Christian Paradis

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

We believe that we can promote them within one structure, within a united Canada, and that is what is important. This may shock my friends opposite, but it is the reality. Let us proceed. Let us leave the defence and go on the offence. We must promote the interests of Quebec. I am proud to be a Quebecker, just as my colleagues across the way are, and I do not believe in the association they have been trying to bring about here for the last 13 years.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

First of all, you have to understand that, for my part, I am in agreement with what I have heard here today. I believe that the Bloc Québécois put forward this motion with the aim of laying a trap for both the official opposition and the Conservatives. That is self-evident.

That being said, one thing is certain. From the beginning, we have seen the members of the Bloc shouting themselves hoarse and generally getting worked up in the so-called defence of Quebec's best interests. Is that really what people want?

We are advocating recognition of Quebeckers as a nation within a united Canada. Why? Because that is the fact today. I agree: all the quotes from the parties and leaders that my colleague has read are true. However, no one in those movements was a separatist. As this motion is coming from a separatist party, this absolutely has to be clarified. I want to say this. The Bloc is always talking about defending the interests of Quebec. It is on the defensive, whereas we, forming a government that believes in a united Canada, we are talking about promoting the interests of Quebec.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fundamentally important to participate in this debate on the motion that the Bloc Québécois has introduced in the House in which it is calling for recognition of Quebeckers as a nation. That in itself does not surprise me, and I doubt that many of my colleagues are astonished.

This is not the first time that the Bloc has raised the subject of Quebec's national identity in this House. It does not do this to resolve the issues facing Quebeckers. Nor does it do this to contribute to improving how our federation works for all Canadians, Quebeckers included. It does it solely and for the single and alleged purpose of demonstrating that Quebec comprises a collective entity that is suffocating in a political framework within which it cannot flourish—a system that is keeping it down. Such are the Bloc’s real intentions. Nothing else.

To call, as the Bloc is doing, for recognition of Quebeckers as a nation without reference to a united Canada is to say, in other words, that Quebec cannot be in charge of its development in all realms of activity within the Canadian federation, and to refuse to recognize that Quebeckers are part of Canada. No one can seriously argue that position.

Quebec consists of over seven million inhabitants who make up a majority francophone society, and two thirds of the anglophones who live within its territory speak French. Quebec is North American by its geography and French by its origins, and its goal is to be a pluralistic society, open to the world. In addition to French and English, a number of other languages are spoken there. Quebec’s heritage, which bears the stamp of the aboriginal and American cultures, therefore occupies a unique position on our continent.

Quebec has always been able to make the influence of this cultural heritage felt, this heritage which is uniquely its own, both within its own territory and in every corner of the international community. It goes without saying that French occupies a central position within that culture, because it is spoken by a very large majority of its inhabitants, but it is a dynamic culture that is also expressed in the arts of all kinds. Whether they be writers, composers, woodcarvers, painters, sculptors, poets, choreographers, filmmakers, actors on stage or screen, singers, dancers, musicians, directors—these artists play an active role in promoting that culture and enabling it to flourish.

The very richness of their culture is one of the characteristics that make Quebeckers a nation within a united Canada, and our government agrees with that statement. There is one point, however, that we must stress in the context of this debate: why does the Bloc Québécois demand it of this House—because, let us be frank, it matters little in the Bloc’s eyes whether we support this motion or not. As long as Quebec continues to operate within Canada, no form of recognition of the uniqueness of Quebec could satisfy the Bloc members. The political agenda of the Bloc Québécois lies elsewhere, and what it is trying to do is to prepare the ground for Quebec’s accession to independence, even though its option has already been rejected more than once by the people of Quebec.

At a time when nations are seeking to delegate part of their sovereignty to supranational organizations so as to strengthen their bonds, Quebec and Canada have the huge advantage of having reached a degree of integration that can only serve them both. The separatist approach, that is, the Bloc approach, proposes exactly the opposite of what has been observed elsewhere in the western world. Taking this utopian path is the equivalent of playing with the future of Quebec and going against the current trends in economic development.

The motion before us is indicative of the Bloc’s presence in this House. The question we must ask is: does this motion contribute anything constructive to the current political debate and in what way would Quebec be better equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century?

This is not the sort of question the Bloc Québécois is used to asking itself, since this is not the perspective from which it justifies its presence in the House of Commons. To listen to the Bloc members, its party is here to defend the interests of Quebec, while promoting the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada, right here, in this Parliament. In fact what it is really defending is its secessionist ideology, not the ideology of Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois is proposing to Quebeckers a permanent opposition. The Bloc Québécois is harming Quebec’s right to affirm itself. Quebeckers have shaped Canada, in addition to being a founding people. Why deny this?

Of course, the Bloc can give the impression of collaborating with us in good faith by regularly supporting any legislation which it could not oppose in any case. Some things are so obvious that that they cannot be missed by anyone, not even a member of the Bloc. But the basic dilemma of this party does not lie only in the gap in logic between its presence in Ottawa and its true raison d'être.

There also exists another fundamental contradiction in the raison d'être of this party, namely, that it promotes virtue, defends the great principles, appeals to the most noble attitudes, fosters solidarity—at the same time as separation—but with this important distinction, which it soft-pedals: the Bloc Québécois will never be in power.

It does not want to be in power, because it does not believe in this country. It is playing a waiting game and has been doing so for a long time now. In 1995, with the second referendum approaching, did the Bloc not say that sovereignty was magic and that one wave of the magic wand would change everything? That is the sort of argument the Bloc used to try to convince Quebeckers to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada.

For the benefit of those people watching who still have doubts about the real purpose of this party and the internal conflicts that sometimes result, I will quote two gems. The first comes from the November 8, 1997 issue of Le Droit and features the member from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. Keep in mind that this quote is from nine years ago. He said:

The Bloc is a party that was born of circumstance, specifically after the failure of Meech, because the momentum existed that would enable us to achieve sovereignty. We nearly succeeded the last time, but we came up short...[The Bloc] can afford to go on for some time. But our days are numbered.

It is worth noting that the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean said nine years ago that the Bloc's mandate, which it obtained in the June 1997 general election, was to be the party's last. Yet three general elections have taken place since.

He also said at the time, “It is a long and hard slog for the Bloc in Ottawa because of the lack of interest in the sovereignist option in Quebec”. I wonder what he thinks of the length of time nine years later.

In any event, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean was quickly called to heel by his leader, just as the member for Richelieu, who today is the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour and has represented his riding for 22 years in this House, had been two months earlier for a different reason. He stated in the September 11, 1997 issue of Le Droit:

We have to show that federalism is not advantageous for Quebec. Sometimes, it appeared to be working. Now, we will be able to take it apart at our leisure.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need to add anything further. Instead of being subtle, the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour was candid, without meaning to be and without realizing it. This is the sort of information we need to keep in mind when we see Bloc members trying to block.

[Tournesol School in Thetford Mines, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, water is a very important issue in my riding of Mégantic—L'Érable.

The Écol'eau project was started after the city of Thetford Mines experienced a drinking water supply problem. The project aims to raise awareness of rainwater recovery through Concept'eau Bac, a program to design rooftop rainwater harvesters. The water can then be used to wash cars and water gardens and flowerbeds.

The project was developed by 69 dynamic grade 5 and 6 students at Tournesol School in Thetford Mines under the direction of Marie-France Lessard, whose great devotion to the students and their wonderful project I applaud. The students' energy and their involvement in a major environmental cause have raised awareness of their project close to home and further afield.

Thanks to Concept'eau Bac, the Chaudière-Appalaches region won first prize in the grade 5 and 6 category in the Quebec entrepreneurship competition. The City of Thetford Mines supports the program and is providing funds to help our young entrepreneurs with this tremendous project.

The program was a complete success and organizers report that it is in high demand. Teaching consultants, teachers and scientists all want to know more about Écol'eau and are amazed to see such passion and determination in the eyes of these student entrepreneurs.

I would like to emphasize—

[Public Safety, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, our government is addressing the issue of safety in our communities with strength and determination.

On Monday, Canada's new government took concrete measures in order to ensure the safety of Quebec's communities by injecting $10 million to face challenges related to crime and street gangs, through the National Crime Prevention Centre in particular. This funding will allow Canada's new government to work together with Quebec and non-governmental organizations in order to prevent crime.

This is another good example of the productive relationship Canada's new government maintains with the Government of Quebec and the community organizations of that province.

The Bloc Québécois, the party in eternal opposition, will never produce results since it is powerless in Ottawa—powerless is the word.

The Liberals lost the confidence of Quebeckers a long time ago. Fortunately, Canada's new government is taking tangible measures and meeting the needs of the people in order to ensure the safety of Quebec's streets and communities. In the meantime, the Leader of the Bloc is happy just to toss out some ideas.

[Taxation, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the co-chair of the Council of the Federation Advisory Panel on the Fiscal Imbalance wrote today that the leader of the Bloc Québécois is deceiving the public when he puts a figure on the fiscal imbalance.

According to Mr. Gagné, “—the statements made by Mr. Boisclair and the leader of the Bloc Québécois do not result from a different interpretation of our conclusions but rather from a more than dubious manipulation of certain data in our report”.

To arrive erroneously at his figure, the leader of the Bloc Québécois uses a fictitious amount—“fictitious”, Mr. Speaker—which the committee does not even recommend.

Mr. Gagné also says, “By manipulating the data in our report in this way, Mr. Boisclair and the leader of the Bloc Québécois are misleading the public and trying to foster unrealistic expectations that have no basis in fact”.

The Bloc Québécois has become its founder’s nightmare, just “a piece of furniture in the House of Commons”, unable to do anything because it is eternally in the opposition.

Our new government promised to take care of the fiscal imbalance, and that is exactly what it will do.

[Criminal Code, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent question.

Indeed, the low disclosure rate is a major problem in cases of sex crimes committed against adolescents. We must attack this scourge. I humbly believe that Bill C-22 will remedy this to a great extent.

In fact, based on what was previously proposed, that is, the previous bill that I cited earlier, the burden of proof was extremely high for the victim. It entailed a lengthy legal process and young people were often discouraged. We are now proposing a bill that is clear and has a limit. Thus, there is no burden of proof. No one can begin to say that a given person thought this or that, what the degree of intention was, and so on. Now, the age difference is clearly defined for the range, set at age 14 and 15. The limit is now clear and will—I hope and I am sure—encourage young victims to exercise their right to recourse and denounce adult sexual predators.

[Criminal Code, October 30th, 2006]

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.

[Minister of Public Works and Government Services, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, over the past few days, the federal Liberals and the leader of the Bloc Québécois—whose members are the eternal opposition in Ottawa—have cast aspersions on the hard work done by the excellent Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and they have pressured him to run for office. The minister has done remarkable work, considering that Justice Gomery found Public Works and Government Services Canada to be at the heart of a complex kickback system that gave friends of federal Liberals all kinds of perks and allowed them to make illegal contributions to the LPC as part of the sponsorship program.

Both the Bloc Québécois and the federal Liberals are bringing new meaning to the word “absurd”.

Why did they not ask the same of Liberal senators who held ministerial positions in cabinet?

Why was it acceptable for Liberal Senator James Bernard Boudreau to be Minister of State for the ACOA in 2000? Liberal Senator Joyce Fairbairn was a minister for 1,639 days. Liberal Senator Jack Austin was in cabinet for 658 days.

When it comes to transparency, accountability and good public governance, the Liberals—

[Citizens of Beauce and Mégantic—L'Érable, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the Conservative member for Beauce and the Minister of Industry in bringing to the House's attention the major flooding caused by heavy rains last Friday night in a number of cities and towns in Beauce, including Saint-Georges, Notre-Dame-des-Pins, Beauceville and Sainte-Marie, as well as in my riding of Mégantic—L'Érable, including Disraeli, Coleraine and Thetford Mines. Over 500 homes and a dozen businesses were flooded.

Residents of Beauce and my riding, Mégantic—L'Érable, demonstrated their typical determination and solidarity by rolling up their sleeves to clean up the huge mess left behind by the Chaudière, Bécancour and Saint-François rivers. With the focus on cleanup, Canada's new government joins us in applauding the courage of the people of Beauce and the citizens of my riding, Mégantic—L'Érable, and wishing them a speedy return to normal.