Bill C-15 (Historical)

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other Acts

Excise Act, 2001

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-47.

On the face of it, the Bloc Quebecois believes that the provisions in this bill were really acceptable and even necessary. We know the government is looking at changing the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act. I believe the time had finally come to look at this change.

There is something rather incongruous however. The government claims that this bill is replacing almost entirely a good part of the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act. The strange thing is that all the elements already provided for in these acts are in Bill C-47, except for a very important one, that is beer.

The problem is with microbreweries. In this case, the story began during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, when it was asked, following requests from the Canadian council, that a tax reduction be included, which I will explain later.

Because of this nonsense, microbreweries here in Canada are currently paying 28 cents per litre of beer in tax, while in a country such as the United States and even in Europe, the microbrewery industry is protected with a tax of 9 cents a liter.

So it is very strange to see how the government could let this bill be introduced, which says nothing about the beer produced by microbreweries. We got to the Standing Committee on Finance and, through my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, we asked that this bill be complemented by an amendment to reduce the excise tax, particularly for microbreweries.

Yesterday, government members talked about various conflict of interest problems that could arise and they said that there could be no conflict of interest. Further on, I will refer to what happened with the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for London West. For the government, there is no conflict of interest because beer and microbreweries are not mentioned anywhere in the bill. There is absolutely no mention of beer whatsoever. Thus the amendment that my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot wanted to submit was rejected by the chair.

Clause 2 of the bill, which takes up several provisions of the Excise Act and Excise Tax Act, includes a definition of beer. However, there is no provision in the bill about beer. Is it an involuntary omission or worse, should the bill have addressed the issue of beer?

Under pressure from major breweries, they perhaps forgot to remove the definition of beer. Why would the legislator talk about something if he does not intend to go any further? Why include a definition of beer if no provision of the bill deals with beer?

More incredible still is the fact that my colleague and the Canadian Council of Regional Brewers are saying that the time has come to act. People have been asking the government to change the Excise Act and Excise Tax Act since 1997. We have been asking for this change for five years and, yesterday, we were told that results, more figures were needed before a decision could be made whether to go ahead or not. It is just unbelievable.

Five years ago, in 1997, there were 89 microbreweries in Canada. Over the last five years, 38 microbreweries have had to close down and many did so because of that huge excise tax. I mentioned 28¢ a litre. Foreign competitors, from the United States and Europe, pay 9¢ a litre, as I said earlier.

At last, this government has the opportunity to move instead of saying: “Yes we will review the issue; we will look at it; we are waiting for figures”. The government has been looking at those figures since 1997! Microbreweries are asking the government to include an amendment so that the Standing Committee on Finance can look at how to lower those taxes. As chance would have it we are not dealing with it. It is easy to understand now why the committee, chaired by the hon. member for London West, is not dealing with it.

That member was been appointed as chair of that committee a short time ago and we wonder why considering what happened. Her spouse, Mr. Barnes, is a member of the Brewers Association of Canada taxation committee. He is also a director of a multinational or a large national brewery.

Those large breweries say that excise taxes have to be lowered in general, but all the more so for microbreweries. However, I find it strange that the committee chair got a letter from the Brewers Association of Canada saying they do not agree, when we know that the chair's spouse not only sits on its taxation committee but is also its chairman.

The Brewers Association of Canada, of which the committee chair's spouse is a member, says it is in favour of a tax reduction, even more so in the case of microbreweries, but sends the committee chair a letter asking that beer not be included in the bill and tax reductions—indirectly—not be included either in the bill. Yet the association says it is in favour of that reduction. It is important to act immediately, but this association is now telling us not to do it.

Between you and me, when the president received such a letter, knowing that her husband is the director of a large national brewery, that he chairs the taxation committee for the Brewers Association of Canada and that she is the president of a House committee, it seems to me she should have said, and should still say, “I think there is an apparent conflict of interest, if not an actual one. I think it would be a good thing to tell each and every member of the committee that I will not be participating in any discussions on those amendments because, not only is my husband, John Barnes, a member of the association, but he is the chair of the taxation committee of that association”.

I think she should at least have told the members of the committee about that situation, but she did not. She only read the letter and played the game of the big Canadian breweries to harm the microbreweries.

Motion No. 2 gives excessive authority to a committee president. We voted against this motion at the beginning of the 37th parliament. It is already being misused, as we are told that the rules on conflicts of interests apply to ministers, to the Prime Minister, to secretaries of state and parliamentary secretaries, but not to a committee president.

Just imagine, the conflict of interest rules not applying to a committee president, and her actually having more authority than a minister. A minister would not even have the power to do what she did. She took upon herself to refuse to accept the amendments. These were not only amendments from the Bloc Quebecois. We are used to our amendments being constantly rejected at committee.

They are always rejected, and we get calls at our offices from people who say they are Liberals. Here is an example. With respect to Bill C-15B, people who support the bill concerning cruelty to animals and the protection of the latter call me at my office. They are aware of the amendments that were presented. I now send my speeches to all the people who write to me. They can then read the amendments proposed by the Bloc. The people who are in favour of the protection of animals tell us that the right position was to accept the amendments to Bill C-15B proposed by the Bloc. They even say “We will change party because of that”. These are people in the animal industry.

I simply wish to send the following message: through its committees, the government rejects all amendments, not only those from the Bloc Quebecois, but also those from any opposition party. It rejects those from the Bloc in particular because they come from Quebecers and are put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. What the Liberals are doing is incredible.

But there is worse still. Coming back to Bill C-47, how can the members of this House accept such important powers that allow a person to reject amendments coming not just from a political party, but from people affected by these rules, the existing taxation rules?

I will give figures. I said earlier that in 1997, when we started to examine this aspect of the taxation and excise duties, there were 89 microbreweries. Five years later, 38 of these have closed down. There are only 46 left. This is serious. Nearly 40% of the microbreweries have closed down. This has affected the diversity, the people and the jobs that are created in the regions.

The big breweries want to see the microbreweries disappear. There are reasons for that. In 1997, the microbreweries had 5.5% of the market. Today, they have only 4% of the Canadian market. This is 1.5% less. Let us look at what this 1% drop in net profits for microbreweries—a drop caused by shutdowns and by the inability to sell the beer—means for the big breweries. It is a net amount. That is a lot of money for the shareholders.

As we know, one of the big breweries, Labatt, just happens to be established in the finance minister's riding of Lasalle-Émard. It is a bit odd, but this is what is happening once again. This was better, because the big breweries make donations to the Liberal Party. The big breweries, whether Molson or Labatt, give a lot of money to the Liberal Party.

We know why. It is even part of the riding of the Minister of Finance. It is bizarre that the Brewers Association of Canada has written us to say: “Yes, we want a tax cut, but we do not want the amendment to be presented. We do not want any reference to beer, do not want any tax reduction on beer”. Nothing complicated about this; a 1% tax reduction gives them $17 million net in their pockets. Now it is at 1.5%. If you do the calculation, you will see how much money the shareholders are making now, simply by doing away with the possibility of including beer and the tex on beer.

This is not only happening in Quebec. For this reason, when the Bloc Quebecois makes its frequent representations to protect the interests of Quebecers, the interests of other breweries in Canada will also be protected.

Out of the 38 that have closed, 11 were in Quebec, 13 in Ontario and seven in B.C. As well, there were five in Alberta, one in Nova Scotia and one in Manitoba.

The government has told us already in its speeches during the debate: “Yes, they are the ones who asked us to wait before looking at the figures”. Five years is not enough. They still need longer. The calculations are not that difficult. In five years, 38 of 89 breweries have disappeared. In another five years, how many microbreweries will be left? How long will it take for this government to react and protect the microbrewery industry, not just in Quebec but everywhere in Canada, in their own interests? It is in the best interest of their party.

Democracy means respecting the will of the House of Commons. What the government wants is to line its pockets in order to get re-elected. Its interest is precisely this, to protect the big national breweries at the expense of the others, because this is in their best interest financially. Not in the best interests of the public, of society, and even less so of the House of Commons. How can we accept such a situation?

I am somewhat disappointed by the Canadian Alliance's position, which accepts a bill such as this. I agree, and the Bloc Quebecois agrees with what the bill contains. What is put down in black and white is good. Yes, the provisions regarding tobacco are good. We also believe that the changes are good. However, the problem that was raised is much more serious.

The member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca reacted last week by raising the Mace to demonstrate the government's lack of democracy in the House. He forcefully expressed to Canadians what is happening here. There is another opportunity to demonstrate what has happened, how the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance and member for London West could act in this manner.

We must stop saying that there is no conflict of interest because the word beer is not included in the bill. I already mentioned that is was supposed to be included, even in the definition. Why then is there no provision regarding beer in this bill? This bill contains nothing on beer because of the government. It did not want to accept the amendment introduced by my Bloc Quebecois colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot. It is rhetoric to say that there is no conflict of interest simply because the word beer is not written in the bill. The government prevented it from being written and it prevented us from studying this amendment, they prevented us from lowering the tax. It is unbelievable. This is their only argument of defence, to say that there is no appearance of conflict of interest.

To close, let me say that it is time that the code of ethics that applies to ministers, to the Prime Minister and to secretaries of state should also apply to chairs of standing committees.

This is important for democracy and out of respect for the opinions of Canadians.

Petitions

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this morning to present a petition from the riding of Portage--Lisgar signed by 154 of the finest Canadians you will ever meet.

The petitioners express concern about Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation. They have concerns that the bill goes far beyond the government's stated intentions and that it may endanger farmers, ranchers and others who use animals for legitimate and lawful purposes.

The petitioners request that parliament amend the bill in support of fair and co-operative legislation that will not punish those who use livestock in sustaining the Canadian economy.

Child Protection

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member knew what he was talking about he would know we had Bill C-15A in the House. He would also know that there are provisions in the criminal code with respect to child pornography.

What I have said many times during the past weeks is that the government has been working and will keep on working. We will proceed with a good consultation process involving parliamentarians and we will look at the existing provisions to see if we can add more offences to the criminal code.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question many times over the past few days. The member is raising a serious and complex issue. There is no simple solution.

We have Bill C-15A which is pending before the House. Bill C-15A would create new offences with regard to the Internet. It is a step in the right direction. I will say exactly the same thing as the leader of the Alliance Party. We need to get involved in a good consultation process and we will do that with members of parliament.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for this very good question, indeed an important question. Indeed, for the government the protection of our children is a top priority, as well as for the members of parliament on this side of the House of course. We have been working on that. As a good example of what we have been doing, Bill C-15A creates more offences.

Of course we could not agree with the timing aspect of the motion yesterday because it is a complex issue. We need to proceed with more consultation. Indeed, we agree with what was said yesterday by the leader of the Canadian Alliance, that we need consultation. We are going to do it.

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake to the amendment to the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-15B. The question is on the subamendment.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment lost.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the subamendment of the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake on the amendment to the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-15B.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

[The Speaker]

The hon. member is correct. Is there consent to proceed with the taking of the vote on the main motion to Bill C-15A?

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion for concurrence of the Senate amendments to Bill C-15A. The question is on the amendment.

Supply

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the Canadian Alliance supply day motion. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kelowna.

Addressing the sexual age of consent in Canada is the supply day motion, and it is long overdue. I have found that when people find out the age of consent in Canada is only 14 years of age most are shocked and outraged. Many were of the belief that the age was at least 16. They often ask why the age is so low and why someone is not doing something to change it. I see the disgust on the faces of parents and grandparents.

It is truly shocking that we live in a country where the government does not see fit to offer legitimate protection to our children.

The motion before us today deals with protecting our children from sexual predators. As the law is currently written, an adult has the legal right to have sexual relations with children as young as 14. At 14 years old these individuals are children.

I have met with members of the Canadian Police Association and have heard their concerns over this issue in the resolutions passed at the association's annual general meeting last fall. One of the topics addressed was the sexual age of consent in Canada. The resolution recommended that parliament “raise the age of consent for children to have sexual relations with older persons to at least age 16”.

Police officers in Canada are on the front lines and see daily what the current law is doing to our children. Our police community see children that are manipulated into lifestyles and situations that they should not even know exist. Parents call asking for help to rescue their children but nothing can be done. Our children are offered no protection. An adult can lure children into a life of prostitution or pornography and there is nothing that parents, support agencies or law enforcement officers can do to help the child.

The government's inaction on the issue of sexual age of consent allows these children to be victimized. The government introduced Bill C-15A to help combat the luring of children over the Internet. While this is a step in the right direction, it offers protection only to those children age 13 years and younger. More needs to be done.

As a grandmother of five granddaughters, it both frightens and disgusts me that the government would choose to endanger the lives of our children. By the inaction and indifference shown by the government, it is apparent that the lives and safety of children are not priorities.

We have debated at length on the protection of species at risk. It would please me to see the government offering at least that much concern to the safety of our nation's children. Are the lives of Canadian children not more important and of more value than the northern cricket frog or the short-horned pygmy lizard? We are offering absolute protection to snails and barn owls accompanied by severe penalties and punishments to offenders, whether their actions were intentional, reckless or not, but child pornographers roam free.

The recent Sharpe case is a glaring example of what awaits our children. Artistic licence is provided as a legitimate defence. How do we explain that to the parents of the children involved?

While the courts are offering little in the way of punishment for such actions, the very least we can do is raise the sexual age of consent as protection for our children. By raising the age we could eliminate a portion of our population that may fall prey to sexual predators and offenders.

Children of the age of 14 are not allowed to consume alcohol, drive a car or vote in an election and yet they are allowed by law to engage in sexual activity with adults. Children of 14 are not emotionally mature enough to make these decisions and are therefore open to the suggestions and manipulations of adults.

We as adults, parents, protectors and legislators have the absolute responsibility to do all that we can to offer protection to our children. It baffles me that the government chooses to ignore the plight of these children.

We are not here to argue morality. We are here to fight for the safety and security of our children.

The former minister of justice told the committee in October of 2001:

I think we will see a consensus is emerging that with certain safeguards we should probably be moving on the age of consent from 14 to 16.

I believe we have more than an emerging consensus on this issue. I believe we should stop talking about making changes. It is the time to act, to implement legislation that will protect our children.

The government's own Department of Justice, in a consultation paper, viewed the current age as being too low to offer adequate protection from adults seeking to exploit these children. It is time that the government pays attention to the wishes of Canadians and to its own justice department.

My oldest granddaughter is 12 years old. She will be turning 13 this summer. It is alarming that she has only one year left of protection from sexual predators under Canadian law. She is a bright and outgoing girl with an amazing future ahead of her but in only one year it will be open season on her and her friends and classmates. Once these children reach the age of 14, the government steps back to let them fend for themselves.

Parents, grandparents, family members and friends will have no legal recourse to try to protect their children. Police fight a losing battle against child pornography and child prostitution as long as the current age of consent remains where it is. We hear the horror stories of young girls and boys working the streets and wonder if something cannot be done to help them. Sadly the answer is often no.

Leading lawmakers and enforcers in Canada wish to see the legal sexual age of consent raised to a minimum of 16. The groups all understand the necessity and urgency for changing the age. The provincial attorneys general and the Canadian Police Association both understand the need. The minister's own department understands the need. The official opposition understands the need. Parents across the country understand the need.

Recent round table discussions held in Ottawa dealt with battling child pornography in Canada. One of the recommendations from that meeting came to the same conclusion, that the sexual age of consent be raised from 14 to 16.

I urge the government to take a serious look at this issue. This is an issue that affects thousands of children every year in our country. Our children rely on us for protection. The government is failing them. The sexual age of consent must be raised to a minimum of 16 years of age. The government must act. Not to do so would be negligent.

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first let me commend the member for his commitment and dedication to an issue as important as protecting children, particularly against sexual abuse perpetrated by adults.

Children represent our future, the future of our country. It falls to us to do everything in our power to protect them and help them grow in an environment free of danger. We all know, we have all seen studies that are unanimous in their findings: abuse, particularly sexual abuse, leaves deep scars. The consequences of such abuse last a lifetime and can be seen in all kinds of insidious problems: an inability to trust, antisocial behaviour, depression and suicide. These are only a few of the consequences of sexual abuse.

Our government has not been idle on this issue. First, Bill C-15A contains a new offence, the purpose of which is to protect our children from pedophiles who use the Internet to lure them into dangerous situations.

I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for York West.

Nor can I forget to mention the public consultations organized by the Department of Justice Canada, under the theme of “Children as Victims in the Criminal Justice System”. The public document examined criminal law reforms to improve the protection of children. Four main themes were examined during these consultations, including the idea of raising the age of consent.

It was found that the issue of age of consent plays an important role in measures to improve the protection of our children. However, make no mistake about it, this issue is too complex to make any quick decisions.

The member's proposal to raise the age of consent is in response to concerns of Canadians. However, we must ensure that our response takes into consideration the complexity of the issue.

The minimum age of consent is being reviewed as part of the public consultation on child victims and the criminal justice system. As a result of this analysis, we will have a clearer picture of all the relevant issues. One of these issues has to do with the age decided upon and its impact on other ages of consent set out the criminal code. Although the criminal code sets the age of consent at 14 for most sexual activities, it sets it at 18 for certain forms of sexual exploitation. Any decision as to the age of consent must avoid the inadvertent lowering of the age of consent for sexual exploitation offences. The result would be incomplete and inadequate protection of children.

We must also ensure that the age decided upon will not have the effect of criminalizing consensual relations between young people in the same age group. Public opinion on the age of consent is varied. Some people are in favour of raising the age of consent to 16, even 18; others want to see it left at 14. Everyone, however, agrees on the need to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the desire to protect children against sexual predators and, on the other, the desire to avoid criminalizing consensual sexual activity between young people. We must also avoid encouraging abusive, non-consensual relations between young people.

Finally, we must ensure that the age of consent is consistent with the age of consent to marriage. With the exception of Ontario and Quebec, the provinces and territories will, in exceptional cases, authorize the marriage of individuals under 16. We must avoid creating a situation where an individual under the age of 16 is allowed to marry but not to consent to sexual relations.

Finally, as we have pointed out, the issue is a complex one with federal, provincial and territorial implications, which cannot be sorted out in one day. It is an important topic, one which concerns people and which requires reflection and a collaborative effort with the provinces and the territories.

There is no doubt that we must ensure that our children are safe from exploitation and sexual abuse by adults, but we must achieve this through a well thought out consultative approach, so that the result serves the interests of Canadians and, above all, our children to the greatest extent possible.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's important debate on measures to protect children from sexual exploitation. I wish to confirm to the hon. members of the House the Government of Canada's very firm commitment to strengthen the protection afforded to children under criminal law against sexual exploitation and, in fact, against any form of victimization.

While I welcome debate on this very important issue, I find the opposition motion somewhat worrisome. This motion is to adopt immediate legislative provisions that would raise the age of consent to at least 16 years and included measures that would prohibit behaviour related to child pornography.

This motion contains a number of flaws. Legislation with such serious consequences must not be passed in haste. The issue of age of consent affects not only the criminal code, but also a number of provincial statutes. We would not be wise to adopt such an amendment hastily. It is my belief that the motion as it stands would not allow for a careful and thorough analysis.

The Department of Justice is in the process of undertaking public consultations and a comprehensive review of the need for further criminal law reforms to improve the protection of children. This consultation and review is based on four main areas.

First, should we amend the existing offences involving children, or create new ones? Are reforms necessary to better respond to physical and emotional abuse perpetrated against children, child neglect and child homicide, as well as sexual exploitation of children?

Second, should we amend the sentencing principles of the criminal code to guarantee that every sentence truly reflects the gravity of every offence committed against a child?

Third, should there be additional measures to better meet the specific needs and ability of victims who are children and who are witnesses in the criminal justice process?

And finally, fourth—and this is of paramount importance when it comes to today's debate—should the general minimum age of consent to sexual activity be maintained or raised?

In addition to the public consultation component of this project, the department consulted with provincial and territorial criminal justice officials, as well as with individuals involved in child protection, other experts, stakeholders and members of the public. These consultations were concluded last summer.

Federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice recently considered a summary of the results of these consultations at the February meeting. I am pleased to note that all ministers indicated their continuing shared commitment to work together to follow up on these consultations and review. We have directed federal, provincial and territorial senior officials to develop follow up options for our consideration in the coming months.

As I mentioned, one of the issues examined in this consultation is the general minimum age of consent to sexual activity. One of the reasons for the continued interest in the age of consent is the desire to better protect young people against those who seek to exploit them sexually and take advantage of their vulnerability.

However, it is important to mention that the protection now available under criminal law against the sexual exploitation of children is perhaps underestimated. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to provide some information about how the criminal law currently deals with the minimum age of consent to sexual activity.

First, it seems that some people mistakenly believe that the criminal law was amended in 1987 in order to lower the age of consent from 16 to 14. It is true that, at the time, the criminal code provisions on sexual violence against children were overhauled, strengthening and amending the protection of children against sexual violence, but these reform measures did not include lowering the age of consent.

The general minimum age of consent for individual sexual activity has been 14 years of age since 1890 when it was raised from 12 years of age. However, where the sexual activity is not individual, such as child prostitution or child pornography, or where it breaches a relationship of trust or dependence the age of consent is18.

I wish to reassure members of this House. Children are well protected against sexual violence by people in positions of trust, who could force them into the sex trade, and by people who produce or distribute child pornography.

Our existing criminal code is designed to eliminate child pornography, and our ability to prosecute such activities will be increased once Bill C-15A has received royal assent.

That having been said, the government recognizes that we must constantly re-evaluate existing measures for the protection of children against sexual exploitation.

The current opposition motion asks for “measures to prohibit the creation or use of” child pornography. These measures already exist. Making, printing, publishing, importing, distributing, selling or processing child pornography in Canada are offences. This seems fairly comprehensive but the government was not satisfied and in Bill C-15A it seeks to further strengthen our child pornography laws by creating four new offences: transmitting, making available, exporting and accessing.

These amendments are part of Canada's strategy to protect the children of the 21st century. The new offences have in part been introduced to put an end to the phenomenon involving the Internet. In addition to all the government programs aimed at promoting use of the net, we have also examined the Canadian legislation in order to ensure it is current and pertinent to this wired environment.

One of the key questions examined was child protection. To that end Canada has taken part both here and elsewhere in the negotiation of treaties and promotional programs with a view to raising children's awareness of the cyberworld and to protect them from its hazards.

Canada is involved in a transnational initiative aimed at countering the sexual exploitation of children. In the Council of Europe, Canada has taken part in negotiations for the convention on cybercrime, which includes provisions on child pornography along very much the same lines as our Canadian legislation.

Here in Canada, the main focus of such government initiatives as the strategy for safe, prudent and responsible use of the Internet, launched by the industry minister, the justice minister and the secretary of state responsible for multiculturalism this past February, is the protection of children.

In relation to the use of child pornography mentioned in the motion, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sharpe decision found that the possession offence as it related to child pornography was constitutional, and thus possession of child pornography in Canada would remain a crime. However, in that decision, the court found it necessary to carve out two limited exceptions so that the offence would not be overly broad. The court was concerned about infringing on our constitutional right to freedom of expression and drew the line at prohibiting a person's own thoughts.

In this regard the court outlined when possession of child pornography was permissible. These limited exceptions are: any written material or visual representations created by the accused alone and held by the accused alone for his or her own personal use; and, any visual recording, created by or depicting the accused, provided it does not depict illegal sexual activity and is held by the accused exclusively for private use.

In addition to the exceptions set out in Sharpe, the criminal code contains other means of defence against child pornography offences, particularly when there is artistic merit or educational, scientific or medical value.

Recently there was a long debate in the House of Commons on the artistic merit defence. This defence was included in the legislative amendments which led to the creation of the child pornography provisions in 1993. Parliament in its wisdom saw fit to include defences applicable to child pornography related offences in order to ensure constitutionality.

I would like to take this opportunity to underscore the importance of the parliamentary process and the input of parliamentarians, and to state that the vigorous debate on this issue has made it apparent that many parliamentarians are concerned about how courts are interpreting artistic merit in the context of child pornography.

I understand the concerns relating to the artistic merit defence and as a father I can also relate to the motivation behind the opposition motion. As I stated before, such debates should be properly informed by the input of parliamentarians. With that in mind, I believe that this issue should be properly reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The government is committed to the protection of children and on issues such as this, which all Canadians can relate to, we should avail ourselves of as many parliamentary tools as are available.

As far as the aspect of the motion addressing retention or changes to the current provisions on the legal general age of consent to sexual activity are concerned, I would like to point out just how numerous and complex the questions are, and that they clearly require a fine balance between the necessity of protecting young people from exploitation and the need to respect their developing independence.

Some call for the present age of consent to be maintained. They have a number of reasons for this. For example, that the motion calls for the age of consent to be raised in order to better protect children from sexual exploitation, yet the criminal code already bans the sexual exploitation of children. This objective could be achieved by applying the present criminal provisions more strictly as far as perpetrators are concerned, rather than restricting the rights and freedoms of young people.

The present age of consent provisions respect young people's freedom of choice, while providing sufficient protection against sexual exploitation by adults.

Youth engage in sexual activity irrespective of the criminal law. This activity is better addressed through parental guidance. Increasing the age of consent could result in criminalizing the conduct of these youth.

This could have a disproportionate impact on communities where it is considered acceptable for youth to engage in sexual activity at a younger age than in other communities. An increase in the general age of consent could lead to either a denial of or diminished access to sexual health care and services, including access to contraceptives for youth below the age of consent, notwithstanding that they are engaging in sexual activity.

Others support an increase in the age of consent to either 16 or 18 years of age for a variety of reasons, including the belief that persons from other jurisdictions that have a higher age of consent, such as many American states, may come to Canada to prey on 14 and 15 year olds because of the lower age of consent in Canada.

Raising the age to 16 would make Canada's laws more consistent with that of other countries, such as the U.K. and many American states. Fourteen and fifteen year olds lack the mental and emotional maturity to cope with the psychological effects of engaging in sexual activity and, in particular, engaging in sexual activity with older persons. Raising the age to 18 would make the age of consent consistent with child sexual exploitation offences as well as with other laws governing youth, such as those relating to alcohol and tobacco and age of majority.

Thus it is clear that the matter of maintaining or raising the minimum age of consent is not as simple as it may seem. A legislative reform that goes beyond merely forbidding the behaviour of a potential sexual predator may have a number of potential repercussions. These could, for example, include the age of consent to marriage and access to the health system for services relating to the reproductive system and sexuality.

For this reason, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice have called upon their senior departmental staff with expertise in criminal law to draft various options for examination.

This issue can simply be described as whether the existing age of consent to sexual activity should be maintained or increased. I hope that hon. members can appreciate that the issue and our potential response to it is not so simple. There is a divergence of opinion on this matter. All issues must be fully and carefully explored to ensure that children are provided with adequate and appropriate protection.

The issues raised in today's motion are complex and will best be dealt with by adopting a thoughtful, consultative and co-operative approach. It is in this fashion that we will best serve Canadians.

Age of Consent

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows by far that he is not correct. That is not what the parliamentary secretary said yesterday.

He is raising a very important issue. He is raising a complex issue. We know that the government has been working in order to make sure that as a nation we will keep protecting our children. Basically all members of the House are against child pornography. As we said, we have Bill C-15A. We got involved in two cases up to the Supreme Court of Canada in order to keep defending and protecting the provisions that we have within the criminal code.

We are going to keep working. As I said last week, we are going to keep working in order to improve the tools that we have to protect the children of our nation.

Supply

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Provencher for his tireless work on this subject not only here in the federal arena but when he was the attorney general of the province of Manitoba.

He is exactly right. A supply day motion is simply a signal from the House to the government that yes, it better do something about this because the laws are not working. We tried to do that by convincing the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause during the first round of the John Robin Sharpe decision.

However, my colleague from Provencher is also right, that it does not preclude discussions beyond the age of consent and some of the things that are in Bill C-15A. However if the House were to pass it and if enough Liberals, like the member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge who talks a lot about being in favour of protecting kids but we are still looking to see some action, were to support the motion either tonight or tomorrow evening, then the government would have to listen.

The House passed a supply day motion to create a national sex offender registry. All Liberals said they voted for it but they did not do anything about it.

We are putting forward this motion because so many of our constituents and so many Liberals tell us in the cloakrooms, the cafeterias and as we walk around Parliament Hill, that they care about this issue. This is their opportunity to put that into action. Once the House has given its mandate to the government to table some actual legislation that will move the ball forward, we want it to actually do that.

CPIC is not a national sex offender registry. The government failed on that count. This is its opportunity to whittle away that 69% of Canadians who think government is corrupt, and stand up for kids, for the respect of the House and respect the idea that when the House expresses its intent to protect kids the government should listen.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion today.

I feel a little like an expectant father in the sense that much of this debate today, which is certainly long overdue, hopefully will ultimately create an environment whereby members do not fall on a partisan basis on what is being proposed.

The motion itself deals with the more interesting question of consent which is reflected in the actual decision itself. However most Canadians understand this issue from the perspective of the decision by Shaw in Sharpe number two, the most recent one last month, in which the decision was made based on the judge not finding an advocacy or counselling of child pornography or molestation. The second one, which received wider media attention, was on the more limited subject of artistic merit as a defence.

The motion which comes from the Canadian Alliance does not deal contextually with the concerns that have been expressed readily. We have had some debate over Bill C-15. The member for Scarborough Southwest has made some pretty good comments with respect to Internet service providers and the requirements we are making. The government should be lauded for moving in the right direction.

On April 16, a week ago this evening, as is reported in some of the papers today, a meeting did take place. I note that some of the facts and figures that came out of a meeting with experts on the subject of child pornography have found their way into the speeches of hon. colleagues. It is interesting that those speeches were taken to heart because subsequently there was a commitment made by most of those members to deal with the issues as they were raised and there were some 11, and options.

The first option deals with the age of consent being raised from 14 to 16 while maintaining the close in age exemption. The suggestion was that there be an amendment to section 151 to substitute 16 for 14 but with the qualifier to retain the age of 18 as a consent for trust relationships.

A number of other issues were raised, such as eliminate the defence of artistic merit; determine that child pornography, written or otherwise, is a form of hate crime; and require that written child pornography be found to advocate in sin and counsel sexual activity. There would be appropriate changes for that.

Another issue was that private recordings of lawful sexual activity privately held for personal use would be subjected to a constraint. There would be an option to restrict such exceptions to recordings between persons under 18 not engaged in explicit sexual activity, clearly indicating both knowledge and consent that the activity is being recorded, not kept in a manner where it is capable of distribution to others, and possession is for the exclusive personal use or the person's possession.

There was concern about expressive material in issue number five, which was a clarification or writing of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Concern was raised on another issue and an option that was given about the necessity for police to provide copies of every image seized. It is a little like a drug bust, where one would have to haul in the entire containership as opposed to bringing in a sample. This makes the jobs or resources for police unnecessary and depletes the resources in combating child pornography.

There were other sections that dealt with DNA and other sections that dealt with the issue of a primary designated offence. We were also talking about minimum mandatory penalties for those who commit these kinds of activities.

There was the idea of a national child protection strategy and the concern about, as we saw in the Bernardo case, the re-victimization of certain individuals as a result of permitting the defence an opportunity to see the tapes and having to go through legal gymnastics in order to get the tapes destroyed.

There was also a concern about the retention of information by Internet service providers which I alluded to in my debate last week.

It is pretty hard to argue against a motion in which, as poorly worded as it may or may not be, the intent is correct, that there must be action by this parliament. I said so in a letter to the Prime Minister 45 minutes after the final decision of Justice Shaw.

I was involved with the contemplation of the use of the notwithstanding clause back in 1999-2000 at the first round. I have made a number of interventions on this in a number of different forums. There is a way for parliament to work out the entire issue of child protection in an environment where we can ensure that the maximum degree of protection is afforded our children and yes, not be afraid of using the criminal code to do that.

Before we get to the notwithstanding clause and before we put awkwardly worded questions into law, we must first understand the importance of the issue that the public expects us to address. Very clearly, the artistic merit defence as qualified by the Supreme Court of Canada, as qualified by saying artistic merit however small, should never be used as a sop to ignore the real purposeful risk that exists to children as a result of written information.

Why is that critical? It is critical for one simple reason. The people who look at, purvey and create these images do it so they can suppress the cognitive distortions or use as a distortion but suppress what would otherwise be an affront to most people. It normalizes the degradation, the torture, the raping of children. It allows them an opportunity to fulfill the belief that what they are doing can be vindicated and can be acceptable.

Of course, normal people in society cannot deal with this because the question of the community harm standard was removed. We also know on this issue that short of the community not having a role to play, we were also told that any simple, tiny, minute form of artistic merit would be enough to outdistance and outclass the importance of protecting children.

It is clear to me, and I say so respectfully to the judges, that the Supreme Court of Canada got it wrong. Justice Shaw went even further in a couple of areas alluded to by me and the justice critic for the Bloc Quebecois, as to how there were a number of errors committed in law.

Ultimately, an action plan could contemplate the direction to the B.C. supreme court to at least review and appeal the issue as we did in the case of Marshall and in the case of Askov. We said that the supreme court made a decision and the lower courts got it wrong so we are going to refer it back to the supreme court to give a decision. We could look at that as an option. However, for this parliament not to delve into it and deliberately set itself upon the notion of having to tackle this issue head on, in my view is an abdication of our responsibility regardless of what party or what corner of a province or part of the country we come from.

It is for this reason I have often felt it was important. It was good enough for the premier of Manitoba 24 hours after the decision to ask the federal government to consider protecting the interests of children and not perverts. It was good enough for the province of Alberta and for other others to make the comments. It was good enough for 85% of Canadians to say on the question of written information, they do not believe that the question of expression and the freedom to express it should be boundless.

There is a line that has been crossed here not just on who calls the shots in terms of the laws of this country, but also a determination of the rights of individuals. If we are so willing to give the benefit of the doubt in the most minute form to people to express themselves while completely ignoring the life, liberty and security of the person which are also guaranteed in the charter, then who will speak for the children?

I cannot be more forceful on that point. I do not think there is any relevance in this parliament going forward with other ideas, debates and issues if in the first instance we cannot protect the next generation.

What is some 750,000 images of 10,000 different children, some as young as six months of age in my community in Toronto? That is significant. There are things we cannot correct because they deal with social mores but we can at least take the time to consider options here and now that restore not only the integrity and the confidence the public has in this place and the other place, but also the confidence in the next generation.

It would be helpful if opposition members who proposed the motion would at the very least consider the annoying part that has caused some difficulty over the question of consent. If they could qualify that, as we did in issue number one which was referred to a little earlier, it would be extremely helpful. I think we would find that a lot more members would support the resolution.