill, a Conservative government will.

Article 85 of the Conservative policy statement states:

A Conservative government will act to protect children by eliminating all defences that are used to justify the possession of child pornography. A Conservative government would rename the age of consent to the age of protection and raise it from 14 to 16 years of age.

Raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age will empower parents and law enforcement agencies to vigorously protect some of the most vulnerable citizens from the darkest threats posed to them.

We have seen an attempt by the government to address this issue, but it falls far short of what needs to be done. The bill that the government brought forward is Bill C-2 which was tabled last fall. However, it does not address the issue of the age of sexual consent. I will read some comments from our justice critic, the member for Provencher, who stated:

Yet, despite the stated goals of the bill and the lofty promises of the Justice Minister, C-2 fails miserably in many respects. Most notable is its failure to protect a very vulnerable category of children--14 to 16 year olds--from the grasp of sexual predators. Children at these ages can easily become targets of pornographers, pedophiles and Internet sex scams while their parents are horrified to learn that Canadian law fails to provide them with legal recourse.

In most democratic jurisdictions that include the United Kingdom, Australia, most American states and European countries, adults are prohibited with having sexual relationships with children less than 16 or even 17 years of age. In Canada, a child may legally consent to sex with an adult at age 14.

As I indicated before, in some circumstances that can be as low as 12 and still be acceptable in the courts. The member further stated:

Despite persistent calls from provincial attorneys general and premiers, child advocacy groups, police, and countless other organizations, including the Conservative Party of Canada, successive Liberal ministers of justice continue to resist the proposal to raise Canada's age of sexual consent.

The most frequently cited reason provided by Liberals for not raising the age of consent is that it might criminalize sexual activity between young people.

That is why I mentioned the close in age exemption category that could be easily implemented. The member stated further:

The Criminal Code already permits children younger than 14 to consent to sexual activity as long as their partners are less than two years older than they are. The British, who have set their age of consent at 16, also have a close in age category that has not, as Liberals suggest, criminalized teenagers

There are many issues to be dealt with on this subject. Hopefully, when we hear what the other parties have to say there will be some consideration for this. I feel it is important to note that children who are between 14 and 16 years of age are still children. They still need direction and our protection. As legislators and lawmakers in this country, it is up to us to provide that protection while they are the most vulnerable in our society.

I look forward to the debate today and returning for the second hour and going to a vote. I hope that members of Parliament, when they deliberate, will find it in their hearts and thoughts to support the bill and pass it into law, so that we can say that we have taken a huge step toward helping to protect our children.

Age of Consent

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak on Motion No. 221 proposed by my colleague, the member for Fleetwood--Port Kells.

The member from Fleetwood--Port Kells is one of our hardest-working members. I want to acknowledge that in this House and thank her for her hard work and for sticking up for our children.

The justice minister spoke to our justice committee today. He said that the protection of the most vulnerable, our children, is one of his highest priorities. He shared with us about his daughter; actually I believe it has been three times that he has shared that same story. He looks at justice and protecting children and he applies it to his own daughter.

I can identify with that. I believe he is a man of compassion and wants to protect our children, but I am puzzled as to why it is just words and why we are not seeing some action.

To be specific, let me look at my children. I have five children and one grandchild. My children are grown now, but I look at them and ask myself if 14 year olds have the cognitive skills to be able to decide to give consent to sexual relations. Are they mature enough?

No, they are not. That is what we are hearing from the professionals. They do not realize the consequences of their decisions. It could be a sexually transmitted disease. It could be pregnancy. It could be long term problems that are associated with that decision, and it is about building a relationship. Does a 14 year old have those skills? The experts are telling us no.

We have heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents municipalities across Canada. It has said to raise the age of consent. It says that 14 is way too young. We have heard from police chiefs and we have heard from the experts. They are saying to raise the age of consent.

At the justice committee about a month ago, we had some of the experts dealing with Bill C-2. One of the primary reasons they were there was to show us how we compare to other countries in the world. Canada has one of the lowest ages of consent.

The member for Fleetwood—Port Kells is right on the mark. She is saying what Canadians want and what the experts are saying. She is saying what the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is saying. The vast majority of Canadians are asking why this government would resist raising the age of consent. It is beyond understanding.

Should a 14 year old have relations with a 40 year old, a 50 year old or a 60 year old? That is legal in Canada if he or she gives consent. We have even heard of an example where a 12 year old told the adult that she was 14, so therefore it was okay. She was only 12. It is not okay. This government has to protect our children and it is not doing that.

Fourteen year olds cannot buy cigarettes. Children have to wait until they are 16 to get a driver's licence. They cannot drink alcohol. But this government says it is okay for them to give consent. A 14 year old does not have the maturity to make that decision.

The most vulnerable in every Canadian community are our children. They are our future. If we do not protect them from abuse, we are falling down in our responsibility. Our fundamental responsibility is to protect our children.

A week ago I saw pictures. They were horrible pictures. They were pictures of child pornography. They were disgusting. That is what adults do. They will look after children, take them out for a pizza and video games, build the relationship, show them pornographic pictures and groom them for their consent.

That is absolutely wrong. We are not protecting our children. A 14 year old can be manipulated. Why are we not raising the age to 16? As I have said before, the experts are telling us to raise the age. Why the resistance?

Today the justice minister said that we do not want to have a restriction on teenagers experimenting. That is not what we are talking about. There can be built into that a difference in age of two years or five years so that if there were a relationship between a 16 year old and, if there were a two year spread, an 18 year old, it would be a 16 year old and an 18 year old. If it were a five year spread, it would be a 16 year old and a 21 year old. We are not talking about criminalizing teenage relationships. We are talking about the terrible abuse of our children.

We have people from other countries coming to Canada. Why? It is because they want to have a relationship with our children. Canada is one of the most lenient countries and the age of consent is one of the lowest, which is why we have a child pornography problem and why our children are being abused.

When will we protect our children? When will the government get serious? The hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells is right on the mark and we need to listen to her.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that we are debating a motion tonight as opposed to a bill. It is simpler to deal with the motion. It is more flexible in terms of House procedures. While adoption of the motion would not directly bring about a change in the law, it is intended to influence the evolution of the law.

The object of the motion is to protect young people believed to be vulnerable. I think most people in the House regard young Canadians as sometimes vulnerable in some contexts. As I see it, the difficulty in this area perhaps began back in 1988. In the remarks by the mover of the motion, she referred to the reforms in 1988 of the definitions used to proscribe and prohibit sexual assault, or rape as we called it in the old days, and other sexual assaults.

At that time, the sexual assaults were bundled into one definition of sexual assault. The definition does not distinguish between matters such as sexual touching, which could be a sexual assault in some contexts, and other more aggressive sexual assaults. If one is looking at a spectrum, sexual intercourse by rape. As a result of that, when it comes to defining sexual conduct and what is prohibited, because of the bundled definition in the Criminal Code, we are forced to use the big basket definition rather than an individual one.

When we talk about sexual assault or activity, we are not referring only to sexual intercourse. Because of the definitions within the Criminal Code, we are forced to deal with the full bundle of sexual activity that is described by the term “sexual assault”. That should be kept in mind as I make my remarks and as other members debate this. We are talking about sexual touching as well as other sexual conduct.

That makes it sometimes difficult because some Canadians have certain views of some types of sexual activity and different views on other types of sexual activity. For example, a game of spin the bottle by 15 year olds, might garner a reaction from some Canadians a certain way but not others. Yet the motion includes all the above.

When I look at our young people, I am concerned because I am not sure I can make a distinction between a 15-year-old and a 16-year-old or a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old. The motion recommends that we remove the ability to provide consent, therefore, create a prohibition on all sexual activity for anyone 14 or 15 years of age, even if the 15-year-old associates with a 16-year-old. This is a conceptual problem but a real problem. We are in a sense remaking the Criminal Code, reaching down into the conduct between two young people and criminalizing it in effect by changing the definitions.

While I respect the objective, I have concerns about how it is done. The Criminal Code has been evolving, but there is now a recognition that there is a problem related to the luring of young people into situations, the inducement coming not from the boyfriend or girlfriend but from adults.

That is sometimes happening on the Internet now, where there is much freer communication between people and their desktop computers and, as members around here know, even with BlackBerries. There is a lot of communicating. If that communicating involves the luring of a young person by an adult, a 15 year old or 14 year old young person, Canadians find that quite objectionable. I do too. I think every member in the House finds it objectionable.

I want to commend to the House the approach taken by Bill C-2. My colleague on this side of the House has described the bill. The bill takes a different approach. It certainly is there to protect our children, but it focuses on the persons who attempt to induce the sexual conduct, who attempt to induce the vulnerable. That bill is currently before the justice committee. It proposes the creation of a new prohibition against sexual exploitation of a young person between the ages of 14 and 18.

We should note that the current motion deals with the category of ages 14 and 15. The new Criminal Code bill deals with ages 14 to 18, the full range of underage persons who might be lured into sexual exploitation.

With the new prohibition, the focus is on the wrongful conduct or behaviour of the accused person, the person doing the luring. Just as when there is a sexual assault case between adults, the proscribed conduct is not with the young person, the victim, but with the person who engages in the luring. The consent of the young person is actually not relevant here. The person does not have to consent or not consent. What we have happening, in the typical case I have mentioned, is an adult person seducing the younger one.

Under Bill C-2, a court could infer that a sexual relationship with a young person is exploitative of the young person, and therefore prohibited, by considering the nature of the relationship and the circumstances surrounding it. One consideration is the age difference between the youth and the accused person. Next is the evolution of the relationship. For example, did it develop quickly? Did it develop over the Internet? Where did that relationship evolve? Last is the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person by the accused.

In other words, Bill C-2 includes a list of factors, not just chronological age. I think that most reasonable people will acknowledge that factors like these will be a better indicator of a young person's vulnerability. That is a key difference between what the motion recommends and what Bill C-2 is intending to define in this Criminal Code amendment.

As I understand it, that bill is before committee now and it is anticipated that it could be back into the House very shortly at report stage, within days, and that will allow the House and Canadians to have a better look at it.

In the meantime, we are discussing this motion. As I say, it is a bona fide initiative intended to regularize an area where we have seen some difficulty.

In dealing with Bill C-2 again, with the broader consideration of all of the indicia of exploitation, we recognize that some youth may be vulnerable to being exploited, not only by persons who are much older but in some cases even by their peers. Again, the vulnerable person might be vulnerable in many contexts: by age, by maturity or in terms of other factors. Bill C-2 will take those factors into account.

I have already pointed out that the bill deals with the age group of 14 to 17 years, whereas the motion does not.

I acknowledge the importance of this debate. It is important that Canadians understand some of these differences as we attempt to address this area of concern. I believe that the bill before Parliament will. There will be more debate on it later.

I congratulate the member for taking up the issue in private members' business.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in speaking to Motion No. 221, which states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should restrict sexual activity between adolescents and adults by amending the Criminal Code to change the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

The motion, sponsored by my colleague from Fleetwood—Port Kells, is a very important for the protection of Canada's young people. Canada's justice minister has legislation relating to issues like the age of sexual consent currently in the parliamentary system, Bill C-2. However, his legislation does not protect a very vulnerable category of young people between 14 and 16 years of age. As has been noted by my colleague from Fleetwood--Port Kells, the federal Liberals are prepared to leave the 14 and 16 year olds within the grasp of sexual predators.

The member has commented that young people at these ages can easily become targets of pornographers, pedophiles and Internet sex scams and that those children's parents are horrified to learn that Canadian law fails to provide them with legal recourse.

As member of Parliament for Kootenay—Columbia, my interest in speaking to Motion No. 221 relates to a polygamist sect in an area called Bountiful within my constituency. I have always made my position clear publicly and privately that I do not support the practice of polygamy and I am fully supportive of the current laws against the practice of polygamy.

However, there is a concern on the part of the attorney general of the province of British Columbia, who is responsible for prosecutions within our province, that the current law on polygamy would not withstand a charter challenge. It is important for Canadians to respect the laws of our great nation and realize that whether people live in Coquitlam or Creston, Burnaby or Bountiful, that all residents in Canada must have laws applied equally.

Further, laws must be made for all Canadians and for the good of all Canadians. Laws for exceptions invariably create unintended consequences. If all Canadians must be equal, then all laws for Canadians must be equal and the enforcement of the law must be equal.

It is important that children across Canada are protected between the ages of 14 and 16 and this includes the colony of Bountiful. I note that women representing the Bountiful community have called on the government to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. To be clear, a law that could be applied in Bountiful must also be equally applied in Burnaby.

As stated by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells, young people at 14 years of age do not have the maturity to make responsible decisions in regard to sexual activities with adults. In most democratic jurisdictions that include the United Kingdom, Australia, most American states and European countries, adults are prohibited from having sexual relations with children less than 16 or even 17 years of age. However, in Canada, a child may legally consent to sex with an adult when they reach age 14. Our laws excuse criminal responsibility where the victim is as young as 12 if the adult believes the child to be 14.

In this case, despite persistent calls from provincial attorneys general and premiers, child advocacy groups, police and countless other organizations, including the Conservative Party of Canada, successive Liberal ministers of justice continue to resist the proposal to raise Canada's age of sexual consent.

I restate, in the judgment of the Attorney General of the province of B.C., the polygamy law that people wish applied in the polygamist colony of Bountiful is unenforceable because of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Until the polygamy law is enforceable, it is imperative that we do what we can to protect those between the ages of 14 and 16. Neither the existing Canadian law nor the proposals in Bill C-2 effectively address the sexual exploitation of children under the age of 16 by adults. By raising the age of consent, the law can truly protect children. This motion is not the answer, but may be a small part of working toward ensuring the protection of 14 and 16 year olds.

It is distressing that the federal government is not supportive of the motion, not only because of the Bountiful issue, but because it is the right thing to do. The clear message to society is that all adult sexual activity with vulnerable youngsters will not be tolerated.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in today's debate on Motion No. 221, which proposes to restrict sexual activity between adolescents and adults by amending the Criminal Code to raise the age of consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years of age.

The apparent goal of the motion is laudable, namely, to better protect youth against sexual abuse and exploitation, but I do not support the means chosen to achieve this goal. The protection of our youth against sexual abuse and exploitation is very important. It is, however, equally important to ensure that whatever we do to achieve the objective, we get it right.

Unfortunately, the motion does not get it right. Before I discuss the motion, I think it is important to remind hon. members about what the existing age of consent criminal laws are.

Currently, the age of consent to sexual activity is 18 years of age where the relationship is exploitative, such as where it involves prostitution, pornography, or where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency. Where none of these exploitative circumstances exist, the age of consent is 14 years. However, it is important to be clear about this: any non-consensual sexual activity, regardless of age, is a sexual assault.

It is important to recall that these laws apply to all forms of sexual activity, from sexual touching to sexual intercourse. Accordingly, all sexual activity below the age of consent is prohibited.

Motion No. 221 proposes to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years, presumably to address the exploitative type of conduct. Yet it does not propose, and this is very important, the creation of any exception, such as, for example, for youth who engage in consensual sexual activity with peers.

There are many views about when and at what age it is appropriate for young persons to engage in sexual activity, but the fact of the matter is that young persons do engage in sexual activity and they do so at perhaps a younger age than some may think.

On May 3 of this year, Statistics Canada's The Daily reported that by age 14 or 15 about 13% of Canadian adolescents have had sexual intercourse. The percentage was almost the same for boys and girls, 12% and 13% respectively. From this, one might presume that youth are engaging in other or lesser forms of sexual activity at an even earlier age.

Under Motion No. 221, it would be okay for two 16 year olds to engage in sexual activity, but it would not be okay for a 15 year old and a 16 year old to kiss. If we consider how Motion No. 221 might impact on these youth, it seems pretty clear that it would criminalize at least 13% of Canadian youth and probably more. Is this how we protect our youth? By making them young offenders? And just who are we protecting them from in these circumstances?

This is why I do not support Motion No. 221. I prefer instead the government's broader and more effective response to this very issue. This response is found in Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

Bill C-2, which is currently before the justice committee, proposes to create a new category of prohibited sexual exploitation of a young person who is over the age of consent for sexual activity, that is, who is at least 14 years of age or older and under 18 years.

Under this new offence, the courts will be directed to infer that a relationship with a young person is exploitative of that young person by looking to the nature and circumstances of that relationship. The bill directs the court to consider specific indicators of that exploitation, including the age of the young person, any difference in age between the young person and the other person, the evolution of that relationship, and the degree of control or influence asserted over that young person.

The bill provides a clear direction to the courts to infer that the relationship is exploitative of the young person after examining the nature and the circumstances of the relationship and the youth himself or herself.

In other words, Bill C-2 recognizes that chronological age is not the only indicator of vulnerability. Instead, it recognizes that the particular circumstances of some youth, including 16 year olds and 17 year olds, may put them at greater risk of being exploited. It recognizes that the way in which a relationship develops can also be an indicator of exploitation.

For example, Bill C-2 will apply to better protect youth who are lured over the Internet by persons who would prey on their vulnerability. Such encounters usually occur secretly and quickly. Bill C-2 says to the courts: take this into account in the evolution of the relationship as an indicator of exploitation.

Bill C-2 provides increased protection to all youths between ages 14 and 18 and not just the 14 year olds and 15 years olds, as Motion No. 221 proposes.

Bill C-2 also focuses the law's attention on the wrongdoer instead of on whether the young person ostensibly consented to that conduct. Bill C-2 says in fact that young persons cannot legally consent to be sexually exploited.

Motion No. 221 seeks to restrict sexual activity between adolescents and adults. In contrast, Bill C-2 seeks to protect youth against sexual exploitation by any person who would prey on the young person's vulnerability, whether that person is considerably older than the young person or close in age.

As I said at the outset, while I can appreciate the apparent underlying rationale of Motion No. 221, I cannot support it. It falls far short of achieving the objective and at the expense of those whom it seeks to protect.

I agree with Bill C-2's response to this issue. I respectfully submit that Bill C-2 gets it right. This motion does not.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me say first that it is an honour to speak to this bill, especially since you are in the chair. We have an opportunity to work together on another committee. I must say that, up to now, it has been very pleasant, although the situation has at times been tense for reasons that escape you and me.

To begin, I would like to make two preliminary remarks and eight comments, which I hope will provide food for thought. My first preliminary remark is as follows. It is somewhat odd to be speaking to this topic, the age of consent. These days, in the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, one of the topics we are discussing is Bill C-2, which also concerns the age of consent and the sexual exploitation of children.

We are having this debate for Bill C-2. I think that it should take place in that context and not now, in this House. I believe it is a bit of a duplication of the resources and efforts of parliamentarians. The member could easily have introduced his bill as amendments during discussion of Bill C-2.

The second preliminary remark is as follows. It is something to see a party wanting to toughen the Young Offenders Act and the application of the Criminal Code as it pertains to young people, thus reducing the age of criminal liability, on the one hand, and raising the age of consent, on the other. In my opinion, it makes no sense. I realize the Conservative Party is not necessarily known for the logic of its positions, but this is a flagrant lack of rigour on a matter of considerable sensitivity.

In the Bloc Québécois we oppose Motion M-221, and Bill C-313, which propose to raise the legal age of consent in sexual relations from 14 to 16 years.

I have to say right off that our position in the Bloc in no way means we would like, support or promote sexual relations between young adolescents. Far from it. We do, however, believe that this is not the right approach.

I shall now proceed to my comments. First, sexual exploitation of children under 18 is already illegal, and consent is not a valid defence. That is already the case.

My second point is that, by raising the legal age of consent, we would be jumping on the bandwagon of sexual repression. Many sexually abused youth have reported that the huge industry of prostitution is, unfortunately, created and fostered by the absence of a healthy sexual climate and of adequate sexual education.

The third point that is important to make is that a higher age of consent would in fact criminalize sexual activity between peers. This means that persons below the age of consent would be prohibited from consenting to engage in sexual relations, regardless of the age of their partners. For instance, such an amendment would enable the courts to try a 16-year old for having sexual contact of any kind with his 15-year old girlfriend.

My fourth point about the age of consent is that raising it does not really solve anything, because there are adults who want to have sexual relations with children. If adult predators are the problem, they should be dealt with directly. Perhaps we ought to assess how evidence is collected and presented and what the role of the courts should be in protecting children. We have to ask ourselves the following question. How can we protect children against abuse through exploitation when the abusers flout the law?

Even setting the age of consent at 25 would not eliminate abuse. The only way to protect adolescents is by educating and empowering them.

The legislation should be based on the activity engaged in, not the age of those involved. Age does not matter, if abuse and exploitation are illegal and criminal.

The problem lies not with the legislation, but with its application. If current federal legislation against exploitation is difficult to enforce, then it has to be changed. That is what we are doing with Bill C-2.

Increasing the age of sexual consent could have the perverse effect of introducing some young people to the justice system. There are many lawyers in this House and others watching us. The justice system is complicated and cumbersome. People involved in it often pay a personal, psychological and moral toll. It is not something we would want for our young people.

Increasing the age of sexual consent also prevents young people from making decisions for themselves. I find that the age of consent is often used as an excuse to limit access to sexual education and contraceptives.

In closing, I want to reiterate the following. We are absolutely against the exploitation of children. I introduced Bill C-303 to impose tougher sentencing on anyone found guilty of sexual offences involving a minor, whether related to pornography, pedophilia, or the sexual exploitation of children. Bill C-303 will provide for minimum sentences, mandatory prison sentences, for the people who exploit these children who are the future of our society and who are so dear to our hearts.

I have already mentioned in this House and I will repeat it again today, my Bill C-303 to impose tougher sentences on those found guilty of sexual offences involving minors, will be presented as an amendment to Bill C-2 at the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. We will discuss it on the Tuesday when we come back from our break.

I can guarantee that the next time Bill C-2 comes before this House, it will include minimal sentences for sexual predators who attack our children. It will be a major improvement in law in general and also in the protection of our children who are, as I was saying, vulnerable persons. These young people deserve the protection of all the members in this honourable House.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should restrict sexual activity between adolescents and adults by amending the Criminal Code to change the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to lead off the debate on my Motion No. 221, which seeks to amend section 150.1 of the Criminal Code to change the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

Currently, the age of consensual sex in Canada is set at 14 years of age. This is below the international norm of 16 years of age, and significantly out of line with the international convention on the rights of the child's recommendation of 18 years of age.

While I do not think consensual sex among teens should not be illegal, steps must be taken to prohibit sexual relations between adults and young people under 16 years of age. As it stands now, there is nothing in the Criminal Code about the age of the partners of children aged 14 to 18. So, in effect, adults can have sex with anyone 14 or older as long as they are not in a position of power or authority.

Recent reports in the media of adults engaging in sexual acts with 14 year old children confirm that people are taking advantage of the law.

Earlier this year a 40 year old man, who had sex with a 14 year old mentally handicapped girl, was acquitted of sexual assault. With the legal age of consent for sex at 14 years of age, the Crown had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the girl did not consent to have sex with the older man and it was unable to do that.

One of the reasons why I became involved in elected politics was to fight for the protection of our children. Raising the age of consent is an important step that must be taken by government for it will give law enforcement officials another tool with which to pursue adults who prey upon our children.

Canada has a long history of prohibiting sexual intercourse with young females, regardless of consent. From 1892 to 1988 sexual intercourse outside of marriage with females under 14 years of age, and for those under 16 years of age and of previously chaste character, was illegal.

The maximum penalty upon conviction for sexual intercourse with a female under 14 years of age was life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for sexual intercourse with a female under 16 years of age was five years imprisonment. The law made no reference to young males.

Amendments to the Criminal Code in 1988 repealed unlawful intercourse and seduction offences and in their place created new offences called sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching that now prohibit adults from engaging in virtually any kind of sexual contact with either boys or girls under the age of 14, irrespective of consent.

The offence of sexual exploitation also makes it an offence for an adult to have any such contact with boys and girls over 14 years of age but under 18 years of age where a relationship of trust or authority exists between the adult and the child.

Since 1988 there have been repeated attempts by MPs to increase the age of consent. For example, in April 2002 the Canadian Alliance introduced a supply day motion for debate that called upon the government to raise the age of sexual consent to at least 16 years of age in order to give underaged children greater legal protection from sexual predators and child pornographers.

The government refused to support the motion and it went down to defeat by a vote of 163 to 62. The justice minister at the time, Mr. Martin Cauchon, said the Liberal government could not support the motion because consultation was needed. Besides this motion, there have been many private members' bills introduced and debated, including one by the member for Calgary Northeast in the 35th, 36th and 37th Parliaments, and another by the member for Wild Rose in both the second and third sessions of the 37th Parliament.

In this very session of Parliament we have been debating Bill C-2 with its proposed amendments to the Criminal Code aimed at enhancing the protection of children from sexual predators, pedophiles and pornographers, but noticeably absent from that bill, as I noted in my speech at second reading, is any proposal to raise the age of consent. The government apparently lacks the political will to make this vitally important change.

In 1982 former Prime Minister Chrétien, then justice minister, told the Toronto Star :

Children are innocent victims of vicious people. They cannot protect themselves and we have to protect them. I hate the thought of these people abusing people who are too young to realize in what it is they are participating.

If only his government and the one here today had shown the same sort of single-minded determination to protect children.

There is no question that sexual exploitation is a real and serious risk for children and youth in Canada. Our country's low age of consent for sexual intercourse is putting our children at risk. There are many reports of an increase in the number of youth being sexually exploited. With our lax laws, Canada is becoming a sex tourism destination for Americans and other foreigners as demonstrated by a Texas man who allegedly lured a 14 year old boy to an Ottawa hotel room last month.

Canada is listed on the Internet as an international source for sex with children and youth. The current age of consent leaves children and teenagers open to becoming targets of Internet sex scams, pornographers, pedophiles and sexual abuse.

About one-third of the child luring cases in Canada involve Americans trolling the Internet for sexual prey, according to a national tip line for web-based child sexual exploitation. In the last two years, cybertip.ca has had 20 tips on child luring cases that were later investigated by police. Of those, 32% of the suspects were American and 58% were Canadian. By the end of 2004 there were 75 web related child luring cases before the courts according to the Department of Justice.

Most of the tips reported to cybertip.ca since 2002 involve 13 and 14 year old girls. While it is difficult to document the reasons for the trend, one reason may be Canada's low age of consent laws. It is well known among police investigators that pedophiles use chat rooms to share secrets. Websites, for example, list the age of consent laws by country to facilitate sex tourism. Raising the age of consent to be more consistent with other western industrialized countries would discourage sex tourism. Having an older age would send a message internationally that children in Canada are not available for sex.

Having the age of consent set at 14 also makes it easy for predators to recruit young people into the sex trade without facing any repercussions or without initially committing any offence. Once the youth are entrenched in the relationship, they are then convinced or coerced into engaging in illegal activity.

Recruiters consciously choose to form consensual relationships with youth over the age of consent but as young as possible in order to make it easy to gain a hold on them. Raising the age of consent would assist in the prosecution of adults who buy sex from young children because the adults could be charged with sexual assault and it would not be necessary to prove that there was negotiation for money or other consideration.

In B.C.'s lower mainland we are all too familiar with the problem of prostitution. Studies have found that 70% to 80% of Canadian prostitutes entered the trade as children. There are literally hundreds of prostitutes under 17 years of age currently working Vancouver streets. 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.

According to the Children of the Street Society, the majority of parents who call asking for help have children who are 14 years old and are being recruited into the trade. They argue that if the police had the ability to pick up girls or boys, regardless of their consent, and return them to their family or take them to a safe house, then many youth would be saved from entering the sex trade.

It is no use looking at the age of consent from the perspective of the advantaged, critically thinking, well protected 14 year olds. Asking them if they want Big Brother to interfere in whom they are sexually active with at 14 is folly indeed.

If one were to ask them if they thought 50-year-old men should be able to target 14-year-old runaways for sex, give them AIDS or other diseases or get them pregnant, one might get a different response.

There is widespread consensus that 14 is simply too young for the age of consent. Child psychologists agree that children younger than 16 lack the maturity and development to make good judgments and are unlikely to recognize the manipulative nature of pedophiles.

The results of dozens of studies show the effects of adult sexual contact with children. There is a 21% higher risk of clinical depression, a 21% greater chance of suicide, a 20% increase in post-traumatic stress disorder and a 14% jump in extreme promiscuity and involvement in prostitution.

Studies have also shown that between the ages of 13 to 15 years children are at the highest risk of sexual exploitation. However, despite all this evidence, the government continues to argue that youth are mature and sophisticated enough to ward off the advances of pedophiles and predators.

It is vitally important that we do no confuse physical maturation with psychological maturation. The “age of majority” is a term used by lawyers 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 children are ill-prepared to drive, drink, vote, marry, drop out of school or even watch violent movies but feel they are totally ready to decide for themselves with whom they should have sex? This makes no sense.

Raising the age of sexual consent would put us more in line with other western nations. In Denmark, France and Sweden the age of consent is 15. In Australia, Finland, Germany, Holland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom it is 16.

In Virginia, like many other American states, the age of consent is 18. Adults having sex with 13 year olds to 15 year olds may be found guilty of felony “carnal knowledge” and face up to 10 years in jail and steep fines. Adults having sex with minors aged 16 to 18 may be guilty of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor”, a misdemeanour that can carry jail time and a fine.

It is time for the Canadian government to follow the lead of other western governments and prohibit adults from having sex with children under the age of 16.

Some argue that raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 would criminalize sex between teens close in age. This was the argument used by the Secretary of State for Children and Youth a couple of years ago in the House. She said that young people worry that they would become criminals if the age were raised. She stated:

They want to know they would have not only protection from predators but from a system that could unduly confine or prosecute them.They do not want to be doubly victimized by both the predator and those proposing to protect them.

In a similar vein, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the member for Vancouver Centre, writes on her website:

Raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 would place unprecedented limits on the freedom of young persons. It should be noted that raising the age of consent to 16 would criminalize sexual activity between adolescents that is now legal. Such an amendment could allow a 16 year old to be prosecuted for virtually any sexual contact with a 15 year old boyfriend or girlfriend. Instead of criminalizing the sexual activities of consenting teenagers who are of a similar age, the Liberal government has focused on protecting our children from sexual predators.

This is sheer nonsense and borders on fearmongering. There is an easy solution to the concern of raising the age of consent. Too often young girls think they have found their Prince Charming. They are young and everything is beautiful. They cannot see the big picture. The government's refusal to budge on the age of consent further demonstrates how out of step the Liberals are with the values of Canadians.

As parliamentarians we need to act now before more innocent lives are ruined. Motion No. 221 proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code that is consistent with the recommendations of all provincial governments and various stakeholder groups, including Beyond Borders, the Canadian Police Association and REAL Women of Canada.

Parliament now has the opportunity to send a direct and clear message to Canadians that it will no longer stand for the potential abuse of innocent 14 year old children by perverted 40-year-olds.

I call upon my fellow members to support this initiative and give our children the protection they deserve.

Canada Elections Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Before beginning private members’ business, I have a statement to make concerning the provisions of Bill C-312, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (appointment of returning officers).

As with all private members’ bills, the Chair has examined this bill to determine whether its provisions would require a royal recommendation and thus prevent the Chair from putting the question to a vote at third reading.

This bill proposes to alter the manner in which returning officers are appointed. Presently, section 24 of the Canada Elections Act gives the governor in council the authority to appoint 308 returning officers at pleasure. Bill C-312 proposes that appointments be made by the Chief Electoral Officer following an open competitive process for a term of 10 years.

This initiative already has been the focus of some commentary regarding the financial initiative of the Crown. Specifically, on April 11, 2005, during the take note debate on the Standing Orders, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean argued that the need for a royal recommendation is being interpreted much more strictly now than in the past, and that this particular bill does not entail any new or additional spending authorization. Indeed, he claimed that in the 2nd session of the 36th Parliament similar initiatives were proposed as amendments to Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of members to the House of Commons, without any procedural objections being raised regarding an infringement on the financial initiative of the Crown.

As to the matter of a stricter enforcement of the royal recommendation requirements, I would reply that the Chair is taking its responsibilities under Standing Order 94 very seriously. This is primarily due to the fact that all items of private members’ business are now votable. Previously, they were not.

At that time, if a private members’ bill appeared to require a royal recommendation but was not subject to a vote, then there was less of an obligation on the Speaker to inform the House of the exigencies of Standing Order 79(2), that is, the rules pertaining to the introduction of a royal recommendation.

I remind the House that on November 18, 2004, I alerted members to this situation. As I mentioned on page 1554 of Hansard , as the House has not yet begun to debate items of private members' business I felt that it would be of assistance to alert hon. members to the important impact that the requirement for a royal recommendation may have on their bills.

The standing orders leave no doubt that the House cannot be asked to decide on the motion for third reading of a bill requiring the expenditure of public funds unless proper notice of a royal recommendation has been given.

Should members have any concerns about the provisions of individual bills in this regard, it would be prudent for them to raise such concerns well before the third reading stage is reached.

It has been the practice in this Parliament for the Chair to raise concerns about private members’ bills at the commencement of second reading debate so that submissions may be made before a decision is taken by the House at second reading.

In this particular case, Bill C-312 contains some provisions which caused the Chair to pause and consider its impact on the financial initiative of the Crown. As most members know, bills which involve new or additional spending for a distinct purpose must be recommended by the Crown. The royal recommendation is also required where a bill alters the appropriation of public revenue “under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out” in the bill. What this means is that a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where more money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is being significantly altered.

Bill C-312 transfers the power to appoint returning officers from the governor in council to the Chief Electoral Officer. Normally, the power to appoint includes the authority to pay. The transfer of this authority would appear to affect the manner in which spending was being authorized and so would appear to infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown. However, a closer reading of the Canada Elections Act seems to indicate that the authority to pay remains with the Governor in Council. Subsection 542(1) of the act states:

On the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer, the governor in council may make a tariff fixing or providing for the determination of fees, costs, allowances and expenses to be paid and allowed to returning officers and other persons employed at or in relation to elections under this act.

Therefore, it appears that the bill is solely transferring the power of appointment without transferring the authority to remunerate returning officers. If this is the case, there is no infringement on the financial initiative of the Crown.

Bill C-312 contains two other provisions which appear to involve spending. It is proposed that returning officers are to be appointed by means of an open competition. Although this will involve the spending of public monies, it appears to the Chair that this would be an operational expense of the Chief Electoral Officer that would be within the annual appropriations provided to his office.

Another provision fixes the appointment period for a returning officer at 10 years whereas it is presently at pleasure. This is not an infringement on the financial initiative of the Crown as it does not increase the public spending but only the identity of the persons to be paid over a 10 year period, that is, there would be fewer changes, if any, in the roster of returning officers during this period but the same number of returning officers in any event.

As with other bills, the Chair would seek short submissions from members on these specific points prior to the resumption of debate on second reading. In this way, the reasoning behind the decisions of the Chair in regards to the financial initiative of the Crown may be better understood, and the decisions will be dealt with in a timely manner. I believe that in the long run, the House will be well-served by this approach.

The Chair appreciates the patience of all members. The issues which are being raised on a series of bills in private members’ business touch on some of the fundamental concepts of our system of parliamentary government. It behoves us all to ensure that this process is conducted in a rational fashion so that decisions are consistent, and well-understood.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, the protection of children against all forms of sexual exploitation, including child pornography, is a priority of the government. It was reflected in the first piece of legislation, Bill C-2, introduced in this Parliament. In the Speech from the Throne, we announced that we would take steps regarding the trafficking in children.

We have signed the optional protocol. We are now consulting with the provinces with a view to securing ratification as soon as possible.

Employment Insurance Act

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for having introduced this bill in the House of Commons. I am flattered because there are a number of similarities with the bill I introduced before the election. In computer lingo, this virtually called cut and paste. It could be said that the NDP and the Bloc Québécois have much in common when it comes to the needs of workers in regions providing seasonal employment.

Some Liberals also agree with us that changes are needed. There have been past examples of this. I remember our colleague in the House of Commons, Georges Farrah, from Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok. I think he lost the election just over employment insurance.

This shows the hardships that people can experience in certain regions. We just need to consider the hon. member for Beauséjour, who is in favour of the EI reform. His experience representing people in the region of Cap-Pelé and Bouctouche, people working in the fish plants, has made him understand the importance of EI to seasonal workers.

Not so long ago, I met with the people of Cap-Pelé. The mayor asked if anyone was coming to recruit people working in fish plants to take them to Moncton. He said that he was happy for Moncton. He congratulated the city of Moncton on its unemployment rate, which is 5% or 5.6%. But if everyone from his region goes to work in Moncton, it means that the Cap-Pelé region might as well shut down. As the mayor of Cap-Pelé, he is not happy with the way things are going.

I was surprised to see my colleague from Peterborough shift and say that he cannot support such a bill. He was a member of the committee created after Bill C-2. The recommendations were along the lines of this bill. He has changed since he sat on that committee but, back then, he strongly supported the bill.

I remember too that the people of the Cape Breton region strongly supported it. When there is an election, people want to be part of the government so they can ensure that changes are made to EI because it needs changing. People are starting to realize that there have been a number of elections in which they say they want to sit on the government benches in order to change EI but it does not change.

This week I thought it shameful that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development had the gall—excuse me for saying so—to lower the employment insurance premiums. I thought this was a bit rude of him, especially since the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development is currently considering changes to employment insurance.

Instead, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development is listening to the Conservatives. That is why I say there is no difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The only thing the Conservatives ever ask for is lower employment insurance contributions, because they think the employers are being over taxed.

I do not know how many times I have said, here in the House of Commons, that no employer has ever called me to say that he was going to lose his business because he could not afford to pay the employment insurance premiums and that he needed them lowered. I hope my phone starts ringing tomorrow morning. I have not received those types of calls.

However, I have seen people demonstrating in the street to say that the employment insurance system does not cover seasonal employment adequately. That is what I have heard.

When I went to the Forestville area before the election, I was talking to people in the streets, including Forestville's young priest and the former priest, who is now retired. I remember what the priest told me. He said it was not a political story, but a human story. The cuts made to employment insurance by the Liberals in 1996 had a direct impact on families and children. That is where they are hitting.

There are 1.4 million children going hungry in Canada and it is the Liberals' fault.

During the election campaign, I remember hearing varying opinions from the Conservatives. In 2000, the Conservative leader said, in the West, “We must not change employment insurance. We must make some cuts in it”. In the east, he said, “We are going to change employment insurance for you.” He did not know that the Globe and Mail is sold all over Canada and that people read both messages.

The shameful thing is that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development listened to him and is reducing EI benefits to such a point that there will not be any money left in the EI fund to pay for what people need.

It may be a little comical, but as I have often said, you do not catch lobsters on St. Catherine Street in Montreal. The lobsters are in our waters, in Chaleur Bay and off Cape Breton. The lobsters are in the Bay of Fundy. People in Peterborough love our lobsters.

These people have seasonal jobs in regions like ours, in the Gaspé and Chaleur Bay, where everything freezes up in the winter. In fact, you cannot catch lobster in the winter. And besides that, we have to work within the quotas set for us by the government.

The people of Cap Pelé—and not just them, because this happens all over Canada—have found it necessary to cheat the system to accumulate hours, to do what some call “banking” their hours. They are breaking the law. In Cap Pelé, where the member of Parliament is a Liberal, 1,500 people were caught banking hours. The government told them, “We will not do anything to you. We will make the employer pay $5 million.”

At the same time, in my riding, 11 people were also banking hours. They had to repay the government $10,000 and $11,000. It is shameful that in a national program the government treats people represented by a Liberal member on way and the people represented by a member from another political party another—in a democracy like ours.

This is the biggest theft the government has committed in Canada: it has stolen $46 billion from the pockets of the workers and employers who have paid premiums into the employment insurance fund, and they took it to balance the budget and get to that zero deficit. It was all done on the backs of the workers who have lost their jobs and the children who have nothing to eat. It is shameful. That is what the Liberal federal government has done. Today it boasts that it has lowered premiums every year, and it does that to please the Conservatives.

I would like the people back home to know that the Conservatives are opposed to changing employment insurance. They think that slashing EI will send people back to work. I regret to say that my dear friends do not know their Canada. They do not know that some Canadians are in seasonal jobs and need employment insurance to get by. Punishing them and their families is not the way to help them get by.

I congratulate the member for Trois-Rivières on making recommendations, which I support 150%. I am not likely to ever need EI, but I see the hardships the Liberals have caused in my area.

When Doug Young lost his job here in Parliament, it was because he thrust the people of my area into abject poverty. I have women calling my riding office and talking of taking their own lives, because there is nothing left in the house. I have fathers calling and talking of suicide, because they are not able to support their families. The Liberal government is responsible for their desperate situation, with the help of the Conservatives.

know that I have said all this before. That is because the problem is still the same. There are Liberals who agree with me on this. I hope that this time they will be capable, in a minority government position, to do something about it. The same goes for the member for Beauséjour who has finally said—and it made the papers—that he hoped that, with a minority government, Parliament would be able to bring about the changes required to restore to workers what they are entitled to, and what has been taken from them.

The communities would be delighted to hear that. Workers are not the only ones hit by this. The Liberals are punishing the communities too. We are not all in Toronto, where there are jobs for the taking. In our area the situation is different, our workers are lured away to take employment elsewhere. Our regions are emptied. It is a kind of legal deportation. That is what is happening. The government is sticking it to the people in need.

Is this our Canada? Sometimes, we have to ask ourselves that question. We are not all as lucky as Alberta. If we had oil wells at home and if we no longer needed to fish, things would be different. I can assure the House that people back home are hard workers. When they move to Alberta, they are the first ones to get jobs, because they are hard workers. Contrary to what Doug Young once said in Hamilton, they are not lazy. That was written in the Globe and Mail .

In conclusion, I hope that hon. members will support this bill, that Liberals who are still not convinced will soon be and will do the right thing. It is not up to the Liberals to take that money and use it to reduce the debt and achieve a zero deficit. That money is there to help the needy, the families, the 800,000 people who do not qualify for employment insurance benefits.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to tell hon. members what I think and what seasonal workers in our region think.

Canada Labour Code

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we seek to protect the rights of children and to protect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the charter. It is not a question of doing one or the other. It is a question of protecting all children against the risk of harm through child pornography and in a manner that will withstand charter scrutiny.

This is particularly relevant for the hon. member. What he refers to as a loophole, we regard as being principled leadership. If we do anything less than this in a manner of prohibiting pornography, we fail our children. If the child pornography laws do not comport with the charter, are struck down, and we have no child pornography laws, we also fail our children.

I call on all hon. members to support Bill C-2 and thereby lend the support both to the protection of our children and to the protection of our charter, which will allow for those child pornography laws to be sustained and protect our children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his statement on a matter of compelling concern. We do share the concerns with respect to child pornography and closing any loopholes in that regard.

The test of a just society is how it treats the most vulnerable amongst us, and the most vulnerable of the vulnerable are our children. Therefore, we introduced Bill C-2, the protection of children and other vulnerable persons act, on October 8, 2004, as the very first legislative initiative of this session and of our government.

Bill C-2 proposes a broad package of six criminal law reforms that would significantly improve the criminal justice system's ability to protect our children and other vulnerable persons. I am referring here to those provisions that deal with the protection of victims from domestic violence, voyeurism, and sexual exploitation of the vulnerable class between 14 and 18 years of age. Central to this package of reforms, as the hon. member has rightly identified, are those reforms that relate to child pornography.

Our existing laws, with regard to child pornography, are already comprehensive in the manner in which they enact prohibitions on the possession, printing, sale, access, exportation et cetera of child pornography.

Importantly, these prohibitions apply to depictions involving real children under the age of 18 as well as those involving imaginary children such as a computer generated depiction or composite of a child. This is because both are to be condemned. The former because it involves the sexual abuse of a real child, and the latter because it portrays children as a class of objects for sexual exploitation, and thereby poses a real harm to children and society.

It is against this background that our bill proposed a number of reforms to broaden the definition of child pornography: to include audio formats as well as written material that has as its dominant characteristic the description of unlawful sexual activity with children where that description is provided for a sexual purpose; prohibiting the advertising of child pornography; increasing the maximum penalty for all child pornography offences on summary conviction from 6 to 18 months; making the commission of any child pornography offence with intent to profit an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes; of particular importance to the member's remarks and within the context of the whole bill, replacing the existing defences of artistic merit, education, scientific or medical purpose and public good with a two-pronged, harm-based legitimate purpose defence that would only be available for an act that has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice, science, medicine, education or art, and even with that legitimate purpose would not pose an undue risk of harm to children. The harm-based test is often ignored when questions and comments are put to it.

Simply put, the proposed child pornography defence, even with artistic merit in the context I mentioned, provides a narrower and clearer test and incorporates the harm-based standard used by the Supreme Court of Canada in upholding the existing child pornography provisions in 2001.

There are no loopholes in the bill. It proposes reforms that clearly underscore the serious nature of all child pornography offences by broadening our existing definition of child pornography to encompass new formats; by creating a new prohibition against new forms of criminal conduct; increasing the maximum sentences for these offences; and significantly narrowing the availability of a defence to ensure that--

Criminal Code

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, October 5, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the referral to committee before second reading of Bill C-2.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Justice

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister claims that he has closed all the loopholes, but the legitimate purpose loophole in Bill C-2 still will allow the courts to excuse child pornography on the basis of it being so-called art.

Could the minister please tell me how child pornography could possibly be artistic?

Criminal Code

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to speak to Bill C-2.

Bill C-2 is a recycled bill. It was Bill C-12 and Bill C-20 in the past. I have spoken to this bill in the past and my colleagues have contributed quite a bit on the issue of the protection of children.

The Liberal government continues to recycle this bill but it has not taken the appropriate action. Much public pressure and public outrage made the Liberals drop the term “public good” as a defence for the possession of child pornography. They have now replaced “public good” with the new defence of “legitimate purpose”. Legitimate purpose is defined to include, among other things, art.

The bill's criteria for evaluating whether a relationship is exploitive is vague and subjective, and by not raising the age of consent from 14 to 16, the Liberals have put Canada's children at risk.

Since 70% to 80% of Canadian prostitutes enter the trade as children, we as lawmakers have the moral responsibility to protect children. Children deserve nothing less than full protection from child pornography.

The legislation that is before us is simply smoke and mirrors. The Liberals ignored the evidence from child advocates and front line police officers who came before us with lots of information to make the legislation effective.

The important mechanism that should be in place to protect children is not there. One is in the definition part, and rather than public good or whatever the legitimate purpose or for the sake of art, that is not good enough.

The second component is the age of consent. Because the Liberals have failed to prohibit all adult-child sex, children will continue to be put at an unacceptable risk. Only by raising the age of consent will young people be truly protected under the Criminal Code.

As was the case with Bill C-12 and Bill C-20, Bill C-2 fails to raise the age of consent for sexual contact between children and adults. In all western democracies the age of consent is at least 16. In Denmark, France and Sweden the age of consent is 15. In many other countries, including Australia, Finland, Germany, Holland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom, the age is 16. Despite all the premiers agreeing unanimously that the age of consent should be raised from 14 to 16, the Liberal government failed to provide that protection to our children. The age of consent could have even been raised to 18.

The Liberals have simply ignored the mounds of evidence that came before the committee in the past demanding that children be protected from child predators. The Liberal government has failed to provide our children with that protection. Children are our future and they are vulnerable. They need and deserve nothing less than full protection from child predators. We, as lawmakers, should provide that protection to children, otherwise we are failing in our duty.

I have been here since 1997 and I have listened to the Liberal government dither and be indecisive when it comes to providing full protection for family values, whether it is age of consent or providing protection to children.

As lawmakers, we need to make laws with teeth, and increasing maximum sentences does not help. We need mandatory minimum sentences for criminal offences, such as the possession of child pornography, so we can secure the protection of children. This is the place where we must do our best to provide protection to our children.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin with just a moment of your time to congratulate you on becoming Chair. It is very nice to see you there and I am very pleased for you. I think you are going to enjoy the job very much. It makes my job tonight that much easier, because tonight I am going to speak not as a member of Parliament to the Chair but woman to woman.

This has been said many times before, but it bears repeating: Canada's children are our greatest natural resource. We take extreme measures to protect other natural resources and we should do no less for Canadian children. Bill C-2 falls far short in this regard. In fact, we can start right at the definition of a child. The government defines a child as anyone 14 and under when it should certainly be 16 and under.

Child pornography has become a multi-billion dollar industry and Canadian children should be protected from it. How do we do this? We must make every effort possible to shut down this industry, and that includes legislation making child pornography a very unattractive way to make money. We must make the punishment for producing or buying child pornography so tough that the risk of apprehension and prosecution is too high. It is simply unacceptable that these young people are robbed of their youth in order to fulfill the perverted desires of adults.

There is no defence for child pornography. This includes so-called art. Our courts routinely hand out slap-on-the-hand sentences for pedophiles. Karl Toft is an example of this exact thing. There was a man in a position of authority in a boys' training school. He molested hundreds of boys, did irreparable damage to these young men and received a 13 year sentence. To add insult to injury, this man now walks the streets of Edmonton in relative freedom, from a halfway house, and he collects his full government pension.

Can anyone call this justice when many of his victims have been incapable of making a living due to the psychological damage he inflicted on them?

In March 2002, B.C. superior court judge Duncan Shaw ruled that John Robin Sharpe was not guilty of possessing or distributing written child pornography because of the artistic merit of the work. Judge Duncan had no choice. This was included in the Criminal Code then and it will be again if Bill C-2 becomes law. Under the guise of legitimate purpose, we will find the word “art”. How can anyone interpret the brutalization of a child as art? Let us ask a child who has been brutalized if she or he would have allowed this to happen to them for the public good. Let us ask an RCMP officer who deals with this repulsive material during the course of an investigation if he can work the word “art” into the description of the material.

I had the opportunity one or two years ago of listening to a delegation from the Toronto police force that had the horrible chore of dealing with child pornography on a daily basis. They took our caucus into their confidence. They showed us films and told us what it is they deal with on a day to day basis. I still to this day cannot close my eyes without seeing those images. In this House of Parliament we are very careful not to offend the sensibilities of anyone, so I will spare members the details of what I saw. But I hope it is enough to say that I simply cannot allow this to continue.

I want to have a very strong law in this country. Bill C-2, in its current position, is not strong. The term “liable to a term not exceeding” should be replaced with “liable to a term of not less than”. This would leave the judges no room for wrist-slapping sentences for child abusers. This would give this law teeth. I could support it if this were to happen.

If the government is sincere about getting child pornography under control, it must occupy itself with the rights of the child, give the authorities the tools they need to bring these perverts to justice and mandate the courts to carry out the full force of the law.

In the short time I have been here, just under four years, we have stood in the House and we have heard the government present arguments called artistic merit, public good, and now, legitimate purpose.

This is not difficult. Madam Speaker, you are a women yourself and I am sure you understand as clearly as I do that there is no justification for child pornography. If we cannot stand up and protect our children then we fail miserably as a government.

In my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo we have a wealth of natural resources, including a copper mine. If someone came in and stole the copper from that mine they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. There should be no less a consequence for stealing a childhood.

We as parliamentarians owe this assurance to the people we represent.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, in regard to Bill C-2, it is fairly obvious that children need protection in this day and age. We live in an age that is much different from bygone years. Children are very vulnerable to sexual exploitation. Pedophiles and people who are bent on this and attempt to violate the rights of our children are very well organized.

However, in addition to the children, there is another group that needs help in this area. The people who need help are the parents.

Prior to 2000, I practised law in a general practice situation. I had a very difficult situation to deal with in the mid-1990s. A nice young couple in their mid-thirties came into my office. They had a 14 year old daughter who had taken up a relationship with a man in his late forties. They went to the police, who said there was nothing they could do.

I told those people at first blush that the law would provide parents with the means and ability to provide for their children and protect them. I told them to return at a prescribed time the next day and in the meantime I would do some research and would have answers to their difficulties. I spent a fair amount of time researching the topic and the Criminal Code and provincial family services legislation and so on. I thought surely parents would have the power to protect a 14 year old daughter from what was clearly an exploitive situation.

I am a parent myself and I think most people in this House have been parents at one time or another. As parents, we know that 14 year old people are not at a stage in life where they can make those sorts of decisions. They need more maturity and education before they embark on making those sorts of decisions. I think it is an area for parental control.

In any event, when those parents came back the next day to see me, it was a very troubling experience for me. I had to tell these folks that the House of Commons was not able to provide them with the relief or remedy to deal with this sort of situation. I was the messenger and quite often in that business the messenger is the one who takes the heat.

One of the reasons I am in the House is that this is where we create the laws of the land. We are letting down these folks by not dealing with that particular issue. It would take very minor changes to the existing law to protect children by changing the age from 14 to 16. Basically, to use a phrase, it would be the stroke of a pen and we would have a million children in the country who would be able to be protected by their parents. Parents would have the law on their side. Right now they do not have the law on their side. They have their hands behind their backs. The law has tied them. They are incapable of protecting those children, who are at a very vulnerable age.

I can assure members that people who are in the sex trade and exploit young people are very aware of this loophole. They exploit it for everything they can get. I think it is incumbent on Parliament to act on this matter and do something that I think can make a difference in that area.

Another area I wanted to address is the area of the defences. Any time Parliament creates a criminal offence or deals with a criminal offence and then decides to set out the defences in the Criminal Code for that offence, besides the normal common law defences, it had better be careful on the wording of those defences.

Anybody in the House who has graduated from a law school and knows anything about our court system will know what a good defence lawyer can do with ambiguous, loosely worded defences. “Art” is a mile wide and a mile deep; it is in the eye of the beholder. Good defence lawyers I know who are given that kind of leeway are going to have a heyday.

The accused does not have to prove that there is a legitimate purpose. The defence does not have to do that. Anybody who graduated from law school knows what the defence has to do. Even laymen would know that. I think even you, Madam Speaker, would know the answer to that question. All the defence has to do is raise one thing called reasonable doubt.

I am sure this is what happened in Robin Sharpe's case. He had a good lawyer, who took this artistic merit argument and said, “We do not have to prove that there is artistic merit here. All we have to do is prove that there could be. Look at this. There could be artistic merit here. If you find that, Mr. Judge, you have to acquit the accused. That is the law”.

I am very troubled by this. There may be legitimate purposes and I am not going to deny it. The justice minister said that police are in possession of child pornography for the purposes of investigation. I can accept that, but this concept of art is just way too wide. Surely we have some legal minds in this country who could tighten up this thing and close the door to defence counsel running roughshod over our court system and allowing pedophiles and sexual exploiters to walk out of the courtroom and carry out this sort of activity against our young people.

The population of young people in this country is getting smaller and smaller, but it is our future. They are the people who are going to carry our heritage into the future. It is incumbent on lawmakers in the House to take the bull by the horns and take the measures that will adequately protect our young people, so they can become people who can enjoy and optimize their God-given talents in this society and not have to live with some haunting nightmare for the rest of their lives if they manage to survive some of these ordeals with sexual predators.

I am amazed about something from the last session. We had a motion to change the age of consent from 14 to 16. It seemed to me an obvious thing for us to do in the House. Liberal members, by and large, refused to vote for that motion. Then they were appalled during the election campaign when it was said that Liberals were soft on child pornography. This was a very simple measure that would have provided some real protection and some real teeth for police and parents in protecting children at that vulnerable age. I was not the one who made the decision to vote against that motion, so let me say that if the shoe fits, wear it.

I am very disappointed, quite honestly, that some of the people in the gallery who report on our business here do not do a fairer job of trying to report these very serious issues to the public at large. They treat them as minor and insignificant issues. Children being exploited by sexual predators is a very, very serious matter. It will cause irreparable harm to those people. We should be protecting them.

Conditional sentencing is another area. I think that when people do very terrible things to other people the number one criteria of our criminal justice system should be providing protection to the public. Liberals do not understand that a legitimate purpose of our criminal justice system is to provide protection to our law-abiding citizens who want to carry on with their lives. These people have broken the social contract. We cannot live in a free and democratic society when people do not respect the rights of other people and children. When they break that law, there has to be a consequence. The consequence is that they are incarcerated and are not on the streets to bring mayhem and harm to our most vulnerable people.

I think Liberals watch too many Hollywood movies. They get taken up with the Hollywood culture. In fact, a lot of Hollywood is run by people with a small-l liberal philosophy. I think that in their minds there are a lot of Jean Valjeans in this society, that is, falsely accused people, but they do not look at the victims and casualties of these kinds of policies.

The scales have to tip back to protecting our most vulnerable people, especially our children. The government has seriously let us down on this matter.

I thank you very much for your attention, Madam Speaker. I think you were even nodding at some points and I very much appreciate that. I just wish I could get more of your colleagues to agree with me.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of my maiden speech in the House of Commons, I would like to acknowledge those who have made it possible for me to be here.

I would like to thank my constituents, the people of South Surrey--White Rock--Cloverdale, for their trust and confidence in me. I am greatly honoured to be their representative and I plan to do my best and hope that I can, in whatever modest way, meet their aspirations and expectations.

I would also like to recognize the hard work of my campaign team and the hundreds of volunteers who helped get me elected.

Finally, I would like to thank my wife Andrea and my family for being a part of the process that brought me here today.

I am here today to speak to Bill C-2, the protection of children and vulnerable persons act. I believe all right thinking Canadians would agree that children deserve nothing less than total protection from child pornography. The devastating impact it has on its victims, their families and our society as a whole cannot be overstated.

It is with sincere disappointment that we must again address another Liberal bill that fails to provide children with the protection they deserve. While I am pleased that this new version also prohibits the advertising of child porn, something I proposed to the justice committee a year ago, this piece of legislation has serious problems. These problems include: the creation of the new legitimate purpose defence; the creation of the exploitive relationship category of offenders; the failure to raise the age of consent to at least 16 years of age; and the failure to adopt minimum sentences. I will now discuss each of these in more detail.

The first incarnation of the bill provided an artistic merit defence to the possession of child pornography. When the public outcry against such a defence became deafening, the Liberal government backed down and renamed it the public good defence. Let me be very clear. There is no such thing as public good when it comes to child pornography. If anything, the public good defence was a broader defence that incorporated all of the artistic merit defence and provided even more loopholes.

Now that it has become clear to Canadians that the public good defence is meaningless, the Liberals have introduced yet another defence, the legitimate purpose defence. The problem with this approach is the same as the others. It would still permit the courts to excuse child pornography on the basis of artistic merit.

As Conservatives we believe that all defences that justify the criminal possession of child pornography must be eliminated. All this new defence will do is make convictions harder to obtain by opening up a host of legal loopholes that could be used to justify the criminal possession of child pornography. This is because under criminal law, defences must be interpreted as broadly as possible. Under this new provision Eli Langer would still have had a defence for his pedophilic paintings.

Bill C-2 also fails to raise the age of consent for sexual contact between children and adults. Instead it creates the new category of exploitive relationships. This category is a vague provision that fails to create the certainty of protection that children require. It will therefore not serve as a real deterrent and will simply result in longer trials. It would be far more effective to drop the exploitive relationship category and simply raise the age of consent.

According to officers working at the Ontario Provincial Police porn unit, raising the age of consent is a matter of urgency. The current law prevents concerned parents, police and social service agencies from protecting or rescuing boys and girls who are coerced by older teens and adults. For example, whereas international protocol makes it possible to return a runaway 14-year-old Canadian girl from the U.S. or Mexico within 12 to 24 hours, according to Commander Ross MacInnes, who has 28 years with the Calgary vice unit, there is nothing they can do to get her back from another Canadian city because of the current age of consent law.

Eighty per cent of Canadians want it raised to at least 16 years of age. Only three years ago all provincial justice ministers unanimously passed a resolution calling on the federal government to raise the age of consent to at least 16. As has been recognized in the House, most western democratic nations have a 16 years of age minimum and some are even at 18, like the United Kingdom.

The excuse that raising the age of consent may criminalize acts between teenagers is simply false. The Criminal Code already exempts from prosecution those closely related in age. This close in age exemption ensures that teenagers are not prosecuted. This exemption is also similar to what other jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, Australia and most U.S. states use while at the same time having a higher, more reasonable age of consent law. History shows that criminalizing teenagers was not an issue before the age of consent was lowered.

Considering that government legislation already acknowledges the inability of youth to be responsible with alcohol and cigarettes and seeks to protect them from their negative effects, why not raise the age of consent to protect youth from the detrimental physical and emotional consequences of early sexual activity? Raising the age of consent would send a clear message that Canadian society is committed to protecting our children, that we are opposed to the sexualization of children, and would provide parents and police with a valuable tool to rescue and protect children.

Finally, this legislation fails to address serious concerns regarding sentencing for child sexual offences. At present, the sentences given simply do not reflect the seriousness of the crime. According to Frank Goldsmith of the Ontario Provincial Police porn unit, one of their biggest concerns is the lenient sentencing coming from the courts. The harshest sentence he has ever seen for the possession of child pornography is two years less a day, which is house arrest, when the maximum for this offence is five years. He views house arrest for pedophiles as a slap on the wrist while their victims face a life sentence, something they will never forget.

Mr. Goldsmith believes that conditional sentences are a joke, since those under house arrest simply take the liberty to leave their homes as they wish, knowing they can always use the excuse that they are on their way to school or to work. In fact, Detective Constable Bruce Headridge, former head of the Vancouver Police vice unit, suggests that conditional sentences in this area have brought our justice system into disrepute.

Pedophiles know that our justice system does not view the possession and distribution of child pornography as a serious crime or concern. They read news articles like the one distributed by the Canadian Press entitled, “Possession of child porn rarely nets jail time”.

I find it appalling that there are minimum sentences for drunk driving but none for child sex offences. Again, as Conservatives we therefore call upon the Liberal government to introduce mandatory minimum sentences and abolish conditional sentences for sexual offences involving children.

Incarcerating those who possess child pornography not only helps protect other children from harm, it also acts as a deterrent to those considering exploiting children. According to Justice Michael Moldaver of the Ontario Court of Appeal:

Adult sexual predators who would put the lives of innocent children at risk to satisfy their deviant sexual needs must know that they will pay a heavy price.

Some have argued that the minimum sentencing simply helps criminals perfect their skills. I can say that this is certainly not true for convicted pedophiles. They are always held in protective custody and never allowed to mingle while in prison, because otherwise hardened criminals who are disgusted by their crimes against children would harm them.

This is not a petty crime. This is about real children being abused, and we need real minimum mandatory sentences to protect them.

In conclusion, a truly free and democratic society is one that protects its weakest members from the appetites of those who, in the name of freedom, would degrade and harm our children. It is my strongly held belief that eliminating criminal defences instead of allowing loopholes, that providing mandatory minimum sentences instead of conditional ones, that raising the age of consent instead of pandering to sexual libertarians, all of these things will foster and support the dignity of children and send the message that they are to be accorded equal respect within Canadian society.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see you in the chair. I congratulate you on your nomination to this position, for I know you thoroughly deserve it.

This is the first time I rise as the new member of Parliament for Pickering—Scarborough East. This is the second time my riding has changed its name. In 1993 the riding was called Ontario. Later it became Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. Now it has yet another name, Pickering—Scarborough East. It seems my riding is moving increasingly toward the west. If this continues, in 10 years I will be in Alberta.

I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-2. My colleagues on both sides of the House have spoken very eloquently and appropriately to the non-partisan nature with which the spirit of the bill is being proposed. There will be those who will always say that we have not done enough, but I am one of those who believes very heartily that we can and will do what is right to protect children.

Two years ago I joined and initiated a forum for colleagues in the House of Commons, attended thankfully by all members of the House, to probe the severity and the deep concerns that all normal Canadians had toward the issue of the growing frustration and proliferation of child pornography, particularly with the use of the Internet, much of it on the heels of the Sharpe decision.

It is clear to all here what can happen in an environment where the language we use to protect children from child exploitation is not clear. Above all, whatever legislation is proposed, amended and thrashed out in committee must be language that will serve to stand the test of time or we will be back at this debate, as so many members have said in a very frustrated way.

However, before putting some ideas forward, which the committees may want to consider, I want to talk about the last round of changes to legislation, which I believe were very successful.

One only has to speak to people in law enforcement. I know members on this side do and certainly members on that side will. When speaking to people from my child exploitation unit in the city of Toronto, Paul Gillespie, or Bruce Smollett or Frank Goldschmidt of the Ontario Provincial Police child pornography division, who is town, they tell me that something has changed in the past year.

In previous debates I have about the need for a coordinated strategy to ensure that we have training and perceptibility of our law enforcement agencies from coast to coast so when they receive information, they know how to process it to immediately address and tackle the issue. Time is of the essence.

We have established a National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre. The NCECC, as it is known here, has gone from four people last year to 26 this year. In speaking to the various agencies, and those I spoke to over the summer, this is one of the boldest and most successful routes that has been taken and is one for which the House of Commons must be applauded. It was something to which we all agreed. We have put money into it, and I understand the provincial government of Dalton McGuinty has put $5 million toward it. There will be a coordinated effort to ensure that there is a sustainable financial future for this agency.

I also want to compliment Microsoft. This comes from a fellow who fought the Competition Act over the years and was concerned about dominant positions.

An element that has been touched on and one that we need to discuss in committee and in further debates is the purpose of lawful access. It is clear that those who are engaging in the violent and often degrading aspects of child exploitation need one element to be successful; the avoidance of detection. Avoidance is happening at an alarming rate. Our technology, certainly our means through lawful access to the latest of technologies, allows by stealth people to continue to exploit children. It creates a market for people like Mr. Briere who said, “If it were not fact that I didn't see the stuff, I would not have been triggered to kill Holly Jones”.

That was a tragedy which should be an indication to the House of Commons that the horses should not be spared in ensuring that the benefit of the doubt when it comes to privacy and the use of technology for lawful purposes be used in a way that we can protect children and give a modicum to that extent.

I heard the hon. member speak a little earlier about some of the concerns that he had about the age of consent. I note, and it is something that the committee will certainly want to look into, that England has raised its age of consent from 16 to 18. We also know that Canada has been on the forefront of trying to combat the international sex trade. We will see precedents in terms of our first case in the not too distant future. However, it is very clear to us that we need to ensure we have maximum information that is up to date and that presents the best opportunities that we have.

I understand all the fallout from the Sharpe decision. I have expressed my concerns on many occasions. We had consensus from our April 2002 meeting concerning the artistic merit, however small.

That was indeed a court sanctioned exemption which I believe was wrong. It must be worked on. We must ensure that there is no room for manoeuvrability and that child exploitation has no artistic merit at all. It must be seen as what it is and that is unlawful.

When it advocates and counsels is another condition that was written in by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is an exemption that in my belief will not help us further our desire of the necessity to ensure that no child is unduly exposed to people who intend to exploit them. It is for this reason that there is much to be said for and much to be learned from those who are on the leading edge of our debate today.

I would hope that a year from now we could come back to the House of Commons and say that rather than reacting to what has happened, we have been proactive. Nothing leads me to believe that more than in the insurance that we have in Canada, and I hate to use the term because it is sometimes a little trendy, of best practices. We must employ all of the facilities that are available to us nationally, internationally and regionally to ensure that optimum security and protection is given to our children.

There are a number of areas where this House of Commons can find consensus, where this House of Commons must find consensus.

In the meantime, I should point out that, even if this is still an issue the members want to discuss for political purposes, the people are imposing great constraints on us to ensure this situation is not exploited in a political way. The political issue should be eliminated when the stakes include protecting the interests of children—who are our future.

Our future is made up of young people, who, today, need the benefit of the doubt, doubt in their favour, especially when it involves a sentence handed down by a court.

I am hoping we might also avail ourselves of some of the people at the front end, those in psychology and psychiatry who understand what is involved with those who would assault and those who would exploit children. More important, there are people such as Dr. Peter Collins who has worked with the OPP for years. He was here at the House of Commons during that very interesting forum we had a few years ago on ways in which to combat child pornography. He warned the House of Commons and members who attended the forum that child pornography in the hands of people who are sick is the element which is the trigger for them and allows them to act out their fantasies and exploits children.

I would suggest that those who are in that position are sick and need medical help. They need treatment. They do not need expedient, trendy or obtuse legal reasoning. They certainly do not need us to say that the benefit of the doubt must always go to ensure that we are not convicting people who are innocent. We all understand that.

In this case what is needed is obvious to all who are in this business and who understand this business. Certainly with what happened this summer and which exploded during the midst of an election, Mr. Briere's admission, the time has come for Parliament to find all means necessary to ensure that it has optimal understanding of what is in essence a criminal mind and what it is going to take in these special circumstances.

Earlier I heard the hon. member for Wild Rose speak to the issue of using the notwithstanding clause. I was one at the time who voted for that resolution. Indeed, a number of us, the hon. member for Mississauga East, the members from Huron and London--Middlesex voted with the opposition because it was essentially an idea born out of frustration.

I can safely say that while that is an option, it is the last option we should be using. Right now I believe we have the means to do it. In my view if we are prepared to sit down and to work out and build on the legislation before us, as we did with the piece of legislation that produced the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, we will achieve next year results on issues that we think are so troubling this year. For the sake of our children we owe it to them.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue. I actually rise to speak to the bill with a little bit of mixed feelings. It was about four years ago that I rose in the House to give my maiden speech as a member of Parliament on this very subject. It is unfortunate that four years have passed and we are still struggling with the issue. We are struggling with the issue not necessarily because of faults of the government, though certainly it should get some blame in that regard, but also because there are changing technologies and changing realities.

I appreciate the government bringing the legislation forward as one of its first bills to be debated in this House, because the is a bill of tremendous importance. Why is it important? This is why:

An Edmonton woman is facing multiple child pornography charges--including some related to her six-year-old son...And the investigation--which uncovered more than 100 images of children ranging from preschoolers to preteens in various poses or "explicit" sex act with adults--has led Ottawa cops to a male suspect in the nation's capital.

Another story reads:

At least eight Winnipeg children have been lured to the home of an alleged pedophile with promises of food, cash and porn, cops say..."We know this has been taking place for at least three months," said Winnipeg police...

Another story reads:

Members of the Ontario Provincial Police Child Pornography Section, Napanee OPP Detachment, and the Electronic Crime Section of the Ontario Provincial Police, have charged a 43-year-old [West] Napanee [Ontario] man following a child pornography investigation...with two counts of possession of child pornography, one count of distribution of child pornography and one count of luring.

Another is “100 discs full of child porn seized in B.C.”

The stories go on and on. These are just summaries of stories. I have over 300 pages of stories dealing with children, child pornography, children being victimized and failure of laws all throughout North America, and all these happened in the last two weeks.

This is a serious problem. One of the worst things we do in our society is destroy the innocence of the young before their time. We do it through television, through language, through movies and through our social moral complacency. Now, sadly, we are doing it as well through our laws by not using every and all known measures possible to prevent the exploitation of kids.

In 1987 the Progressive Conservative government of the day reduced Canada's age of consent for sexual activity from 18 to 14 years of age. The stated reason for the change was that the government did not want to criminalize teens who were sexually active with other teens, not that any of those charges were ever laid. However, since no restriction on the second person's age was mentioned, the law gave legal permission for fully grown adults to engage in sexual activities with 14, 15 or 16 year old kids.

Both the provincial attorneys general in Canada and the Canadian Police Association are in favour of raising the age of consent to at least 16 years of age. If we were to raise the age of consent to 16, we could offer, according to Statistics Canada, legal protection to roughly one million Canadians between the ages of 14 and 16 years. It would cost the state treasury nothing. It is simply a one word change that could save people some tremendous trauma and abuse. However, to some Liberals, changing a single word to safeguard a million children seems just too hard, too politically incorrect and perhaps too obvious to grasp.

The new urgency in dealing with the subject of exploitation of children was created when, on March 26 a couple of years ago, John Robin Sharpe was found guilty of possessing about 400 photographs of boys engaging in sexually explicit activity, but was acquitted on the charges of making and distributing child pornography in the form of his own written work. Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw said that the written works describing sado-masochistic violence and sex with men and young kids was morally repugnant but still had some “artistic merit”. What this means in application is that the writings are now legal and can be published. John Robin Sharpe and others of his perverted sort can now posture as artists and write and publish their most demented thoughts and desires about sexual acts with kids.

To successfully prosecute, the police and prosecutors now have to prove that the child pornography in question lacks John Robin Sharpian artistic merit. In other words, the best efforts of our law enforcement community to stop child pornography will be like cobwebs trying to lasso a locomotive; simply impossible.

The broad interpretation of artistic merit, which was in the John Robin Sharpe case, suggests that Canada's legislation has weaknesses that may not allow us to protect Canadian children to the best of our ability.

The demand for child pornography leads to its continued production and distribution. To suggest otherwise is naive and absurd. The idea that possession of one's own pornographic writing is harmless, especially in this electronic age of easy transmission or publication of material on the Internet is difficult if not impossible to control, simply ignores modern realities.

Some say we must be careful not to restrict freedom of expression. I say if there is any place that cries out for our society to say no, it is in the area of child pornography. I do not accept the concept that people should be free to defile children either physically or in writing. I do not accept the concept that there can be artistic merit in the victimization of children. I also do not accept the concept that the intention of exciting or arousing a passion that is perverted, illegal, immoral and in all fashion or form reprehensible to our society is acceptable in any form, even if it based on the rather far-fetched notion that the creators of such offensive material will not share with others and will only keep it for themselves.

The protection of society's most vulnerable members is our most important duty and responsibility, but unfortunately we are failing at this task. In November 2000 an international report on child abuse by an organization called, End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes, singled out Canada as a haven for sexual predators of children. The report stated that Canada had one of the youngest ages of consent for sexual activity at 14, whereas other countries were raising their to 16 and 18.

At one point Canada was considered a global leader in combating the sexual exploitation of children. Regressive age of consent laws, flawed legislation and an overall lack of planning at the federal government is now turning Canada into a venue for sexual exploitation of kids according to this report.

Our governments have failed our kids, the most vulnerable in our society. We have failed children. Having a debate about this legislation in the House is a step in the right direction, but much work does need to be done.

The Sharpe decision carved out two exemptions to the child pornography law: material such as diaries or drawings created privately and kept by that person for personal use; and visual recordings of a person by that person engaged in lawful sexual activity kept by the person for personal use. The latter exemption has the potential to expose children age 14 to 18 to further exploitation by child pornographers since they would be engaging in legal activity.

By the Liberals failure to prohibit all adult-child sex, children continue to be at an unacceptable risk. Only by raising the age of consent will young people be truly protected under the Criminal Code.

We are not advocating criminalizing sex between teenagers, as with other jurisdictions with a more reasonable age of consent laws, such as the U.K., Australia and the United States. A close-in-age exemption could easily ensure that teenagers are not criminalized.

Bill C-2 would increase maximum sentences for child related offences. These offences include sexual offences, failing to provide the necessities of life and abandoning a child. This is meaningless if the courts do not impose the sentences. We know by experience that when maximum sentences are raised, there is no corresponding pattern in the actual sentencing practices of the courts.

What is needed are mandatory sentences, truth in sentencing, eliminating statutory release and no conditional sentences for child predators. Modern technology has surpassed the legislative provisions that govern the use of evidence in these cases. The bill fails to address those shortcomings, and amendments are required to deal with child pornography cases effectively and efficiently in this regard.

We are concerned about the government's apparent unwillingness to entertain amendments aimed at improving the bill. In fact the justice minister today in question period indicated as much in his response to a question. We have received a different answer from the minister who spoke prior to myself.

However, if there is any subject on which all parties can agree, it must be on the protection of children. In this debate I applaud the government for bringing forward this legislation. However, this opposition party and I think all Canadians will condemn the government if it does not faithfully consider reasonable amendments to protect the most vulnerable in our society; our children.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act. In particular, Bill C-2 enhances the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, those most in need of strong, effective and efficient legal protection.

Bill C-2 supports the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne to crack down on child pornography. Its proposed criminal law reforms will strengthen child pornography and sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code, create a new category of sexual exploitation, facilitate testimony by children and other vulnerable victims and, finally, create new voyeurism offences.

In the area of anti-child pornography legislation Bill C-2 builds on the Criminal Code's existing comprehensive prohibitions against child pornography and proposes several new components. These include broadening the definition of child pornography in terms of written material, as well as including audio formats.

Bill C-2 introduces prohibitions on advertising child pornography and will increase the maximum penalty for all child pornography offences on summary conviction from 6 to 18 months. This sends a strong message that no child pornography offence is considered to be a minor offence. I believe that message has to be clear, it has to be consistent, and it has to be enforced.

Bill C-2 addresses the very contentious issue--and we have just heard the passionate remarks of the hon. member for Wild Rose--about the existing defences such as artistic merit, education, scientific or medical purpose and public good, with a two-pronged, harm based legitimate purpose defence which puts the interests of the children at the forefront where it should be.

This proposed child pornography defence provides a much narrower and much clearer test, and incorporates the harm based standard used by the Supreme Court of Canada in upholding the existing child pornography provisions in 2001.

Bill C-2 proposes the creation of a new prohibition to better protect youth against sexual exploitation. Under the new prohibition courts will be looking to the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including specific indicators of exploitation, such as the age of the young person, the age of the accused, and the degree of control or influence exercised over that young person. In this way Bill C-2 focuses on the wrongful behaviour of the accused rather than the so-called consent of the young person.

Bill C-2 proposes significant reforms to ensure that sentencing in cases involving the abuse and sexual exploitation of children better reflects the serious nature of such crimes. The message we want to send and the message we must send is that these sorts of depraved actions will not be tolerated by Canadian society.

It is my view that the other factors that are normally considered in a sentencing application, such as the rehabilitation of the offender and retribution, have to give way. They have to give way to protection of the public and the compulsion of society to send a very clear message that this behaviour will not be tolerated.

In order to best investigate these sorts of crimes, Bill C-2 proposes reforms that will facilitate the receipt of testimony by providing greater clarity and consistency for witnesses under the age of 18 years, victims in criminal harassment cases and other vulnerable witnesses. This, as many court cases have set out, is a very difficult and contentious issue.

It is my submission that the rules have to be very clear and standardized, and the use of technology must also be implemented, especially in camera hearings for younger children.

At all times the reforms are aimed at aiding and protecting those witnesses who are deemed vulnerable, for example, broadening publication bands to include new technology such as the Internet. This is an important step to protect the identify of all victims.

I do not want to stand here and suggest for a minute that the new legislation will be able to weather its challenges. Technology is moving at a tremendous pace. When we were dealing with child pornography not that many years ago, we were dealing mainly with printed material. Now we are dealing mainly with the Internet.

When we were dealing with the offence of voyeurism, we were mainly dealing with the person who was normally referred to as a peeping Tom. We now have all kinds of technology and gadgets, such as hidden cameras and cameras half the size of a pen. These are items with which police and investigative authorities have to deal. We can appreciate the challenges that enforcement officials have every day in dealing with this type of behaviour.

Compounded with that is the whole area of the Internet servers, which are not, as everyone who has investigated this type of offence, generally located within this jurisdiction. They are in other jurisdictions around the world which adds a whole area of complexity to investigation, enforcement, prosecution and sanctions.

For all witnesses, and the measures taken to protect their well-being and identity, it has to be left to the court just like every other case to determine the weight that is to be given the evidence at the end of the day.

The proposed creation of two new voyeurism offences is also noteworthy. By setting up prohibiting factors for the secret observation and recording of a person, the bill sets up protection against a voyeuristic exploitation for all Canadians.

I have covered rather broadly some of the main proposals of Bill C-2. It is clear that these reforms are not only valuable, they are necessary. The bill will be referred to a committee. It is a topic that a lot of people in the House and a lot of Canadians from coast to coast to coast feel very strongly about. I have no question that the bill will be improved in committee and come back before the House.

I would like to join with my colleagues in the House who have spoken to voice my support for the reforms proposed by the bill. Children and other vulnerable persons are those who need the protection the most. Bill C-2 recognizes that and proposes solid legislation to provide the much needed protection.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to speak to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

Bill C-2 proposes a broad package of criminal law reforms that would significantly improve the criminal justice system's protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

The key elements of Bill C-2 are: strengthening the existing child pornography provisions; providing increased protection to young persons against sexual exploitation; increasing penalties for offences against children; facilitating the receipt of testimony by children and other vulnerable victims and witnesses; and creating new voyeurism offences.

This is positive legislation which can be supported by all parties and I urge all members to do so.

I would like to focus my comments on the proposed amendments relating to child pornography, an issue that is very much in the minds of hon. members, my constituents in the Niagara region, including the Catholic Women's League and their White Ribbon campaign, and indeed all Canadians.

Child pornography is an issue on which we find almost daily accounts of new charges and prosecutions in Canadian newspapers as well as those around the world. To my mind this demonstrates two very important factors. On the positive side, our existing child pornography prohibitions are working. On the negative side, we need to do more to combat the sexual exploitation of children through child pornography. This is exactly what Bill C-2 does.

Bill C-2 proposes to broaden the existing definition of child pornography to include audio format. Specifically, it would include audio recordings that advocate or counsel unlawful sexual activity with a child as well as such recordings that have, as their dominant characteristic, the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of unlawful sexual activity with a child.

The existing definition of written child pornography would also be expanded to include written material that describes prohibited sexual activity with children where that description is the predominant characteristic of the material and it is done for a sexual purpose.

Bill C-2 would also create a new prohibition against advertising and possession for the purpose of advertising child pornography. This new offence would be punishable on indictment by a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. This is a wake-up call for the predators that their criminal acts will be vigorously prosecuted and severe sentences imposed.

Bill C-2 also proposes significant reforms relating to sentencing in child pornography cases. First, it proposes that the maximum penalty for all child pornography offences, on summary conviction, be tripled from 6 to 18 months. Second, it would make the commission of any child pornography offence with intent to profit an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. In other words, those who seek to profit by sexually exploiting children through child pornography will get a tougher sentence.

The intent and impact of these child pornography specific sentencing reforms are further underscored by the fact that Bill C-2 also proposes two amendments to the Criminal Code's sentencing principles.

In particular, in cases involving the abuse of a child, Bill C-2 directs courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence of such conduct in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed. Bill C-2 also requires a court to consider the abuse of a child as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

In addition, Bill C-2 proposes to replace the existing defences of artistic merit, education, scientific or medical purpose and public good with a two-part, harm-based legitimate purpose defence. This new defence narrows the existing defences and replaces what had previously been proposed as the public good defence in Bill C-12 in the last session of Parliament with a clear and more easily understood defence. This new defence incorporates the harm standard adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada when it upheld the constitutionality of the child pornography provisions in 2001.

Under Bill C-2, a defence for an act in relation to child pornography would only be available where the act in question has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice, science, medicine, education or art and does not pose an undue risk of harm to children.

Under this new defence, the availability of a defence does not change the child pornographic nature of the material. Material that has been found to constitute child pornography as defined by the existing Criminal Code provisions or as expanded by Bill C-2 would remain child pornography.

Instead, Bill C-2 would require the court to consider whether the use made of the material in each instance is protected by the defence. For example, possession of child pornographic photographs by police for purposes associated with the investigation of a child pornography case would benefit from the defence, because the act of possession of the photographs is for a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice and does not pose an undue risk of harm to children. Possession of the same photographs by a child pornographer for his personal use would not be protected by this defence.

As I said at the outset, Canadians want us to do more to combat child pornography and I am pleased to see that this is what Bill C-2 delivers. In addition to the new reforms proposed by Bill C-2 in May 2004, the government launched a national strategy to protect children from sexual exploitation on the Internet.

This new national strategy is providing just over $42 million to expand the RCMP's national coordination centre against child sexual exploitation and provide law enforcement with enhanced resources to investigate Internet-based child sexual exploitation, including child pornography. Funding is also being used to enhance public education and to nationally expand Cybertip.ca, a 24/7 public tip line.

Together, Bill C-2 and the recently enhanced resources send a clear and strong message that we condemn the sexual exploitation, abuse and neglect of children and other vulnerable persons. It sends a message that we have declared war on child pornography. I call upon all members of the House to support the bill and I ask that it be given quick passage.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-2, the subject matter of child pornography. I think every member in this place would agree that the existence of child pornography necessarily means that a child has been abused.

Bill C-2 contains amendments to the Criminal Code but nowhere do we have the full definition of what constitutes pornography. In the Criminal Code, child pornography means:

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity; or

(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or

Part (b) is now replaced in part by adding audio recording. Part (b) will now read:

any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

The bill adds new paragraphs (c) and (d) referring to:

(c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or

(d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

Should Bill C-2 pass, that, in its totality, will be the definition in the Criminal Code of child pornography.

Bill C-2 does build on the constructive input of parliamentarians over the last couple of Parliaments. We have dealt with some very touchy subjects. Artistic merit was very problematic for the House. Another was public good. I am not sure many people at the time understood what public good meant. It is terminology that has tended to open up certain difficulties with members but with which I think we can still work.

I suggest that in this bill we have a new concept called legitimate purpose. I think we could use better language and maybe the committee will help us to understand what better language there might be. The important thing is that we have to communicate with Canadians about the essence of the bill and the essence of the government's approach to addressing this most serious issue of child pornography.

I would suggest, as an example, that legitimate use might be replaced by authorized possession. That would mean that police officers who seize material in their role would be authorized to possess that material. A medical officer doing testing relating to a particular case would be an authorized possessor of child pornography. A scientist looking at some of the impacts, et cetera, could be one. Another, for educational purposes, could be for those who are training others to deal with the terrible situation of what happens to children when they are the victims of abuse relating to child pornography.

I want to comment on the fact that Bill C-2 contains the add on item of for art, which has been raised by other members in the House. The Robin Sharpe case really raised this. Sharpe had four charges laid against him. Two charges were clearly related to possession of pornography as defined under the Criminal Code and two were related to the possession of materials which Mr. Sharpe created himself, arguably, as he stated, for his own use. The Supreme Court ruled that the possession of these materials, written or pictures, did not constitute possession of child pornography.

I began to wonder whether this whole issue of art was in fact related to what the Supreme Court said about the possession of something that was created by oneself. Then I thought, and I am not a lawyer and I am not sure whether my case would ever hold up, but it would seem to me that the question would probably be moot. If I created something which clearly was for my own use, I would be the author and no other person would know about it. I would not show it to any other person. If I were to show it to someone then I would be distributing which would be contrary to the existing Criminal Code.

Therefore, if materials exist, which I have produced for my own purposes, and no evidence exists that they have gone beyond my own use, why would I need the protection of those who produce things for art? It really gets down to the fact that if it is for my own use then no one knows, and if someone does know then someone else must have it and therefore all of a sudden we have production and distribution of pornographic materials.

I think we will be dealing again with a matter that this place has dealt with so many times before and that is the whole issue of court made law. The Supreme Court of Canada often, it has been suggested, has had to take the initiative because Parliament has not.

I believe this is the time for us to take the initiative to make absolutely sure the legislation reflects the values of Canadians. I know we will get into these arguments about whether the rights of one party contradict the rights of others.

Let me review section 1 of the charter as interpreted by the Supreme Court with regard to the values underlying a free and democratic society. The Supreme Court describes it as follows:

--respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society.

It is a complicated statement but in my opinion this particular statement basically includes all, every belief, every practice, every action. I do not understand how we could possibly have laws that could be charter proof when in fact the Supreme Court of Canada basically said that we had to protect everyone for all things at all times.

There has to be a point at which we say that the rights of children should be put first, ahead of the rights of others who may meander into areas which border on the abuse of children.

I think this is the fundamental essence. I think it is extremely important that Parliament will be sending the bill to committee after first reading, not at second. It means that substantive changes to the legislation are possible. It means that having witnesses on matters of concern can be brought forward. If the bill had been referred to committee after second reading it would not be possible. I think this is an important change in the way in which the House will be addressing legislation.

I am very hopeful that the members of the justice committee will seek to clarify the whole concept of court made law, particularly with regard to the interpretations related to the protection of individuals. The statement that the Supreme Court made with regard to how it interprets section 1 of the charter, quite frankly, is too broad. We have to understand this better.

Parliamentarians will do a better job when they know what they are up against but, quite frankly, unless we take the onus and the initiative to lay it out clearly for Canadians, then we will not be successful.

I am pleased to have participated in this brief debate on Bill C-2. I believe many in the House have indicated that if there were any issue on which they would want the notwithstanding clause to be invoked it would be with regard to the issue of child protection and child pornography.

I hope all parliamentarians will seize the day.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-2, I draw no pleasure from speaking to the child exploitation issue yet again. The Liberal government has failed to protect Canada's children in the past and the proposed legislation does little to correct that injustice.

Going door to door during the election, I was struck by the amount of people who raised the issue. The concern was broad. Parents, grandparents, teachers, police officers, neighbours and even teenagers brought the issue to my attention. All were unanimous in urging me to demand the toughest protections possible.

Recently, I sent out a community publication on the issue and the comments I got were revealing.

Dwight of Saskatoon was unequivocal when he stated, “All forms of child pornography are unacceptable”. Brian, also of Saskatoon, said “I think people having child pornography material should be prosecuted and face severe consequences”. Saskatoon resident Natasha said, “Child pornography should not be tolerated in any way, shape or form. These children are our future--this is not to be taken lightly. Child pornography made her “sick, sick, sick”. I could not agree more.

Perhaps Tina identified the real problem. She said, “The time may come when an MP or government official's child is exploited, that will change people's minds”. I sincerely hope that is not what it takes, and I do not understand why the government fails to send a better message to Canadians. The Liberal inaction and indifference to the protection of our children is inexcusable.

In a survey of my constituents the results were clear. When asked if they thought all types of child pornography were unacceptable, 92% said, yes. When asked if child pornography could be produced without causing harm to a child, 97% said, no. If 97% of the people say that pornography harms a child, why has the government done nothing to stop it? When asked if they wanted the laws of Canada to ban all types of child pornography, 98% said, yes. When asked if those caught with child pornography should be included in the national sex offenders registry, 96% said, yes.

This is significant because it shows how much Canadians believe that child pornography has a direct correlation to sex offences. My constituents believe that this issue hits close to home because when they were asked if they thought child prostitution was a problem in their neighbourhoods, 83% said, yes.

The last two questions of the survey lead me to my next part of the debate involving child pornography and the Internet. My constituents were asked if they had accidentally encountered offensive pornography on the Internet and over half of them said, yes. This is important when we consider the final question they were asked. They were asked if Internet pornography increased the risk of child sexual exploitation and 89% of my constituents said, yes.

My constituents have been clear. They believe child pornography in all forms should be banned and also that its presence on the Internet is harmful.

In the last Parliament I introduced a private member's bill calling for mandatory installation of software on all public computers accessible by minors which would block offensive and dangerous material. Unfortunately, an early election call put an end to that important initiative.

A judge in my riding explained to me that this was a growing problem, as he witnessed on a recent visit to a local library. Crowded around a public access computer was a group of young children viewing pornographic websites.

If it is happening in such a public place, one can only imagine what is happening upstairs when a parent is busy making dinner. Even when children are supervised, the most unexpected things can happen at the worst possible moment.

A grade one teacher was excited to get Internet access in her classroom as it would allow her to enhance the learning experience for the children. As a fun exercise she suggested they name off a bunch of animals to research. Once she had the list on the board she asked the class to pick by vote. We must remember that this was a grade one class and, without any malicious intent, they picked the beaver.

One can imagine having to be a teacher and explaining to the children why they could not research such an animal. While the situation is funny to some, it is but one example of a growing problem of youth and an open Internet. They are being exposed to graphic and violent material by accident and without proper explanation or guidance.

One can only imagine the warped view of sexuality many children will develop long before their parents get a chance to discuss the issue with them. This legislation does nothing to prevent these problems, and for the problems it intends to fix it does not.

I have a big problem with the artistic merit defence. A number of people in the arts community say that it is just art, that it has no negative effects and that it does not inspire anyone.

Well, when one goes to the computer and goes to Google and searches the term “art inspires”, 250,000 references are found. Artists often speak of their desire to see their art inspire people for one reason or another. I am sorry but we cannot have it both ways. Either art has impact and influence or it does not. I suggest the arts community in Canada step forward and prevent a minority of perverts from using them as an excuse for their fetishes.

The hon. member for Wild Rose brought in a Toronto police officer to meet with MPs and he showed us child pornography images. They were sick and disgusting and they left a long lasting impression. It does not please me to say that I can still recall many of those images in detail. My heart goes out to our law enforcement officers who must work through this smut all day just to go home and interact with their young children. It must have a stressful impact on many of these young mothers and fathers.

The Liberal government knows the legislation is not the toughest it can put forward. It knows its legislation has too much room for interpretation and grey area. It knows it has not fulfilled its promise to Canadians. It knows too that raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age would provide our police with an important new tool.

Our law enforcement officers are often powerless to prevent the exploitation of children, especially our street kids. As long as adults can get sexual access to children through weak laws, they will. We do not want Canada to become a sex trade tourism location any more than it already is.

On city streets we often see prostitutes barely past puberty selling their bodies to support one addiction or another. We see police forced to sit by and watch as they do not have the proper tools to target child hunting Johns. If we as a government do not provide them with the tools to fight this kind of crime, we cannot blame them when things go wrong.

In Toronto last year a child was abducted on her walk home and killed. Her killer says that his access to and viewing of child pornography was the main reason he committed this horrible crime against this innocent child. Police were blamed for the high amount of sex offenders in the community. They were blamed for the delay in finding the killer. They were blamed for not preventing access to child pornography in the first place.

Well I say shame on the Liberal government. The Liberals must be the ones to shoulder the blame for not providing the police with the legal tools and necessary funding to prevent and fight such crime. Now they have the opportunity and we see them skirting their responsibility.

I have some questions for every government member. When their young child or grandchild grows up will they be able to say that they did their absolute best? Will they be able to tell them honestly that this was the best they could do? Are they proud of this flawed legislation? We need to fulfill our obligations to our electorate.

I sincerely hope the government plans to amend its legislation to reflect the wishes of the majority of the House and the majority of Canadians. Our children are counting on us even if they do not yet know it.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

I share the view of the Minister of Justice that the bill would provide a comprehensive child protection regime to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. It would increase the criminal law's protection against child pornography, create a new sexual exploitation offence to protect children between 14 and 18 years of age, increase the maximum sentences for child related offences, facilitate the testimony of child victims and witnesses, protect the other vulnerable victims and witnesses and create new offences of voyeurism.

It is the latter offences that I would like to address more particularly today.

The creation of new offences of voyeurism is an example of how the criminal law can be made to keep abreast of new developments. Voyeurism has probably existed since humankind started living in society. However, the means used in conducting voyeurism have evolved drastically in recent years. For centuries, the only way of observing a person without the knowledge of the person was to hide behind a curtain, look through a window in the dark or look through a hole in the wall. In those days a person who wanted to spy on another person had to get involved personally. One would have thought the risk of being found out would have been a deterrent.

This was still the case up until a few years ago. It was certainly the case when the Criminal Code was first enacted in 1892. Until recently, Canadians were sufficiently protected by prohibiting trespassing at night or mischief. Things have changed since then. The major changes were brought by the advent of the Internet and the miniaturization of cameras and recording devices. Nowadays a camera smaller than a pen can be hidden in a room and allow a person to view what happens in the room while sitting at a computer in another building.

I am not suggesting that we become paranoid, but it is something of which we should be aware. We believe the law should be made to cover the offences committed with new technologies. With Bill C-2, we are called upon to enact such an adaptation of the law to address the misuse of new technologies.

The bill would create new offences to address modern acts of voyeurism, acts committed through small hidden cameras that are hard to detect and acts that, when committed now, do not fall under the criminal law and leave the victims with no other remedy than trying on their own to obtain compensation in civil courts.

The offence of voyeurism has four elements. First, it requires an act of observation or recording. Second, the observation or recording must be conducted in a surreptitious manner, which means that the person observed cannot reasonably be expected to see the person or the means used for observing or recording. Third, the person must be in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Fourth, the elements of one of these specific cases must exist.

The first is a case when the person observed or recorded is in a place where one can reasonably expect a person to be in a state of nudity or engaged in sexual activity. I would think a bathroom, bedroom or fitting room would qualify as such a place. The second case is when a person is in a state of nudity or engaged in sexual activity and the purpose of the observation or recording is to observe or record a person in that state. The third case is when the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.

Bill C-2 would also prohibit the distribution of material obtained by the commission of an offence of voyeurism. Canadians value their privacy. In some situations there is a clear and reasonable expectation of privacy. This legislation has been designed with a view to protect this expectation of privacy.

Some may argue that the legislation will prevent the legitimate gathering of information when these techniques become prohibited. For cases where such techniques must be used to serve the public good, the legislation provides a public good defence to an offence of voyeurism. Outside of these extraordinary circumstances the message is clear: using these techniques is unacceptable behaviour now and it will become criminal behaviour when Bill C-2 becomes law.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in this debate on Bill C-2. First I want to offer my congratulations on your important position in this minority government Parliament.

This House will not see many bills as important as Bill C-2. There are a number of aspects to it, including the battle against child pornography. I believe, and this belief is shared by all members of the Bloc Quebecois, that few of an MP's responsibilities are more important than protecting the most vulnerable people in our society, in this case, the children. All members will agree that children are our most important resource. They are our future. They deserve all our attention and more importantly, all our protection.

We could spend a long time debating this issue, but I believe you will find, beyond the partisan rhetoric in this House, that all members of Parliament want to fight sexual deviance--the attraction to minors. That is the attitude the Bloc Quebecois will take in this debate. Since the beginning, we have maintained a responsible and rigorous attitude. This was our attitude in the previous legislature when we debated this bill in its previous form. Our attitude will be the same this time for Bill C-2.

There are three main elements to Bill C-2: fighting the sexual exploitation of minors; fighting voyeurism, particularly at a time of Internet accessibility and of cameras and technology that make it possible to miniaturize nearly everything; and fighting child pornography. Since I have only 10 minutes, I would like to proceed in reverse order and begin with the problem of child pornography.

When we examine a bill, especially one that amends the Criminal Code, it is important to look carefully at the words in the legislation and the definitions in it. Bill C-2 defines child pornography as follows, and I quote:

“child pornography” means

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or

(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or

(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

(c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would bean offence under this Act; or

(d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would bean offence under this Act.

For an individual to be found guilty of child pornography, their actions must fit within the definition I have just read.

A means of defence is created. This is a fairly basic difference between the Bloc Quebecois and the Conservative Party.

The bill creates a single means of defence: that of legitimate purpose, unlike the previous bill. Thanks to our committee work, we were able to make a rather significant change, since the old defence was the public good.

That was a very nebulous concept. A number of people faulted it for that reason. It had been defined in the previous legislation. The definition of legitimate purpose in Bill C-2 repeats the one we had added in committee in place of public good. According to the definition, the legitimate purpose could be related to theadministration of justice or to science,medicine or education.

Certain individuals would therefore not be found guilty of child pornography, when their aim was in fact to fight it. They could be, for example, a psychiatrist treating sexual deviants who are child pornographers, a police officer investigating child pornography cases, or a university teaching future psychiatrists about child pornography.

The amendments to Bill C-2, the new definition of the means of defence, have tightened it up. The list of activities I have given is, moreover, all-inclusive, and will thus limit the means of defence.

Thus, for a person to be found guilty of child pornography, there are two tests. The first is to determine whether what the person did falls within the rather narrow definition of child pornography. If so, the second test is to determine—and this is a defence—whether the act alleged serves a legitimate purpose or not.

Several concerns were raised in committee, in particular about artists who might write a book in which they describe their first sexual experience. The first question is whether the book is written material whose dominant characteristic is the description of sexual activity for a sexual purpose.

Thus, the bar is already fairly high. Many legitimate artists would not have to worry about failing the first test. Indeed, in most cases, their written material does not fall within the definition. If by some misfortune it is considered child pornography, the defence would still be available.

Bill C-2 strikes a fair balance, allowing a fairly serious crackdown—a position the Bloc Quebecois agrees with when it comes to child pornography—but leaving a degree of latitude for doctors, police, and some artists. For example, a nude painting or statue by Michelangelo will not be considered child pornography.

I would simply like to express my disappointment. I think the parliamentary secretary is aware of the fact that there is no minimum sentence for anyone found guilty of child pornography. What the minister wants to do—what members of his team have told me—is to send a strong message that we want to fight child pornography by increasing maximum sentences.

I think the argument can be made that a minimum sentence is also essential in ensuring that a person found guilty of child pornography gets a taste of penitentiary life.

We are talking about those dearest to us, about very fragile beings: our children. Anyone who touches our children in a sexual manner deserves a mandatory prison sentence to make sure he does not reoffend.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act.

In general, Bill C-2 supports a strong commitment in the Speech from the Throne to crackdown on child pornography. It would broaden the definition of child pornography and increase the maximum penalty for all child pornography offences. It would prohibit the sexual exploitation of youth and double the maximum penalty for the offence from 5 to 10 years.

The bill would also create two new voyeurism offences that would prohibit the distribution of voyeuristic material and enable police to seize pornographic material obtained in such a manner.

In particular, Bill C-2 contains a number of important reforms to our court system that I would like to bring to the attention of the House. The reforms proposed in Bill C-2 would change and improve the way in which a witness offers testimony in court. These improvements would effect three broad categories of witnesses: child victims or witnesses under the age of 18; victims of criminal harassment, commonly known as stalking; and witnesses with a disability that makes it difficult for them to communicate.

The courtroom can be a scary and intimidating place for anyone serving as a witness to crime. For victims who are providing their own testimony, the experience of appearing in court can be especially traumatic since they must essentially relive details of the crimes committed against them and most often they are required to do so in the presence of the accused.

For the victims of sexual abuses and other serious crimes, this process can cause extreme emotional upheaval and make it very difficult for a witness to provide a full and candid account. This is especially true for victims of child sexual abuse or those vulnerable with a disability since they are the least familiar with the justice system and may not fully understand or comprehend the court process.

While our current criminal law goes a long way in addressing the needs of young victims and witnesses in the courtroom, we need to do more to reduce the revictimization of all the vulnerable witnesses. At present, there are a number of tools available in the courtroom, known as testimonial aids, which include the following: the use of closed circuit television to prevent face to face encounters of the young victim with the accused; the setting up of a screen in the courtroom to avoid visual contact between the victim and the accused; the adoption of videotaped evidence; the exclusion of the public from the courtroom; publication bans; and the appointment of counsel to conduct cross-examination if the accused chooses to represent himself in court.

However the current laws require the crown or young witnesses to actually prove the need for such aids in court. This is problematic for two reasons: it requires child victims to provide additional court testimony and thereby increase their trauma; and crown attorneys are often discouraged by the extra court time it takes to process the application.

Bill C-2, therefore, would clarify the situation by making testimonial aids available upon request, rather than requiring young victims and witnesses to prove that such aids are necessary.

In addition, the reforms in Bill C-2 would make testimonial aids available to vulnerable adult victims and witnesses where they can demonstrate a need.

Perhaps most important, the bill addresses the situation where a child victim is exposed to hours and sometimes days of face to face cross-examination by the accused if the accused has chosen to represent himself or herself in court. By deliberately choosing to represent himself or herself in court, the accused is able to succeed in further intimidating the victim by cross-examination.

Bill C-2 would prevent the accused from using personal intimidation in the courtroom by the appointment, at the specific request of the victim, of a counsel to conduct any cross-examination. These reforms would also be made available to adult victims provided they can demonstrate the need for testimonial aids.

Victims of domestic and sexual assault, for example, are also at great risk of being revictimized through personal cross-examination by the accused.

I am sure many Canadians will recall the notorious Robin Sharpe case in which he chose to represent himself in court on charges of gross indecency. Mr. Sharpe was permitted to personally cross-examine his victim causing that person to experience tremendous emotional trauma and, in effect, revictimizing the witness.

Bill C-2 would prevent these types of situations from happening again in the future.

Victims of criminal harassment, commonly known as stalking, would also be able to request that a counsel be appointed to conduct cross-examination if the accused has elected to represent himself or herself in court. The court would be required to grant the order unless it interferes with the proper administration of justice.

Bill C-2 also includes amendments to publication ban provisions in the Criminal Code in order to ensure that those provisions remain effective as new communication technology emerges.

These reforms will be of interest to all members of the House who advocate for rights of victims of crime. I trust that all members will support them in order to further our collective goal of improving the experience of crime victims.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to participate in the debate on Bill C-2, the child protection bill. This bill is almost identical to previous legislation, Bill C-12 and Bill C-20. They were primarily intended to address concerns regarding Canada's child pornography laws.

Canadian children deserve nothing less than total protection from child pornography. This legislation, however, is little more than smoke and mirrors. As lawmakers, we have the tough task of weighing the protection of children from sexual exploitation against the protection of free speech and free thought protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On this question, I agree wholeheartedly with Cheryl Tobias, a lawyer from the Department of Justice, who said, when appearing before the Supreme Court during the John Robin Sharpe case that if pedophiles have a constitutional right to free expression, “it is dwarfed by the interests of children in our society...We ought not sacrifice children on the altar of the Charter”.

What we need are laws with teeth. Toothless laws will only hamper police and crown attorneys as they try to catch producers of child pornography.

Children should not be sexually exploited, but it continues to happen thousands of times a day. There does not seem to be the political will to stop it by the weak and arrogant Liberal government.

The Department of Justice proposed Bill C-2 and its predecessors to expand the offence of sexual exploitation and the definition of pornography, and to eliminate the defence of artistic merit in child pornography proceedings.

As well, the bill would increase maximum sentences for people convicted of these crimes. If passed, the bill would create a new offence of voyeurism and the distribution of voyeuristic material.

Bill C-2 is a reaction to the case of John Robin Sharpe, a child pornographer charged with possession of child pornography. Sharpe was initially found guilty of possession of child pornography, but on appeal, two lower courts acquitted Sharpe citing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sharpe had as many as 400 images of boys younger than 14 engaged in sex and a collection of his own stories entitled “Kiddie Kink Classics”. 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 stories he had written, specifically because those writings were deemed to have artistic merit.

This ruling resulted in the current legal status of child pornography in Canada which is too permissive and threatens the safety of children. Earlier forms of Bill C-2 sought to close the loophole that allows people to create child pornography using artistic merit as a defence by establishing a standard of public good.

The Liberals have now been forced by public outrage to drop the term public good as a defence for the possession of child pornography. They have replaced public good with a new defence of legitimate purpose. Legitimate purpose is defined to include, among other things, art.

The Conservative Party wants the elimination of all defences that justify the criminal possession of child pornography. There is nothing artistic about child pornography. It is wrong and has been shown to lead to the sexual abuse of children.

Police and prosecutors still do not have the tools to deal with child pornography cases effectively or efficiently. In the first three years that members of the Toronto child exploitation unit spent tracking child pornography, they made 27 arrests and seized 84 computers with millions of images, but the police have been frustrated in their attempts to get jail time for these offenders. Most get conditional sentences or house arrest. The police frequently spend more time investigating the cases than offenders will spend in jail. This is the case for other crimes as well.

In my riding of Fleetwood—Port Kells marijuana grow operations are a significant concern. The RCMP recently announced that there are 4,500 marijuana grow ops in the City of Surrey. That represents about 6% of the city's households.

There will be 2,000 to 3,000 grow ops raided and shut down this year in the Fraser Valley. Across the border in Whatcom County there will be less than 10. The difference can be explained by the tougher sentences handed out in Washington State. There, operators of a grow op with more than 100 plants face an automatic five years in jail. For the first offence it is three months in jail and seizure of assets. In B.C. a person can be charged seven or eight times and still not be incarcerated.

The judiciary must hand out tougher sentences that better reflect community values. The higher maximum sentences contained in Bill C-2 for child pornography and predation will not be effective unless the courts enforce them.

Increased maximum sentences are meaningless if the courts do not impose the sentences, and we know by experience that when maximum sentences are raised, there is no corresponding pattern in the actual sentencing practices. What is needed are mandatory sentences, truth in sentencing, and no conditional sentences for child predators.

Conditional sentences which allowed child sex offenders, murderers, rapists and impaired drivers the opportunity to serve their sentences at home rather than in prison must be eliminated for serious offenders.

In 1999, 66,000 pornography images were found in the home of convicted pedophile Tony Marr. Police spent a year preparing the case against him, but Marr ended up with a conditional sentence and probation. One of the conditions of his probation was that he not use the Internet and computers except for medical purposes or work. Recent surveillance video showed him apparently working around a computer and exchanging CDs. This shows the absurdity of conditional sentences.

It is estimated that there are more than 100,000 child porn Web sites on the World Wide Web. A research group at the University of Cork in Ireland that studies child pornography is seeing an average of three to four new faces of abused children each month. About 40% of the girls and 55% of the boys are between the ages of 9 and 12. The rest are even younger. The group estimates that there are 50,000 new child abuse images being posted to newsgroups every month. Various studies have shown that about 35% to 50% of child porn collectors have a history of abusing children.

In the past three years 44% of the people arrested in Toronto for possessing child pornography have also been charged with or convicted with sexually abusing children.

The landslide child porn bust in the United States provided Canadian authorities with 2,329 Canadian leads, but almost 2,000 have never been looked at by police. That is because most communities simply do not have the will or resources or the officers who are trained to do the job.

Child killer Michael Briere admitted that he had been aroused by watching child porn on his computer just before he kidnapped, sexually molested and killed Holly Jones.

At present, the age of consent for sexual activity is set in the Criminal Code at 14 years of age. There have been recent reports that cross-border pedophiles are luring vulnerable children by way of the Internet. This cross-border pedophile activity into Canada has been enhanced by two factors: first, Canada's age of consent for sex is set at only 14 years, being one of the lowest of all western nations; and, second, Canada is one of the world's most wired countries; there are more than 10 million Internet users in this country.

According to a study by Microsoft, 80% of children in Canada have computers in their homes and 25% of them had already been invited to meet strangers that they had chatted with on-line.

The Internet has become a massive vehicle for criminals to lure and abuse Canadian children and to distribute illegal material. Research shows that pedophiles will often manipulate young children by showing them pictures on the Internet making them believe that sex with adults is acceptable.

Amendments were made to the Criminal Code in 2002 to make the luring of children through the Internet an offence. Although that was an important step to protect children--

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as a former educator it saddens and disturbs me to know that there are individuals in our society who exploit and take advantage of children. Therefore, Bill C-2 is important in terms of addressing issues that I think are of concern to all of us in the House, that is, issues involving the welfare of children.

Bill C-2, and in particular the part dealing with the protection of children and other vulnerable persons under the Evidence Act, is important legislation. It is also important that we move on this legislation as quickly as possible.

I believe that this legislation also reflects the importance of the issue for Canadians in general, because it is something that I think all of us can agree on. No one can tolerate or condone the exploitation of young children. Bill C-2 has a number of key elements that I believe do address that issue.

One is the strengthening of existing child pornography provisions. It would broaden the definition to include audio recordings as well as written material describing prohibited sexual activity with children where the description is the predominant characteristic of the material and pornography.

The legislation would create a new prohibition against advertising child pornography, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment on indictment and would increase the maximum penalty for all child pornography offences, on summary conviction, from six to 18 months. As well, Bill C-2 would replace existing child pornography defences with a narrower, two-pronged legitimate purpose defence that incorporates a harm-based standard.

Bill C-2 would strengthen the protection for young persons against sexual exploitation. It would increase the penalties for offences against children. The legislation would also facilitate testimony by children and other vulnerable victims and witnesses. It also would create new voyeurism offences.

I want to clearly indicate my support for Bill C-2. The reforms that it proposes are all welcome indeed. However, I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks on the bill's proposals to better protect youth against sexual exploitation.

Bill C-2 proposes to create a new category of prohibited sexual exploitation of a young person who is over the age of consent for sexual activity, that is, who is 14 years of age or older and under 18. Under this offence, the courts would be directed to infer that a relationship with a young person is exploitive of that young person by looking to the nature and circumstances of that relationship.

The bill directs the court to consider specific indicators of exploitation. They include: the age of the young person; any difference in age between the young person and the other person; the evolution of the relationship; and the degree of control or influence exerted over the young person. Bill C-2 provides a clear definition to the courts to infer the relationship is exploitive of a young person after examining the nature and the circumstances of the relationship.

In my view, this direction recognizes that all young persons are vulnerable to sexual exploitation. It also recognizes that the particular circumstances of some youth might put them at a greater risk of being exploited. As a result, the bill directs the courts to consider the nature and circumstances of each relationship and includes a list of factors that I think reasonable people will readily acknowledge are typical indicators of exploitation.

We often hear concerns about youth being approached over the Internet by persons who would prey on their vulnerability. Let us take, for example, a case where the young person secretly and quickly enters into a relationship over the Internet. Bill C-2 tells the courts to take this into account as a possible indicator of exploitation.

Another example that we often hear concerns about is the one where a young person is in a relationship with another person who is significantly older than the young person. Bill C-2 tells the courts very clearly to take this into account.

Bill C-2 would recognize that a young person can be sexually exploited not only by someone who is much older, but also by someone who is a peer and again close in age. Bill C-2 would apply to both situations because the government recognizes that both situations are wrong and should be prohibited.

I appreciate that there is a diversity of opinion as to whether and when young people should engage in a form of sexual activity. The reality is, though, that adolescents do engage in sexual activity. It is also a fact that the prohibitions against sexual activity with persons below the age of consent are very broad. They do not differentiate between sexual activity that consists of kissing and sexual activity that involves sexual intercourse. I do not think Canadians want to criminalize a 17 year old for kissing a 15 year old, but Bill C-2 would not do that.

I agree with the focus of Bill C-2. It focuses on the wrongful conduct of the offender and not on the consent of the young person. That is in fact the way the criminal law responds to sexual assault in general, namely, by focusing on the wrongdoing of the offender and not the victim. In my view, the focus of Bill C-2 on the exploitive conduct of the offender is both the right focus and the right response.

I would also note that Bill C-2 proposes to double the maximum penalty for sexual exploitation of a young person, including for this new proposed offence, from 5 to 10 years when preceded by indictment. Together, the creation of this new offence and the doubling of the maximum penalty underscore the seriousness of the form of sexual exploitation.

In addition, Bill C-2 would increase the maximum penalty on summary conviction for child specific sexual offences of sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation from 6 to 18 months. These reforms were previously welcomed by the Canadian Bar Association as part of former Bill C-12 from the last session of Parliament.

Bill C-2 would require sentencing courts in cases involving the abuse of a child to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and different proposals to consider such conduct an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

Bill C-2 is important because of the initiatives in it. There are welcomed reforms to the criminal law to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. The time has come to deal with this issue effectively. I believe that the minister, in proposing this legislation, is addressing the concerns that we have heard both in the last session of Parliament and in this one. The time for action has come.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to begin by congratulating you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of this House. I know you have always shown great concern for parliamentary freedom and the quality of debate in this House and will protect that freedom.

My congratulations as well to all the new MPs, my new Bloc Quebecois colleagues in particular of course. We are well aware of the extremely clear and strong mandate with which we, and our new colleagues over the way, have been entrusted by our fellow citizens.

Bill C-2 to amend the Criminal Code is an extremely important bill. Important, first of all because it is vital to follow up on the Supreme Court decision relating to child pornography in the Sharpe case, and second because child pornography is such a sensitive issue.

This is an extremely sensitive subject, and of course all members of Parliament are sensitive to anything that might possibly involve the exploitation of children. We do, however, also not want to put a system in that might inhibit artistic freedom, for example. A balance must be struck between the two, and we feel that the initial version of Bill C-2 does this successfully.

To begin at the beginning, the definition of child pornography is quite clear. There have, of course, been provisions in the Criminal Code for a very long time relating to child pornography. What makes this up to date and new is the variety of forms such pornography can now take, through new technologies like the Internet in particular.

For the purpose of this debate, then, we need to keep in mind the definition of child pornography. Clause 7 of the bill is intended as an amendment to section 163.1(1) of the Criminal Code which reads as follows:

163.1(1)(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means:

Electronic here being an innovation. Continuing:

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity

The first component of the definition of child pornography involves the depiction of a child under the age of 18 engaged in sexual activity. The expression “sexual activity” is key here.

The second component of the definition is as follows:

(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;

This definition is important since it must ensure that when judges—a judge in an ordinary court of law, but especially a judge in a criminal court—have appearing before them people charged with child pornography, the main component of the charge must be depictions of sexual activity of a person under the age of 18 years.

Does that mean that any depiction of sexual activity of a person under the age of 18 years will prompt the Crown to lay charges under the bill before the House? No, because there will be the same defences as the ones that already exist in the Criminal Code. In this case, there will be a defence that could be raised.

Thus, a charge will be laid if the definition I just read applies. However, the accused might not be found guilty of the charge. There could be situations or depictions of children under the age of 18 engaged in sexual activity that will not be prosecutable. This is the legitimate purpose defence the bill proposes.

What is a legitimate purpose? I will give the exact definition from the bill. The bill creates one defence in cases of child pornography, which only applies if the act has:

--a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art--

Why is this second element important? It is because in the Sharpe case it was possible to introduce two grounds for defence in court. I understand that this bill removes one of them.

It is certain that if a broadcaster regulated by the CRTC showed an advertisement on public television promoting a personal hygiene product such as soap or baby powder or such, and the public saw a child in a bath with another child, such a thing would not of course be subject to prosecution under the bill before the House. It is important to recognize this nuance.

When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Sharpe case, concerns were raised about the balance necessary between vigorous protection for those who want to exploit children for the purposes of child pornography and the rights of artists and professionals, such as psychiatrists and those in related fields, to have material that could be used for artistic or professional purposes, but not for the exploitation of children.

The bill also provides other means that may be somewhat less important but which are still justified. For instance, it allows testimony by children under 14. It is not customary for children under 14 to appear in court. Usually there would be an inquiry or a preliminary hearing first. The bill makes it possible to hear the testimony of children under 14. We believe it is completely proper to do so in a context where, considering the circumstances or facts that might lead to a decision that children were exploited for the purpose of child pornography, their testimony could incriminate or clear a person.

In addition, there are various methods of hearing testimony from persons significant to the child, using videoconferences or other such technology.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are in favour of this bill, in principle, but we do have certain concerns. I have not heard any response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to the following, which is our first concern. We understand that the bill will set maximum penalties that depend on the offence involved. For the main one I have referred to already, it will go up from 5 years to 10. We understand that sentencing will be affected by certain circumstances judged to be aggravating factors. We do, however, find it hard to understand why no minimum sentences are specified.

I know that some degree of discretion is afforded to the courts and the judges in determining sentences. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles will be bringing in an amendment in committee that will, I hope, be supported by all members. The purpose of that amendment will be to ensure that, when a case is heard relating to the new offence created by Bill C-2, there is a minimum sentence depending on whether a criminal prosecution or summary conviction is involved. We feel it is important to have both a lower limit, the minimum sentence, and an upper limit, the maximum sentence.

In short, we are in favour of this bill because it protects our children better. We do want to bring in one or two amendments relating to sentencing. I am sure that all members of the Bloc Quebecois will have a serious contribution to make when the Standing Committee on Justice meets.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code in regard to the protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

First, I want to be very clear that there are some aspects of this bill that are worthwhile. I applaud those measures. For example, Canada is in need of legislation to deal with voyeurism and the distribution of voyeuristic material. As a matter of fact, there is a lady from my home province of New Brunswick, Julia Buote, who has helped to lead the fight for tougher laws on voyeurism. I commend her on that effort. We also need legislation that helps to facilitate the testimony of child victims and witnesses and this bill provides a step in that direction.

Unfortunately, as we have seen in the House before, these worthwhile measures are thrown in with a bill that still falls far short of what Canadian children require from this government. In short, this legislation allows for the continuation of a dangerous loophole that will allow for child pornographers to continue to possess what should be illegal material.

Much of the controversy over Canada's child pornography laws dates back to the court case of John Sharpe. In the Sharpe decision, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the Criminal Code defence of “artistic merit” should be interpreted as broadly as possible. This helped shape the decision that allowed Sharpe to be acquitted on two counts of “possession of child pornography with the intent to distribute”. The material in question contained violent writings targeting vulnerable children; however, the judge ultimately found that this material had artistic merit.

All across Canada, child pornography cases were put on hold while the Liberal government did nothing as the Sharpe case wound its way through the courts. For two years Canadian children effectively went without legal protection against child pornographers as police were compelled to put investigations on hold pending the appeals.

The Supreme Court held in Sharpe that artistic merit should be interpreted as including “any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art” and that “any objectively established artistic value, however small”, would support the defence.

When the Liberal government finally reacted to public outrage over the Sharpe decision, the response was woefully inadequate. Three times now, first with Bill C-20, then Bill C-12, and finally Bill C-2, which is before us today, the government has attempted to appear tough on child protection, but in reality is not closing loopholes that threaten Canadian children.

Actually, the government has now come full circle and is still including a type of artistic merit defence for the possession of child pornography.

Under Bill C-12 from the 37th Parliament, the existing Criminal Code defences for child pornography, which included artistic merit or educational, scientific or medical purpose, were reduced to a single defence of “public good”.

Despite the Liberals' attempt to sell the bill on the basis that the artistic merit defence had been eliminated, the former justice minister admitted in the justice committee that it was still included under the broader category of public good. He stated, “Artistic merit still exists in the sense that a piece of art will have to essentially go through the new defence of public good...”.

Interestingly, in the Sharpe decision the Supreme Court also briefly considered the defence of public good. The court found that public good has been interpreted as “necessary or advantageous to...the pursuit of, among other things...art or other objects of general interest”. Again, when Canadians discovered this loophole they were rightly outraged.

The Liberals are now proposing, in Bill C-2, another brand new loophole. This time it is called “legitimate purpose”. The new legislation replaces the term public good with legitimate purpose. The defence would be available if the act in question has a legitimate purpose related to, among other things, art, and if the act does not pose an undue risk of harm to children. The loophole for artistic merit has therefore not been closed and what constitutes “undue risk of harm to children” remains open to interpretation by judges.

In its 2001 Sharpe decision, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that artistic merit should be given as broad an interpretation as possible, a strong signal of how the courts view these defences.

I feel the question that Canadians are asking is why the government is contorting itself to leave open loopholes for the possession of child pornography. I believe the problem is that the government's focus is not on doing all it can to protect children but on what the courts might say if we passed effective legislation.

In my opinion, establishing a test of undue risk is an insult to Canadians. Any risk to the safety of children should be met with the strongest response possible.

I ask the government to listen to the people who work on the front lines of child protection. Listen to police offices who have to deal with the tragedy of child abuse. I will quote from Scott Newark, vice chair and special counsel for the Office for Victims of Crime. He said:

Almost invariably, as in the Sharpe case, it gets down to a section 1 interpretation by the courts; and frankly, rather than having the courts determine Parliament's intent, in every single piece of legislation, in my experience, you should be expressing it, particularly where what's involved is choices between priorities.

Again, the Sharpe case is an example of that. There was an absolute recognition in the Sharpe case that child pornography in all forms represents a risk of harm to children.

Sergeant Paul Gillespie of the Toronto Police Service said:

We've seen what happens when police are left to define what is or isn't artistic merit. We'll be fighting about this one for years.

Now police will be left to determine whether something serves a legitimate purpose or poses an undue risk before proceeding further.

I also want to talk about some other changes in the bill, one being maximum sentences. Again there is an appearance to the Canadian public that the Liberal government is being tough on people who commit offences against children. However increasing maximum sentences is meaningless if the courts do not impose these increased sentences. We know by experience that when maximum sentences are raised there is no corresponding pattern in the actual sentencing practices. What is needed are mandatory minimum sentences, truth in sentencing, eliminating statutory release and no conditional sentences for child predators.

All across the country child pornographers are given conditional sentences for their crimes. These people are serving no jail time. Canadians may not be aware of that. How then is raising the maximum sentence going to help when the courts are not even approaching sentencing beyond the minimum sentences? Higher maximum sentences for child pornography will not be effective unless the courts enforce them.

The bill also fails to prohibit conditional sentences and child predators should serve their sentences in prison and not in the community.

I want to touch on the age of consent. The bill ignores the pleas of police groups, child advocacy groups and the provinces by failing to increase the age of consent. The age of consent for adult-child sex must be raised from 14 to 16. On this issue, 80% of Canadians polled have said that they want to increase the age of consent to at least 16 years.

In 2001, provincial ministers unanimously passed a resolution calling on the federal government to increase the age of consent to at least 16.

Like Bill C-12 before it, Bill C-2 fails to raise the age of consent. Instead, the bill creates the category of exploitive relationships. It was already against the law for a person in a position of trust or authority or with whom a young person was in a relationship of dependency to be sexually involved. It is unclear then now how adding people who are in a relationship with a young person that is exploitive in nature will add legal protection for young people.

I believe all Canadians care very deeply about our children. I believe that all members of this House sincerely want to protect children. However the Liberal approach to protecting children consistently fails to put the needs of children ahead of the rights of criminals. This needs to change.

We must act in the best interest for Canada's children and close all loopholes that allow for the possession of child pornography.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act.

Bill C-2 addresses an issue that is foremost on the minds of many Canadians, mainly the protection of children against abuse, neglect and exploitation. It is also an issue that remains a priority of the government, a commitment that was reflected again in the recent Speech from the Throne, as well as by the fact that this is the first legislative item introduced in this Parliament.

Bill C-2 proposes much welcomed criminal law reforms and addresses five main issues.

First, it strengthens current provisions banning child pornography.

Second, it further protects children from sexual exploitation by people who take advantage of their vulnerability.

Third, it amends certain provisions on sentencing for offences against children, including violence and negligence, in order for the sentences to better reflect the seriousness of the offence.

Fourth, it will make testifying easier on the child victim or witness and other vulnerable persons through certain measures, by ensuring coherence and clarity in the rules for using testimonial aids and by making sure from the outset that the child is competent to testify.

Finally, it creates two new voyeurism offences prohibiting anyone from surreptitiously observing or making a recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Canada's criminal laws against child pornography are already among the toughest in the world. Bill C-2 proposes further reforms that will make these laws even tougher.

Bill C-2 proposes the following child pornography reforms. It will broaden the definition of child pornography to include audio formats as well as written material that has as its dominant characteristic the description of unlawful sexual activity with children, where that description is provided for a sexual purpose.

Any advertising using child pornography is prohibited. The maximum sentence for any child pornography offence punishable on summary conviction is tripled from six to eighteen months.

It will make the commission of any child pornography offence with intent to profit an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes, and it replaces the existing defences of artistic merit, education, scientific or medical purpose, and public good with a two-part, harm-based, legitimate purpose defence.

Under this proposed reform, a defence would only be available for an act that has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice, science, medicine, education or art and does not pose an undue risk of harm to children.

Bill C-2 also proposes to provide greater protection to young persons against sexual exploitation from persons who would prey upon their vulnerability. Under the proposed reform, courts would be directed to infer that a relationship with a young person is exploitive of that young person by looking at the nature and circumstances of that relationship, including the age of the young person, any difference in age, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence exerted over the young person.

Bill C-2 forces the court to consider the accused's conduct toward the child and not whether or not the child or victim consented to the conduct.

We often hear complaints about current sentencing results in cases involving child victims. Bill C-2 directly responds to these concerns and proposes numerous amendments.

In addition to the sentencing reforms related to child pornography, Bill C-2 also proposes to triple the maximum penalties on summary conviction from six to 18 months for child-specific sexual offences, as well as for child abandonment and the failure to provide necessities of life, and to increase the maximum penalty on indictment from five to 10 years for sexual exploitation of a young person, and from two to five years for child abandonment and failure to provide the necessities of life.

In all cases involving the abuse of a child, sentencing courts would be directed to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct and to consider such conduct an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

Bill C-2 also proposes criminal law reforms that will enhance the ability of child and other vulnerable victims or witnesses to provide clear, complete and accurate accounts of events, while at the same time respecting the rights and freedoms of the accused.

Bill C-2 will facilitate testimony through the use of testimonial aids in three categories of cases: in cases involving a child victim or witness under the age of 18, or a victim or witness with a disability; in cases involving victims of criminal harassment; and in cases involving other vulnerable adult victims and witnesses.

Bill C-2 proposes to amend the applicable test for the use of testimonial aids in cases involving all child victims. These aids would be available on application unless they interfere with the proper administration of justice. In cases involving victims of criminal harassment where the accused is self-represented, the Crown could apply for the appointment of counsel to conduct the cross-examination of the victim. In these cases, the court would be required to appoint counsel, unless doing so would interfere with the proper administration of justice.

In cases involving other vulnerable victims or witnesses, such as, for example, victims of spousal abuse or sexual assault, the Crown could apply for the use of any of the testimonial aids or the appointment of counsel to conduct the cross-examination for self-represented accused. In these cases, these adult witnesses would have to demonstrate that, based upon the surrounding circumstances, including the nature of the offence and any relationship between them and the accused, they would be unable to provide a full and candid account without a testimonial aid.

Bill C-2 also proposes amending the Canada Evidence Act to abolish the requirement for a competency hearing for the witness and to abolish the distinction between testifying under oath or not.

Under Bill C-2, the competence of a person under 14 years of age to testify will depend on that person's ability to understand and answer the questions, and not on their ability to explain what it means to them to swear an oath or tell the truth. It will be up to the judge, as in any other situation, to weigh the testimony.

Last, Bill C-2 proposes to modernize the criminal law's response to the new ways in which acts of voyeurism are being committed.

As I said at the beginning, Bill C-2 proposes many welcome changes to the Criminal Code. The House has already passed an earlier version of this bill. I hope this new and improved version will still receive the support of the hon. members.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Motions for Papers

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Bill C-2. On the Order: Government Orders)

October 8, 2004--The Minister of Justice--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

Criminal Code

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)