Mr. Cannavino, I will carry on with you, if I may. There are two aspects to your brief. First of all, you are raising a very important argument when, on page 2, you state that in the end there are a number of countries that have raised the age of consent. What I find interesting is that it is not a left-right issue. I might mention here countries like the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, which have progressive social policies. You have clearly told us this morning that the issue of the age of protection is not a political one, but one that involves the safety of children. I thank you for having made that argument, which is very significant from my perspective.
As you know, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill. What I want to understand, however, is what the shortcomings are of in existing provisions of the Criminal Code concerning luring a child. You will agree with me that these provisions are rather contemporary. What are the shortcomings and why are there not more charges laid?
I also want statistics. You must admit that even if we support the bill, when the minister appeared before us yesterday, for example, he did not have much information to give us. I do not object to the bill being passed as quickly as possible, but it is our job as legislators to support it on the basis of convincing and conclusive evidence. We do not want to keep to generalities.
What is happening that is making Canada such a welcoming haven for these people who, on the Internet... The common thread in all of your testimony is that the gateway in the area of sexual exploitation seems to be the Internet, the computer. How is it that we have had provisions on child luring since, to my knowledge 2002 or 2001, and that we find ourselves in a situation such as the one you described in your brief?